Sitting of 14 March 2003

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

  Municipal Waste Recycling Bill
  Order for Second Reading read
  9.34 am
  Joan Ruddock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  First, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for being in their places this morning. I appreciate that this is a particularly difficult time. Indeed, to think of anything but Iraq is extremely hard for us all. Let me say how much I appreciate Members being present. Secondly, I thank all my sponsors, many of whom are present, and who come from all parties.
  The Bill began as an initiative by Friends of the Earth, which started a campaign two years ago to promote a doorstep recycling Bill. That was supported by Waste Watch and the community recycling network. The campaign generated a huge amount of public and parliamentary support, which spurred me into accepting the proposal as a basis for my private Member's Bill. Its form has changed as a result of the many consultations that we have undertaken, but its ultimate purpose remains the same: every household should have a collection of separated materials for recycling at the point from which its waste is currently collected. I believe that that should be everyone's right.
  The law requires that our household rubbish is collected at or near our doorsteps. It seems utterly logical that waste for recycling purposes should be collected from that same point. Environmentalists have always regarded it as wasteful that we should make extra car journeys to get to bring-sites. The advent of bring-sites at supermarkets may have cured that problem for some, but there are still many households that do not shop at supermarkets, and 28 per cent. of our population still do not own cars. I believe that we should legislate for this right for people, but I accept that we must proceed according to the best practical environmental option. That is why drafting the Bill has been less straightforward than drafting some other measures.
  For far too long, waste has been the Cinderella of environmental policy—although it is a passion of mine. In 1989 I was lucky enough to introduce another measure under the private Member's procedure, which created powers to tackle fly tipping. That legislation is still in use. At that time, people were much exercised about rubbish being illegally dumped, but far less
  528
  concerned about where their own rubbish ended up. Today, many more people have become conscious of what is happening to their waste.
  Of the estimated 30 million tonnes of municipal waste produced annually in the UK, about 80 per cent. goes to landfill and only 12 per cent. goes for recycling and composting. It is often said that the UK produces enough waste to fill the Albert hall every hour of every day. We have only to imagine that amount of waste spilling out of that august building hour after hour to realise what landfilling really means.
  As if that were not enough, the waste mountain is growing by 3 per cent. per annum, which means that waste production will have doubled by 2020. Change is urgent. There has to be both a reduction in waste produced and a sharp change in disposal methods. We are literally running out of space for landfill. We are transporting waste further and further a field. Public concern about health risks has risen sharply following reports linking landfill sites to birth defects.
  Last week, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs quantified the undesirable nature of landfill by publishing a report on the effect of landfill on house prices. The total price reduction of homes within half a mile of landfill sites amounted to nearly £2.4 billion. Landfill is also responsible for 25per cent. of the UK's emissions of methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases.
  The obvious alternative to landfill—one that has been taken up by many other European countries and by my local authority, Lewisham—is incineration. However, incinerators, too, have proved massively unpopular because of health concerns about the release of dioxins, heavy metals and acid gases.
  Reduction, reuse and recycling are the only alternatives to increasing incineration. Increasing landfill is not an option. The European landfill directive requires the volume of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to be reduced by 2010 to 75per cent. of that which was produced in 1995, and requires even sharper reductions thereafter.
  When waste is landfilled or incinerated, it is lost for ever. New products have to be produced. That production uses both new raw materials and energy, contributing to climate change and frequently, in cases of extraction, to environmental damage as well.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady has already mentioned the health effects of incineration, which are one reason for rejecting that option and supporting her Bill, but does she accept that landfill has health effects as well? Only yesterday, 100 local residents in Rhondda Cynon Taff were awarded compensation because traces of carcinogens were found in their properties, which were close to a landfill site. That is another reason for pressing on with the Bill's proposals.
  Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is right. Those threats to people's health have been recognised, and clearly the settlement to which he referred is an acknowledgement of that.
  Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent Bill. My local authority promotes recycling and has benefited greatly from a

  529
  Government grant from the national waste minimisation fund. It has raised with me the subject of transitional arrangements, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would look into that. The authority has entered into long-term contracts on incineration, and although it supports the principle of t he Bill, it will need reassurance that those contracts will be taken into account in any change.
  Joan Ruddock: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Clearly we do not want to do anything in the Bill that is to the disadvantage of local authorities. There is no question of local authorities, having entered into legal contracts, having to set them aside. The issue is important but, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, relatively few local authorities have incinerators, so there is not a major problem at the moment. However, it might become one if there was a sharp increase in the number of incinerators in Britain.
  A Canadian study suggests that recycling saves on average three to five times as much energy as is produced by incineration—one reason why incineration is considered preferable to landfill. The European Commission found that overall, separation of waste at source followed by recycling and composting gives the lowest net flux of greenhouse gases compared with other waste treatment options. Those are vital considerations in the fight against global warming. A good example is glass, which can be recycled indefinitely—it takes less energy to recycle it than to melt down the raw materials. Recycling a single glass bottle saves enough energy to power a 100 W bulb for almost an hour. Most other European countries have diverted waste from landfill using a mixture of regulation and fiscal incentives.
  Jean Corston (Bristol,East): I join right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on her excellent Bill. She has just referred to the recycling of glass. My local authority, Bristol city council, has a good recycling service for glass, paper and cans but, like many councils, it does not provide a facility for recycling plastic, which constitutes a large volume of household waste. Has my hon. Friend given any consideration to fact that local authorities may need financial assistance to recycle plastic products?
  Joan Ruddock: The Bill is not prescriptive about which materials and waste streams local authorities would be required to recycle. I hope that that will be clear when I come to explain its details.
  There are differences of opinion about the recycling of plastics. I have met representatives of a company that has to import plastic bottles to keep its recycling process going. There are differences in the market, and some local authorities may not have been able to find the right company to do their recycling work. There is a great need for information to be exchanged in that field, and the Government are trying to assist local authorities to match their recycling requirements with companies that can do the work. I accept that recycling plastic could be a problem, but it does not need special financing—it needs better communication so that the market can meet the need to deal with such products.
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her Bill. Does she agree
  530
  that if local authorities were supported in recycling plastic, that could provide the farming industry, which has tremendous difficulties with the disposal of plastic, with an avenue to solve that problem?
  Joan Ruddock: I agree with my hon. Friend. Ihope that the Bill and all the interest in it will give a boost to companies that are prepared to do the work, and which could expand if they had certainty ofcollection—I shall come to that in due course.
  Mr. David Chaytor: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on producing such an excellent Bill. Does she agree that one of the problems in establishing a viable market for plastics recycling in the United Kingdom is the export packaging recovery note—EPRN—which makes it cheaper for some companies here to export plastic to China, where it is cleaned and separated and then imported back to the UK? That is nonsense, given the patterns of world trade and the impact of transport on the environment. When the Bill goes into Committee, as we hope it will, will my hon. Friend ensure that there is some discussion of the operation of the EPRN system?
  Joan Ruddock: I shall refer later to an exhibition that I held earlier this week. One of the companies that attended showed me photographs from the far east of people on rickshaw-type vehicles carrying mountains of plastic bottles that had been exported from Britain. My hon. Friend is right that that problem needs to be addressed, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss it further in Committee.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: Is the hon. Lady aware that Fareham borough council, which recycles a high proportion of its waste, provides a facility for households to separate plastic bottles and packaging for recycling? I am surprised that a number of hon. Members have expressed concern about councils' ability to do that, as Fareham borough council does it very successfully.
  Joan Ruddock: Some councils have made that choice about the waste stream. There is a question about procedures depending on the weight of recyclates. Plastic is light, and many councils have opted to deal with heavier products first. That is one issue, but there is another issue about light recyclates taking up a huge volume inside council vehicles. There are therefore many interesting things to discuss if the Bill goes into Committee.
  John Austin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me, as she has already given way so many times. I thank her for coming to Thamesmead in my constituency, where she visited Green Works, which recycles and reuses office furniture that would otherwise go to landfill or incineration, and Ecopark, run by the Gallions housing association, which has a number of environmentally friendly energy-saving features built into it, including in situ waste separation and can crushing. Was she impressed by that project, and does she think that it is a model for other developers, whether private, local authority or housing association? Does she share my concern that our system,

  531
  unlike the Dutch system, has no financial incentive for developers to include environmentally friendly measures in their developments?
  Joan Ruddock: I am most grateful to my hon.Friend—[Interruption.] He bought me a sandwich, as well as a cup of tea. How could I resist telling him how impressed I was by that excellent development? May I explain briefly to Members that above ground there were just ordinary-sized bins for different recyclates, but there was a huge well below ground where material was collected and from which it was extracted? It is a state-of-the-art facility, and I was delighted to see it. Yes, I believe that there should be incentives to encourage such projects.
  Landfill is still far too cheap in this country. In Denmark and Austria landfill taxis twice the UK level. The heavy reliance on cheap landfill in this country has been a disincentive to the development of recycling and composting. A survey of public attitudes to quality of life and the environment in 2001 found a 10 per cent. Drop from five years earlier in the proportion of people separating glass and cans from their waste. When asked why they did not recycle more, the most common response given by a quarter of the respondents was that they had no doorstep recycling service. The second most common response was that recycling facilities were too far away. For me, that says it all.
  The strategy unit report "Waste not, Want not" commissioned polling by MORI and corroborated the earlier findings. Demand for kerbside recycling washigh—three in four respondents said that they would recycle more if facilities were available to them.
  Ms Julia Drown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her Bill, and I am pleased to say that a huge number of constituents have written and asked me to be present today in support of it. They are keen to get involved in recycling. If the Bill is successful, when does my hon. Friend estimate that they will have the doorstep recycling scheme that they are so keen to take part in?
  Joan Ruddock: What a question! That will depend on many factors—among which, clearly, are central Government, and the ability of individual local authorities to raise their act. There is already a huge spectrum of activity among local authorities, some doing virtually nothing and some doing a great deal. Our aim, which I shall explain further when I get to the details of the Bill, is that there should be a service for every household. If the Bill is successful, we expect that by 2010. That might seem a long way off to some, but because we start from so far behind in this country, seven years is very ambitious.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. I congratulate her on her Bill. My question concerns recycling in dense urban environments, where many people live in blocks of flats, which are sometimes tall. It may be difficult for people to schlep great boxes of stuff for recycling down to the kerbside. Some local authorities will collect only from blocks of flats where there has been a vote in the block
  532
  and the majority want the recycling facility. How does my hon. Friend think her Bill can accommodate the problem of people living in blocks of flats?
  Joan Ruddock: For many blocks of flats, the most that a local authority would be prepared to do—and this is how the Bill is worded—is to collect the material for recycling from the point at which the refuse is currently collected. In my constituency, that means that at the bottom of blocks of flats there is usually a bin shelter into which people take their rubbish. I hope that those will be improved, as some of the bin shelters are a disgrace. We expect that there would be a facility where people would place their separated materials for recycling, and another for their residual refuse. That is the most straightforward way available to people in blocks of flats. However, I know of one local authority in London—I fear my memory isnot—[Interruption.] It is suggested to me that that could beHounslow—
  Ann Keen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Joan Ruddock: I shall finish the point, then my hon. Friend will know whether she has been able to anticipate me. That local authority has a very sound arrangement with its caretakers, whereby a basket for recyclable material is placed outside the doors of the flats, and the caretakers collect from those baskets into a wheeled facility and take it in the lift to the collection point. So it is possible to arrange collection from people's door steps, even for flats. That is the optimum arrangement. I do not anticipate that most local authorities will do that, although it would be good if they did.
  Ann Keen: The London borough of Hounslow, which is in my constituency, provides a green box service to residents of low and high-rise flats. It is a beacon council, and I would be honoured if my hon. Friend would accompany me to Hounslow to look at the scheme.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Joan Ruddock: I wonder how many more Hounslow Members there are —
  Mr. Colin Challen: I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on the Bill, but on giving way so often. Clearly, there is great variability between local authorities in the ways in which they achieve the various waste targets. The Government recognised that in their waste strategy by stating that authorities that have not performed very well do not: have to perform a great deal better just to double what they have achieved in the past. How would my hon. Friend's Bill interact with those targets? Does she see great opportunities in the Bill for more partnership working between authorities, spreading good practice and so on?
  Joan Ruddock: On the latter point, it is one of the hallmarks of our Government that we have encouraged the sharing of good practice, given beacon status to authorities, and so on. That is important. If my hon.

  533
  Friend will allow me to make some progress, I shall explain all the points that he needs to know when I come to the details of the Bill. He might like to intervene again at that point.
  Mr. Roger Gale: For the record, I shall be available in the Lobby to support the hon. Lady's Bill if it is put to a vote, which I think it may not be. I appreciate that we are dragging her into detail that she intends to address later, but the points that have been raised about doorstep collection are significant, especially to the elderly. Canterbury city council has a scheme that I believe to be working quite well, but considerable numbers of the people living in the area are elderly. They have been told in some cases that the dustmen will collect only from the pavement, not from the doorstep. When clause 3 and the duties of the waste disposal authority are debated in Committee, will the hon. Lady consider amendments and pay particular attention to the need to make sure that if the scheme is to operate as we all hope it will, it is easy to operate so that people want to participate in it?
  Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My own mother has a similar problem with her local authority. Local authorities need to have discussions with their residents about what is possible and what is not. For many people, the wheelie bin has been a great success, but elderly people may still have problems. With forethought and consideration, ways can be found to overcome those problems. If we are to make recycling as successful as I hope we will, we need to take great care to understand what people can and will do. That is essential.
  On that point, I refer to Environment Agency research that was published in May lastyear. The press release states:
  "9 out of 10 people in today's survey claim they would be very likely to sort rubbish for recycling if the local council provided containers. Where councils already provide recycling containers, the survey shows that participation in recycling increases dramatically. For example, whilst only 6 per cent. of the total sample surveyed claimed to recycle plastic packaging, the proportion rises to 59 percent. of those whose council provides containers and doorstep collection. On the same basis the proportion recycling plastic bottles rises from 10 per cent. to 59 percent. and for cardboard from 17 per cent. to 67 percent."
  Mr. Chaytor: On public support for recycling, does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of a number of issues on which public opinion is way ahead of the Government's perception of public opinion? There is an enormously important campaign by residents of Ramsbottom in my constituency, the RALF campaign—Ramsbottom against Land Fill—which not only was successful in turning down an important planning application for one of the largest holes in the ground in south-east Lancashire, but, accepting responsibility for developing an alternative to landfill, is now working closely with the metropolitan district of Bury to establish a household doorstep recycling campaign. Is it not important that we build on the
  534
  strength of support for recycling among local community groups? Can they not be an important force for change?
  Joan Ruddock: I could not agree more. I, too, have had experience of people, sometimes from particularly deprived communities, with strong feelings about the way in which their rubbish is disposed of and with the will to do something themselves. Of course we should engage with that, and I recommend it to every council and congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents.
  Another virtue can be added to those that I have already explained this morning in relation to recycling and composting. Waste Watch in "Jobs in Waste" calculated that achieving a recycling target of just 30 per cent. by 2010 would create 45,000 jobs. The private company Biffa Waste Services Ltd. predicted smaller gains, but its range of scenarios suggests that around 40,000 jobs would be created by the Bill.
  I think that the House will conclude that there is a pressing need for a huge expansion of doorstep recycling if we are to deal with the required shift from landfill and the public's resistance to further incinerator build.
  My Bill proposes that 50 per cent. of UK municipal waste should be recycled or composted by 2010. That target has not been plucked from the air. The fifth report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in March2001 said:
  "The national targets for recycling and composting … for 2010 (30 per cent.)and 2015 (33 per cent.) are depressingly unambitious and appear implicitly to accept that there is a 'ceiling' on the proportion which can be recycled … We recommend that new targets be set of 50 per cent. by 2010 and 60 per cent. by2015."
  Mrs. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that Canberra in Australia has gone from 22 per cent. to 66 per cent. recovery of waste in only six years by utilising systems designed to separate waste into different streams?
  Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend adds to the argument that I am making that it can be done, should be done and is done in other places.
  Glenda Jackson: In common with other hon. Friends, I should like my hon. Friend to know that her Bill has massive support from my constituents. I have received a huge postbag—and that from people who live in the borough of Camden, which I am sure my hon. Friend will agree has been a leader in this area, working for recycling and doorstep collection. A point that is central and essential to this that has already been made, and in which I believe that the public are way ahead of the Government and many local authorities, is that in densely populated areas such as London it is virtually impossible for many people to find space in their homes to store recyclable waste, and as my hon. Friend has already said, a car may not be available to take it to an already established recycling point.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to bring her intervention to a close?
  Glenda Jackson: Therefore a doorstep point where people may leave their recyclable rubbish, perhaps daily, would be a simple solution.
  Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must ensure that people, wherever they live,

  535
  whether in the most densely populated urban areas or in rural areas, have a service that is as accessible and convenient as possible. It cannot be perfect for everyone all of the time, but much greater efforts could and should be made.
  The national targets dismissed by the Select Committee as "depressingly unambitious" appeared in the Government's "Waste Strategy 2000", which further announced the introduction of recycling targets for each local authority in England. But the strategy was hardly in place before the depth and urgency of the problem prompted a Government review, which resulted in the strategy unit's report published last November, "Waste not, Want not"—a strategy for tackling the waste problem inEngland—which provides the major argument that underpins the Bill. The strategy is for England alone, but its proposals are equally valid for all parts of the United Kingdom. The strategy unit called for policies aimed at
  "developing the infrastructure for recycling and associated education programmes."
  It predicted that its recommended strategy would lead to a scenario where in 2015
  "every home now has kerbside recycling for organic waste and key dry recyclables."
  Much of the supporting work that informed that study has also been published. A university of Paisley study found that the best system to deliver high capture was
  "multi-material kerbside collections … and the high levels of successful promotional and education campaigns";
  and that
  "An alternative scenario of high density bring sites across the region with current kerbside provision maintained would give significantly lower capture".
  The arguments for enabling every household to dispose of waste sustainably are utterly convincing, but the preparation of the Bill has forced me to test them out in discussion with many of the key players in the field. I have had good advice from Councillor Kay Twitchen of the Local Government Association and Samantha Heath, the chair of the Greater London Authority's environment committee, and from her colleague and mine, Nicky Gavron. I am delighted that the Mayor of London's draft strategy proposes that there should be a household collection of recyclables for every household in London by 2004.
  I have also received good advice from the Environment Agency, the Environmental Services Association, the waste and resources action programme—orWRAP—the local authority recycling advisory committee, the all-party sustainable waste group, London Remade, the Paper Federation of Great Britain and British Glass. I have also received hundreds of letters of advice from individuals and companies.
  Inevitably, there is concern about new duties being placed by the Government on local government, but there is also enthusiasm to do the job from many local authorities. My own council of Lewisham is no exception. Nine years ago, when it diverted its waste from landfill to incineration, that appeared to be a sustainable option, but the consequence is a low recycling rate and it has been acknowledged that much more needs to be done.
  Mr. Mark Field: I very much support the Bill. Recent studies in Sweden
  536
  that have made the national newspapers suggest that incineration may be more environmentally friendly than recycling. That is counter-intuitive to everything that all of us believe in, but has the hon. Lady given any thought to that, and could she elucidate it in her speech today?
  Joan Ruddock: We shall have to pursue such matters if the Bill reaches Committee, but other reports suggest the opposite. We must weigh up all the evidence, but what concerns me and others is that incinerators produce dangerous emissions, the permissible levels of which have had to be brought down and down, suggesting that that is a real, not a fanciful, concern. We must therefore consider the matter carefully. Sweden has invested considerably incinerators, which may be why it hopes to make that particular case.
  My local authority has had a low recycling rate and I know the reasons for that, but I am delighted that it formally supports my Bill and has successfully obtained more than £1 million from DEFRA's waste minimalisation and recycling fund, and that it plans to establish kerbside recycling for estates borough wide of mixed dry recyclables from April this year. However, it points out that sustainable waste management requires sustainable financing.
  There is no way the UK target on landfill can be met: without a greater contribution from every local authority. The strategy unit report highlighted years of missed targets and failed strategies. How many people remember that the environment White Paper of 1990 set a target of 25 per cent. recycling by 2000, but actually achieved slightly more than 11 per cent.? Reports in 1995 and 1999 served only to emphasise the Government's failures, which culminated in shifting the 25 per cent. target from2000 to 2005–06 in "Waste Strategy 2000".
  Something has to change, and that change must be based on what the public say that they will do and want their councils to do. In drafting the Bill, we have reflected the desire of central and local government to remain focused on outcomes—50 per cent. recycling—and not on process, such as the 100 per cent. doorstep recycling target that was originally proposed. However, there is a strong argument that the collection of separated waste is but an upgrade of councils' existing duty to provide a collection service.
  Other arguments have been put to me, particularly about markets. I crave the indulgence of the House; as I have given way a let, I seem to have been speaking for a long time, but it has not all been my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is very interesting."] I am encouraged by my hon. Friends. I want to deal now with the other arguments that have been put to me about markets, as many local authorities have had bad experiences in the past and are concerned that existing markets cannot cope with supply and that new markets need to be created. WRAP—the waste and resources action programme—is undoubtedly doing sterling work and there will always a need to stimulate and encourage innovation and markets.
  The recyclates exhibition that I organised in Portcullis House on Wednesday featured20 companies, which provided a superb display of talent in manufacturing

  537
  new products from recycled waste. I am only sorry that I am not wearing today the scarlet fleece that was on display—
  Mr. Richard Bacon: What a shame.
  Joan Ruddock: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I was not sure whether the dress code of the Commons would allow me to wear the fleece, which was beautiful, warm and soft and as good as anything that one could buy in any high street, but was made from recycled plastic bottles, which is quite unbelievable. Instead, I have settled for a beer can, which I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to know was recycled into the jewellery that I am wearing.
  Mr. Mark Francois: On markets, like a number of other colleagues who have chipped in, I am a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which last week visited a major recycling centre run by Cleanaway in east London. The centre now has a successful process for recycling garden waste and turning it into compost that can be used domestically and by companies. As a Member of Parliament who is particularly opposed to seeing any incinerators in Essex, I was encouraged by the process, which I wanted to introduce to the debate as a practical example of what can be done.
  Joan Ruddock: As a keen gardener, I can tell the hon. Gentleman how much I support the work on producing compost. The most exciting thing that I saw at my exhibition this week was what appeared to be a green plastic plant pot that was wholly recyclable. One cannot discern the difference from a normal pot, and I understand that the product is soon 10 be on sale in this country. One company—I think it is Homebase—says that it sells a thousand miles of plastic: pots a year. Those will all be replaced by completely compostible pots. He is right to raise such important issues; we are a nation of gardeners, after all.
  Norman Baker: While we are considering innovative recycling, may I tell the hon. Lady that I have a constituent who had a couple of gallstones removed and has made them into very attractive earrings?
  Joan Ruddock: Although I am keen to wear recycled jewellery, I am not planning a gallstone operation.
  I also heard from a number of the very big companies. Apex, another importantcompany—it provided all the recycled compost for the Eden project—and Aylesford Newsprint told me that they had no problem finding markets and that they wanted certainty and quality of recyclates supply. The chairman of Glasspac told Friends of the Earth:
  "There is no issue in the glass industry with markets or treatment capacity—the issue is collection which is why we are supporting the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill".
  Alupro, the not-for-profit company sponsored by leading can, sheet and foil rollers, told Friends of the Earth:
  "With ample reprocessing capacity, ready markets for recycled materials …the issue for aluminium is collection and specifically collection from the domestic waste stream."
  538
  Dirk Hazell, director of the Environmental Services Association, told us that, if there were regulatory certainty, his members would be ready to invest about£1 billion in plant and equipment in the UK. That £1 billion is available now. Andy Doran of LARAC said that he was
  "still not overly concerned about either the capacity of current market outlets … or the ability of the reprocessing industry to grow according to the supply of materials that would be produced by the Bill."
  I turn now to the question of costs, which is very important. It is difficult to quantify either present or future costs and I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment for help in due course with this matter. LARAC has said:
  "the current funding system for local authority waste activities is based upon very historical ambitions to dispose of waste quickly and efficiently but with little regard to the environment. A new funding structure for local authority waste disposal is needed that takes account of the ambitions of the public, Government and practitioners that higher proportions of household waste is segregated at source and recycled rather than merely disposed of."
  Friends of the Earth has attempted a calculation based on the average cost of existing schemes, subtracting the savings that would be made on landfill and adding the revenue from selling recyclables. The overall annual cost for England and Wales would be about £400 million at today's prices by 2010. The ESA has done a calculation without deductions, which is, of course, much higher, but it emphasizes that there is a dramatic drop in costs once the collection threshold has passed from25 to 45 per cent.
  I am aware, however, that £100 million has already been put into public finance initiatives that are mainly for incineration, and that £114 million is available in the waste minimisation and recycling fund. A further £100 million is being directed from the landfill tax credit scheme, and I understand that approximately half that money will be available to local authorities.
  Mr. Don Foster: My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, was the first authority to introduce a zero-waste policy and it is the best unitary authority in terms of recycling. On cost, does the hon. Lady accept that if in parallel to implementation of her Bill, which I entirely support, much greater efforts were made to reduce waste in the first instance, there would be less need for recycling and costs would fall? For example, it took me almost seven minutes to separate the shirt that I am wearing from the packaging in which it was sold.
  Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. Time is passing and I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will say only that there is a gap in the calculations, but many ideas about how it might be filled. Again, we could explore those issues further if there were time to do so.
  Let me turn briefly to the detail of the Bill. In this context, I want to thank Martyn Williams of Friends of the Earth for the huge amount of assistance that he has given me in preparing the Bill, and my assistant, Heidi Alexander, who has worked extremely hard. Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to provide an overarching framework for UK recycling policy, to ensure that 50 per cent. of municipal waste in the UK is

  539
  recycled or composted by 2010. The target is a UK target, as one of the key drivers of the policy is the need to meet the landfill directive, which is, of course, a UK duty. The Bill therefore requires the Secretary of State to consult all the devolved Administrations.
  As to ensuring that the 50 per cent. target is met, clause 1(2) requires the setting of targets for local authorities in England and Wales, to be carried out by the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales respectively. Scotland has its own strategy, which currently aims to achieve 38 per cent. recycling and composting by 2010 and to provide a doorstep service for 85 per cent. of households, despite the fact that Scotland starts from a much lower base than England. After the Secretary of State has produced his report on targets, clause 2 gives local authorities a further six months in which to draw up a sustainable waste strategy for their area.
  Subsection (2) would set two objectives of the strategy: minimising waste and promoting reuse and recycling; and ensuring that all households in an area may access services provided. I have received representations from Help the Aged and others who are worried that elderly people might find distant bring-banks difficult to access owing to their lack of cars and inability to carry recyclables.
  Subsection (3) would require annual reporting of the quantity of waste collected, composted and recycled. It is important to produce a report that would enable people to see that access was being expanded, which is an important part of the strategy.
  Clause 3 would ensure that materials collected by waste collection authorities were of the best possible quality and of high value. As of last week, a similar clause has been included in the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, and if the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill reaches the Committee stage, we shall take a sensible view and remove the clause rather than duplicating the other Bill.
  The Bill is ambitious and sets a very ambitious target for recycling and composting. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has serious reservations about the target, but given his commitment to the environment, I urge him to rise to the challenge. We both know that other European countries have achieved the targets and that a couple of English authorities are close to achieving them.
  I shall end on a personal note. Try as I may to minimise my waste, it continues to accumulate at an alarming rate. With two MPs in my household, it would never be easy to take recyclables to bring-banks. A local organisation called Aquarius Recycling has provided a solution. It collects all our newspapers, magazines, card, plastic bottles, glass bottles and tin cans from our doorstep every week, at a cost of £7 per month. That system works. Our wheelie-bin waste has reduced by at least 50 per cent., although I confess that I am still struggling with our home composter.
  I know that not everyone can pay for that, but I want everyone's local authority to provide the service that I have for my home. If the Bill is supported today, I hope that that will become a reality.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on her choice of subject for the Bill. I join her in congratulating Friends of the Earth on the considerable amount of work that it has done. As one who first entered Parliament in1983 but who has never managed to appear in the top six on the ballot, I envy her the opportunity to introduce an important and necessary measure.
  All the parties have been promising doorstep recycling for every household in the country for some time. The national average municipal waste recycling rate of 12 percent. suggests that the Government have been painfully slow in catching up with the popular clamour from citizens, the green lobby and environmental industries.
  Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman also believe that the Conservative Government were painfully slow in the 1990s, which meant that the target had to be reset?
  Mr. Sayeed: Yes, but not as slow as the Liberals.
  The Bill presents us with an opportunity to prove that hon. Members care sincerely about the environment and the wishes of our electors. It is undoubtedly true that Conservative councils do a sight better at recycling and collecting source-separated waste than Labour or Liberal councils.
  Survey results that were published on Tuesday revealed that only 19 per cent. of Members of Parliament rank the environment in their top two priorities. The environment rates behind the economy, health, education and crime. However, a MORI poll that was conducted last year showed that 61 per cent. of householders rated waste collection, disposal and recycling as the most important services provided by their councils—above schools, parks and open spaces and support services for the disabled. The Environment Agency survey in August 2002, which was cited by the hon. Lady, showed that 90 per cent. of people interviewed said that they would sort their rubbish if the council provided containers. What further evidence do we need to prove the existence of the gap between the national interests of Members of Parliament and the local priorities of those who elect them? There could scarcely be a better opportunity than the Bill for us to close that gap.
  Despite the Government's laudable rhetoric on sustainable waste management, the amount of municipal household waste is rising by 3 per cent. every year. In2000–01, just over 78 per cent. of the 29 million tonnes collected in England and Wales was disposed of in landfill. At present, 51 per cent. of all households are served by kerbside recycling collection schemesD— I might add that 80 percent. of those are in Conservative-controlled councils. However, in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions last week, the Minister for the Environment said:
  "Our goal is the maximisation of recycling."
  He also said, in a somewhat plaintive tone:
  "We have to meet very tough landfill directive targets by2016."—[Official Report, 6 March 2003; Vol. 400. c.945.]
  That lament was more than justified. By 2016, the weight of biodegradable municipal solid waste disposed of to landfill must be no more than 35 per cent. of the

  541
  amount produced in 1995. At the current rate of growth, that would require the diversion of 33 million tonnes a year to other waste management methods.
  Why do the Government find the targets so hard to meet? I believe that it is because they have pursued a disjointed policy of serial reaction to European Union directives without real investment in, or a commitment to, a comprehensive and far-sighted waste management infrastructure. We have lacked a regulatory framework to provide price signals and incentives to industry and households, and to stimulate the much-needed market for recyclates. According to a review of the UK landfill tax commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and published in October 2002, 25 per cent. of local authorities are likely to miss their statutory recycling targets in 2005–06.
  Hon. Members will remember last year's fridge mountains and are all too aware of increased fly tipping of building waste, the dumping and incineration of cars and the lack of real preparation to enable local authorities to deal with the collection of waste electrical and electronic equipment, tyres and batteries. We are being bombarded by environmentally progressive regulation from Brussels, but we are left defenceless by a Government who are simply digging themselves into deep trenches of mismanagement and neglect.
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was tackled on Government inaction and complaints from the industry at a hearing of the Environmental Audit Committee on 12 February. In an extraordinary display of petulance, she rounded on the Committee with the words:
  "I am getting the distinct impression that an awful lot of people who have come to see you have all got very good excuses for why they are not doing enough to tackle the problem of waste. They are all saying if only the Government did something different, but that none of them needs to do anything different."
  Perhaps she should take note of the chief of the Environment Agency, BaronessYoung—she is, after all, a Labour appointee—who said last week:
  "We need some overarching leadership to take us forward, there is no overall group with this responsibility. Let's look to government to fill this gap. It is not a case of all of us leaning in to fill this space".
  The role of the Secretary of State is to lead, but I am sorry to say that it seems the Government would prefer to do nothing and then blame everyone else, when we are constantly outstripped by European states which, some years ago, took steps that we are considering only today—and only by way of a private Member's Bill. This should have been a Government Bill.
  Mr. David Drew: It is easy to be critical, but much better to be positive. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, is currently considering waste, and has just visited Denmark. We should not get too hung up on comparisons between ourselves and other European states, because it all depends on what we put into our calculations and, dare I say, what we leave out.
  Mr. Sayeed: As the hon. Gentleman says, there must be clear comparators. There must also be clear standards, and, as I have said for some years, they must
  542
  be common standards. He rightly implies that the definition of recycling is different in different countries, and that common definitions would allow clearer comparators. As he may acknowledge, however, I have not compared us with the rest of Europe. What I have said is that much more needs to be done, could have been done and should have been done by past Governments, and certainly should have been done by this Government.
  Mr. Roy Beggs:We have heard no reference to Northern Ireland so far, but I assure the House that we in Northern Ireland face the same problems and take the matter very seriously. Could not the Minister, even at this late stage, redeem the failures of past Governments by allowing the Bill a speedy passage?
  Mr. Sayeed: I agree with that helpful intervention.
  Waste should not be seen as a nuisance to be dumped in cheap holes in the ground. It should be seen as a resource giving us a new form of energy, and new materials for more eco-friendly product design and green procurement. To date, however, local authorities, householders and businesses have been given no incentives either to reduce the volume of waste produced or to increase the level of recycling at source. Failure to tackle those problems is having grave implications for our international competitiveness in what promises to be, according to Biffa,
  "the fastest growing services and engineered products market on a global scalein the coming century".
  The Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that the worldwide market in environmental technology is currently worth no less than $515 billion, and is forecast to grow to 618 billion by 2010. The United Kingdom's share of that market is less than 5 per cent.
  Dr. John Pugh: Some of the incentives that currently exist are ill suited to encourage plastic recycling, for instance. Local authorities wishing to stimulate plastic recycling know that it will do little to solve the landfill problem, while the landfill tax is a crude instrument to make them recycle materials that do not take much space in landfill.
  Mr. Sayeed: That is a good point. If the hon. Gentleman stays a little longer, he will hear my proposals for dealing with the problem.
  We must recognise that our historic reliance on a linear flow of raw materials into products, consumption and waste that goes into landfill must change. We must move into a brave new world of resource efficiency. It has taken a private Member's Bill to propose what is right for both the environment and the nation. It requires the Secretary of State to ensure that by 31 December 2010, 50 per cent. of municipal waste in the United Kingdom is recycled or composted. That is the level recommended by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in a report published in March 2001. It also places a duty on waste disposal and waste collection authorities to publish a sustainable waste strategy promoting minimisation, reuse and recycling, and enabling all householders to dispose of their waste sustainably. The

  543
  waste disposal authority's role will be to direct the waste collection authority to collect waste in a manner that will facilitate reprocessing or recycling.
  I assume that that implies the collection of source-separated waste, as that would deliver household waste in the most resource-efficient way. It is in legislative harmony with the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, as amended in the other place, which requires the waste disposal and waste collection authorities in a given area to produce and publish a joint municipal waste strategy.
  It would be difficult for anyone not to support the principle of the Bill. As Friends of the Earth has commented, it
  "will dramatically increase recycling rates by providing every household in England with a collection scheme making recycling as easy as putting out the rubbish".
  That may be slightly over-egging the pudding, but the sentiment is correct. However, the Local Government Association, my colleagues and I have some reservations about the Bill, and I therefore suggest that it should be given time in Committee for thoughtful amendment. How, for instance, can we ensure the necessary flexibility for local government, taking account of the division of labour and resources between the waste collection and waste disposal authorities? I welcome the interdependence of the two tiers in the provision of a joint sustainable waste strategy, but we must ensure that one tier is not penalised for the other's failure to discharge its duties.
  How will local authorities be given adequate resources to research and fund recycling projects? If recycling targets are to have any real meaning, local authorities need reassurance that they will have the capacity to carry out the recycling, and that there will be an end use for the materials collected. The Government should provide more measures to stimulate the demand for recyclates. We cannot risk defrauding the public by encouraging them to separate waste, only for it to end up mixed again and dumped in landfill owing to the lack of a viable market. We must also ensure that the transport of waste outside the boundaries of the areas for which waste disposal authorities are responsible is kept to a minimum. Transporting rubbish is simply a waste of resources and energy, and is in any case in defiance of the proximity principle which we all support and which is not mentioned in the Bill.
  As the promoter of the Bill said, however, the main issue requiring much more debate is undoubtedly funding. Citing my amendment to early-day motion 333 in support of doorstep recycling, I urge the Government to quantify the expenditure implications and to state explicitly how local authorities will be supported in implementing the Bill. The Treasury remains un persuaded as to the end use of the landfill tax increase announced by the Chancellor in lasts November's pre-Budget statement. If that entire increased revenue constituted another stealth gain for the Treasury, that would be yet another fraudulent green tax with little environment a benefit.
  The proposed reforms to the landfill tax credit scheme allow for only 20 per cent. of the tax—about £100 million—to be given to waste management. If the Government intend to increase landfill tax significantly, as we have been told, they must demonstrate a direct and transparent transfer of resources to fund
  544
  environmental improvements. One such way might be to fund local authorities that establish the collection of source-separated waste and build recycling plants. Currently, 54 per cent. of the revenue from the landfill tax is money from local authorities. It would not be unreasonable if a similar proportion were recycled back to them to use for further recycling, the enhanced policing of fly tip ping, and campaigns to raise public awareness of waste. What is more, if theme asurement of waste were to incorporate volume as well as weight—this deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh)—we might raise further revenue and simultaneously discourage the use of lightweight but non-biodegradable packaging.
  The Government's own strategy unit reported in November last year that unless action was taken, the volume of waste generated would double by 2010 and the cost of disposal would increase by £1.6 billion. The Secretary of State responded to the report with the determined words:
  "We need to change our ways."
  However, when asked by the Environmental Audit Committee on 12 February whether she would support the Bill, she replied more cautiously, saying:
  "We will have to give the Government's response when the Bill comes for ward, but I would have said that if we thought this was an essential step, we would have made it ourselves".
  Perhaps she would like to change her ways and recognise that, although it may not have been the Government's idea, this Bill—this step—is essential if the UK is not to be left far behind as the rest of Europe marches on ahead along the road of strategic environmental thinking and economic and social progress. We will support the Bill from these Benches.
  10.42 am
  Ms Joan Walley: It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). I was a sponsor of her Bill back in 1989. In those days, we had a Conservative Government who did not have the same commitment to environmental issues that the Opposition now say that they are going to make. That Bill made an enormous impact on environmental issues. The Bill that my hon. Friend has introduced today has strong support from many people on both sides of the House and across the country, including Friends of the Earth, which has played an important role in this campaign. It is vital that we do everything possible urgently to get the Bill through both Houses and on to the statute book, so that we can change be haviour. I am conscious that that same urgency applies to the way in which we make our speeches today, so that everyone has the opportunity to speak and the Bill can go through. I am delighted to support the Bill; I hope that we will see it on its way and that there will be ringing endorsements for it from all parties.
  I am also pleased that the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I amvice-chair—I see many of its members in the House thismorning—is having such an impact on the development of environmental issues. The Minister is a member of that Committee and has made an enormous contribution to environmental policy, and I hope that his commitment will be matched by all

  545
  Government Departments. I am conscious that, in getting this Bill on to the statute book, we will need the support of the Treasury, and I hope that we can make real progress on that.
  My interest in the Bill stems from a long-standing interest in environmental health matters—I am a vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health—and from my concern about how we look after our resources, our climate, and the planet as a whole. Many people make the mistake of equating the environment with the countryside, or with un spoilt natural areas. I agree that such areas are important but, equally, the environment in which most of our constituents live is not like that; most people in this country live in towns and cities. That is why it is so important that we should have a sustainable development strategy.
  I am passionate about ensuring that our urban environments are clean, healthy and pleasant to live in, as well as being concerned about protecting the green areas around our cities. I would like to mention a major national conference that is being or ganised by the Landscape Institute and which will take place at Vale Park in my constituency. National conferences of this kind give us all an opportunity to raise awareness of how we can build our green spaces and have environmental policies to match.
  The Bill has a great deal to offer people right across the country. I cannot be the only one who notices the difference between the streets in this country—with their litter, graffiti and dog mess—and those in many European cities that we occasionally have the opportunity to visit. I hope that the Bill will move us closer to some of our European counterparts whose policies have had a real impact on keeping their streets healthy and clean. Rubbish collection in this country originated as a solution to the public health problems caused by hugely unhygienic piles of rubbish. The famous urban myth that we are never further than 10 ft from a rat in London was certainly a lot closer to the truth before regular collections of waste got our streets even to the relative state of cleanliness that we enjoy now. What I want to see is progress from a scheme that protects human health to a scheme that also protects the health of the planet that we live on. For many years, we have known that we have to keep our homes free of rubbish and waste to protect our health. Now, we also know that we need to recycle and reuse to protect the planet's health, and our law needs updating to reflect this. We have an opportunity to do that today.
  What I find hugely encouraging is the evidence that providing people with recycling facilities encourages them to think beyond simply recycling. The Environmental Audit Committee has seen that on visits that it has made, including those that it made last week to parts of Essex and Kent. I am also delighted that some local authority leaders are assisting my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, through the Local Government Association, with the detail of getting the Bill on to the statute book. As people get used to separating recyclable rubbish from the stuff that has to be thrown away, there is evidence that broader environmental awareness is encouraged. We have a sub-committee on the Environmental Audit Committee that
  546
  is examining how we can raise awareness of these issues, and it is clear that if we get the Bill on to the statute book, more people will recycle their rubbish, which will lead to greater environmental awareness.
  If we are to persuade people to respond to this, we must provide the facilities for them so that they can make the right choices. We must also foster a spirit of environmental responsibility. That means that we must also do our bit here in this place, and the Government have to do their bit. The MORI evidence has been referred to. We must ensure that people can do what we want them to do in terms of recycling. A huge number of people from my constituency have made representations asking that the Bill should go through the House today, and I am sure that other hon. Members from Staffordshire and elsewhere will have received similar requests.
  There are two local authorities in my constituency. Staffordshire Moorlands district council should be congratulated on its record. Its targets for recycling for next year are 11 per cent. of household waste and 15 per cent. of composting. That is 26per cent. overall, which is well above the national level. Similarly, in Stoke-on-Trent, the local authority has huge ambitions and I would like to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we are hoping that there might be a shortfall in his waste minimisation budget that could be used to help Stoke-on-Trent to match Staffordshire Moorlands in regard to the amount of recycling that is carried out.
  I know that we are short of time, but I want to say that recycling offers enormous opportunities for business and for innovation. Already, there are huge budgets for regeneration, and that money—we would not even have to have more—couldbe used for recycling. I hope that there is support for the Bill across the House today.
  10.50 am
  Norman Baker: I am pleased to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford(Joan Ruddock) and to be a sponsor of it. I recognise, as the hon. Lady said, that it has cross-party support in the House, with Members from all parties appearing in the list of sponsors. That, and the nature of the hon. Lady's contribution, makes the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr.Sayeed), who is no longer in his seat, somewhat churlish.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin:Pathetic.
  Norman Baker: Conservative Members are saying, "Pathetic." The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire left his seat, although he is now returning. He spent his time criticising the Government, but the Bill is about cross-party initiatives to improve r cycling.
  Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman in order? He is making a rather unpleasant point while my hon. Friend is simply delivering his speaking notes to the Official Report.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I really do not think that that is a point of order for the Chair.
  Norman Baker: I am grateful.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: This country starts from the position of having a mountain to climb—a mountain of

  547
  tyres, a mountain of cars, a mountain of fridges and a mountain of other household waste. There is perhaps a mountain to climb in persuading the Government to support the Bill, but I hope not. We have with us the Minister for the Environment, who I am sure is absolutely committed to the Bill and the premise behind it. We do not, of course, have with us Treasury Ministers or Ministers from other Departments, who may play a key role behind the scenes. Nevertheless, I hope that their attention is drawn to comments made by Members on both sides of the House.
  We have a mountain to climb in that we have a recycling rate of 11 or 12 per cent., which is very low, as the Minister has readily admitted on a number of occasions. It compares with 64 per cent. in Austria, 52 per cent. in Belgium and more than 50 percent. in some local authority areas. In my constituency, a good scheme is run by Wealden district council, which I am happy to concede is run by the Conservatives. It runs a scheme entitled CROWN—composting and recycling our wastenow—which recycles more than 50 per cent. of household waste in Polegate in my constituency. There are good practices up and down the country, and we should emulate and build on those.
  The Government recycling target of 30 per cent. by 2010 has already been pushed back from what those of us who are in favour of recycling wanted and what was in place in the 1990s. We must ensure that it slips no further. It is entirely reasonable to include in legislation—perhaps this Bill—a target of 50 per cent. That is achievable. If any Ministers are balking at that figure, I hope that this Minister will do his best to persuade them that it is achievable, because it certainly is for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford.
  There is no dispute about the waste hierarchy. We all agree on it, on both sides of the Chamber. The dispute is as to how much is achievable within each strand of that hierarchy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has correctly said, we need to do more on waste minimisation. We are not tackling that, and waste is still increasing by 3 or 4 per cent. per annum. I find packaging, for food in particular, excessive. My hon. Friend has told us that, on a bad day, it took him seven minutes to remove the cellophane packaging from one of his shirts. When I go to a supermarket to buy a packet of croissants, I find it offensive to find numerous layers of plastic. If I go to a baker's shop in my constituency, I pay more for four croissants loosely in a paper bag than for four in plastic packaging, as there is a reduction for purchasing four in that way. That point has to be made and we must do something about it.
  I recently visited Brussels to talk to those involved with environmental matters in the Commission, which is keen to do something. There is a packaging directive, of course, but it can require only the recycling of existing packaging. We need an incentive across Europe to reduce the production of packaging. One reason for not having that is that the European Union has no competence to introduce the fiscal measures that would achieve it. That is an example of member states' reluctance to give fiscal power to the EU having a detrimental environmental impact. The requirement on producers to recycle existing packaging is better than nothing, but it does nothing to reduce the amount of
  548
  packaging in the first place. That is one example of the challenge that we must deal with in terms of minimisation—we must do more.
  We can do more on reuse. I am happy to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I still have my milk delivered in glass bottles on my doorstep, although that option is sadly not available to everyone in the country these days. An average milk bottle is used for 17 trips while the average plastic carton is used for one and is then thrown away. We need to do more to encourage the use of milk bottles. To give a quick plug for Harvey's brewery in my constituency, which produces excellent beer, it uses beer bottles for which there is a deposit. People can buy their beer, return the bottle sand get some money back. That was common practice 30 years ago, but it has been lost. However, it remains common practice in countries such as Denmark and we should be considering deposit schemes for bottles whether they are glass or plastic. If supermarkets were faced with paying a deposit on returned glass bottles, they would soon put the pressure on the producers and the Government to do something.
  Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman is stealing part of my thunder on the reintroduction of deposit schemes. Does he accept that the scheme in Denmark operates through' the full involvement of the manufacturers? For example, every bottle that is sold by Carlsberg carries a deposit. The only problem is people bringing in beer from Germany, which does not have a deposit scheme, although I know that an attempt is being made to cope with that as well.
  Norman Baker: That is a valid point that shows the value of having an EU rather than a nation state solution to these matters, which, I am afraid, will be second best environmentally. I am afraid, too, that the EU sometimes goes for a solution that is the lowest common denominator rather than the highest common factor, if I remember my mathematics correctly from along time ago. We need to do more there.
  We could do more in terms of reuse and industry. There is an innovative scheme, which I am happy to say I was part of, in East Sussex when I was chair of economic development. We went round each firm on an industrial estate to identify the waste that they were producing and what they were doing with it. We found that a lot of the waste being thrown away was being bought as virgin material by other companies on the estate, so simply by matching up individual businesses we not only reduced the waste stream, but saved them money as they were getting material free of charge that, otherwise, they would be purchasing. If anyone needs convincing, that shows that helping the environment also helps businesses and the economy. That message, I hope, will also go through to the Treasury
  The EU landfill directive is coming up, and it is right that we are seeking to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. Of course, landfill is simply a mediaeval way of dealing with unwanted material—simply chucking it in a hole in the ground. It is not a sophisticated way of dealing with waste. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford is right: if we do not deal with the alternatives to landfill now through a proper recycling and reuse strategy, a massive splurge of incineration capacity will

  549
  be built. We are at the crossroads. Landfill is being stopped, but what will happen to the waste that has traditionally gone to landfill?
  We must put that recycling and reuse strategy in place now. Otherwise, incineration will take off. When incineration has taken off and 40, 50 or 60 per cent. of our waste is being dealt with by it, we can all just go home, because there will be no prospect of achieving a significant recycling capacity in this country. One reason for that is that incinerators are hungry mouths. They operate 24 hours a day and, like nuclear power stations, they have a particular capacity to which they want to operate. To ensure that they do that, they also want to take more and more waste.
  Mr. Simon Thomas:I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, under the waste strategy approved by the National Assembly, local authorities in Wales are asked specifically not to tie them selves into long-term contracts, particularly regarding incinerators, in order to remain flexible enough to deal with the issues of recycling and reuse to which he refers. Surely, whether the Bill goes through or not, it would be a good idea to apply a similar policy in England and, indeed, in Scotland.
  Norman Baker: I absolutely agree and congratulate the Welsh Assembly if that is the strategy that it has adopted. It is important that we do not commit ourselves to decisions now up and down the country that in 10 years may be deeply regretted but of which there is no way out. That is the danger with long-term incineration contracts. Incineration is not simply an alternative to recycling that is less desirable. Incineration undermines recycling by removing the recycling market and directing the waste elsewhere, where it will stay for the next 25 years. That is one of the reasons why incineration is undesirable. Another reason is the potential harmful emissions, to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford referred.
  There is also the proximity principle, to which I know the Minister subscribes. That principle is that those who generate the waste should dispose of it and be seen to dispose of it, so that they are aware of the cycle of waste. The trouble with incineration is that people can produce waste, put it on a lorry, send it 50. 60, 70, 100 miles somewhere else and have no responsibility for that waste— it is out of their area and they feel no responsibility. That is what is happening with Brighton and Hove, which prides itself on being a city. It is happy to be a city, providing it can dump its waste outside, whether it be sewage, household waste or anything else. It wants it to be dumped in East Sussex. It treats parts of East Sussex like a Soweto to deal with its waste, which it is not prepared to deal with itself. If it wants to be a city, it has to be a city in its entirety and take responsibility for all aspects of being a city.
  Mr. Mark Field: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, which is well made. There is a tendency for urban areas to take a view that they can allow their waste to go elsewhere. Equally, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), a number of London boroughs have been at the forefront
  550
  of recycling. In the city of Westminster, which I represent, there is nowhere to have a landfill site, other than potentially in Hyde park. None the less, there is a commitment to recycling both from the local authority and from individuals living there.
  Norman Baker: I am happy to accept that point. I am not criticising all urban areas. Some are innovative and constructive. Others have genuine problems in terms of space and that is recognised; that is particularly the case in some London boroughs. However, it is not the case in Brighton and Hove, where there are clearly sites that could be used.
  Gregory Barker: I entirely associate myself with those remarks, not least because some of the rubbish from Brighton and Hove seems destined, if certain people have their way, to come into my constituency, in another part of East Sussex, across miles and miles of very bad roads. We are determined to resist it.
  Norman Baker: I am grateful for that intervention. It makes the point that it is not a sensible environmental solution to transport waste long distances. If we are looking for environmental solutions, we need to minimise transportation of waste, not encourage long journeys on unsuitable roads from one end of the county to the other.
  The Government unfortunately have implicitly supported incineration by the financial structures that they have set up. I am sure the Minister for the Environment has not given support for incineration but those structures are in place. If one puts down the train track, that is the way the train goes, unfortunately. East Sussex, which I am most familiar with, has been given borrowing credits that encourage it directly to go down the incineration route. Indeed, it has to use those credits by the end of this month. It has signed a contract with Onyx Aurora this week, in the teeth of opposition from thousands and thousands of people across East Sussex, particularly from Newhaven in my constituency, weeks before a public inquiry is to begin into the waste plan, which is looking at whether an incinerator should be built. That is the sort of topsy-turvy world we now have. Local authorities, whether they wish to or not, are encouraged to go down the incineration route. The credits and the financial support available for incineration seem to be greater than that available for recycling. The Government need to deal with that matter.
  It can be done. We need three things: the will, the money and the markets. I believe that the will is there from the vast majority of the population, and I suspect from the vast majority of Members of Parliament from all parties; we have heard support from all four parties represented in the Chamber today.
  On the money aspect, figures have been suggested: £400 million per annum was the suggestion from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. That figure may or may not be right but we must take into account the economic cost of not doing something, and the environmental cost, which is also an economic cost, of disposing of waste inappropriately. We never value the environment properly in economic terms. There is also the cost of supporting incinerators, which is the

  551
  alternative. If one started to take those externalities into account, the £400million figure would start to come down.
  Let us face it. The Government suddenly produced a cheque from nowhere for£650 million to bail out British Energy to support nuclear power. They can do that with a flourish of the pen. That would pay for doorstep recycling twice over up and down the country.
  Mr. Simon Thomas:Iraq.
  Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman mentionsIraq. I do not want to go down that line. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be awash with blank cheques for his own schemes but not for doorstep recycling. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment could draw attention to the blank cheques that the Chancellor has been waving around and see whether there is one going for doorstep recycling and for this Bill. Therefore, I do not believe that cost is an issue. The cost is not that great in real terms. The Government seem to have money. When they want to use their cheque-book somewhere, they find money to do so.
  On the markets issue, it is in some ways the most difficult to deal with. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. I do not believe that that aim is unachievable. However, there will be difficulties if one has one recycling point which is in south Wales for aluminium. It will mean massive lorry journeys. There will be difficulties if one has a sudden increase in the recycling of one particular commodity and no market has developed for it. Therefore, careful planning is required. It is by no mean insurmountable.
  Part of the answer comes back to the Chancellor. He can do a lot by means of economic instruments. He can encourage particular directions to be taken. People tend to follow their pockets. If there is a good reason financially for doing something, they will do it. If it makes sense financially to follow a recycling path, people will do so, so we need the Chancellor to look carefully at what he can do to support the Bill. He should not leave local authorities in the lurch, where they are good at collecting but then not able to find a market for that.
  I visited a council in the north-west recently. It was dismantling a tower block and wanted to deal with the windows from the block. It told me that it cost £5 to landfill the windows and £8 to recycle them. That is completely the wrong economic message to give. I accept that in that case the landfill tax will help, so the Chancellor has got that right, but he could use other instruments to encourage recycling and markets.
  In the long term, we need to look at a resource tax. We should be looking at giving a disincentive to use virgin material and more of an incentive to use material already in use on the planet. I suspect that that is a long way away but that seems environmentally to be the proper solution in the long term.
  I congratulate again the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford on her Bill. I know that she has worked hard on it. She has had strong support from Friends of the Earth and others, as she graciously acknowledged. She has full support from Liberal Democrat Members, and I wish her Bill well.
  11.8 am
  Mr. David Drew: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend t he Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). As always, she is at the forefront of any environmental move. The Bill is an important staging post hat in a sense brings together the environment with the economics. Neither can be looked at in isolation.
  I will be quite brief because much has already been said, and try to cover a couple of areas that have not been covered. The simple fact is that this measure is not just good green politics; it is also environmentally sound. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, has established some clear ground rules. Some 70 per cent. of municipal waste is deemed organic and, if so, it can be recycled. If it is organic, it is the most likely cause of methane, so sticking it in the ground is creating problems for the future.
  I am aware that the Government—through their excellent report "Waste Not, Want Not" and the work of the waste and resources action programme—are trying to grapple with these difficult issues and I hope that the Bill will help.
  The Committee also considered the rate of growth, which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned. Much of the increase is due to the changing nature of society. I am grateful to the packaging industry, which has identified two clear statistics. First, a person living alone has roughly double the environmental impact of a person living in a larger household. In addition, one person in a large household uses 60 per cent. of the materials and 40 per cent. of the energy used by a person living alone. That is a clear example of the environmental impact of moving towards single-person households.
  A fortnight ago, the Committee visited Denmark, which is one of the leading advocates of a different approach to dealing with waste. It believes that incineration is part of the solution and, interestingly, has more problems in encouraging people to livecloser to landfill than incinerators. However, that is cultural. Denmark is beginning to understand that incineration comes at a cost, as does landfill.
  I do not want to pre-empt the report, but we talked to Government spokesmen, local government officials, councillors and local communities. We visited a small community in the municipality of Copenhagen and we saw waste stations that put us to shame.
  There are six principles or canons of recycling, starting with the obvious one; Denmark has a much more punitive tax regime, allied to economic incentives. It has ahierarchy of recycling that discriminates most against landfill, but incineration is not much lower. Denmark gives positive incentives to recycling. The second point is that Denmark is not afraid to use regulation to encourage a different approach to the planning system.
  I was pleased to hear the Conservative spokesman call for regulation. Denmark's approach makes ours pale into insignificance. In Denmark, the polluter pays many times over and there is no compunction about putting the blame where they believe itlies—on the creators of waste and those who refuse to deal with it. Denmark also provides incentives, and not just economic ones;

  553
  encouragement is given to recyclers, which links clearly to the idea of support. Denmark goes out of its way to support local authorities and non-governmental organisations in finding innovative solutions. Something may have been lost in translation because they refer to the whip and carrot approach. We would tend to define that as the carrot and stick approach.
  Denmark exhorts the population to be serious about the matter. The community that we visited was not compelled to be part of the recycling project but, by a voluntary agreement, some 40 per cent. of residents were part of it and aimed to recycle the vast majority of products they purchased. However, it is clear that composting must be used.
  We took away from our visit the idea that the scheme has to be managed. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford mentioning the notion of using caretakers or community wardens. It was inspiring to see people whose job previously had been checking and chasing people now taking a proactive role and leading the campaign for recycling and composting the maximum amount. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at similar measures in Committee, and at neighbourhood initiatives.
  We need to encourage the Government to do more and we need to use composting. We have a problem with the animal by-products regulations, which has led to a spat involving those who believe that they should be able to compost whatever they like. I have talked to the National Renders Association, which says that we should not allow any animal by-products to be composted. Europe is driving us in one direction, but we are also being encouraged to do something slightly different. We need to clarify the situation.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) mentioned deposit schemes, which are important. They are historical, and we used to do them so well. However, we have gone backwards. In addition, it is not just a question of common or garden materials. We must recycle specialist waste, including car batteries, PVC materials and oil. We must make sure that people have a place where they can take those products, knowing that the good materials will be taken out and the awful stuff disposed of.
  Mr. Sayeed: How has the Select Committee been able to reconcile the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, as amended in the otherplace—particularly the need to heat meat waste up to 98 deg—and the animal by-products regulations?
  Mr. Drew: I do not want to get into detail and pre-empt the report, but we are aware of the conflict. We visited the cement industry, which argues that what it does is not incineration; it burns at much higher temperatures. We have not explored that sufficiently, although I am not saying that that is the answer. That clearly links into emissions trading. One cannot isolate energy use and efficiency from that way in which we dispose of our waste, and I hope that our report will include some comments on that.
  This is a very good Bill that deserves support. I know that the Government will to some extent quake at the implications of fettering future Governments, but if we
  554
  are serious about waste, we must look at the benefits of dealing with it properly, rather than worrying about the cost. At the end of the day, the costs can be covered if we are serious about this issue; however, the benefits are there for all to see.
  11.20 am
  Gregory Barker: I, too, add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on securing the time to introduce this extremely important Bill. It will certainly find a lot of support in my constituency, where the issue of recycling, reuse and waste minimisation has shot up the local political agenda in recent years— not by chance, but as a direct result of the very real problems in coping with the waste that is produced in East Sussex. I agree very strongly with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). A lot of such waste is generated not in my constituency, but in the city of Brighton and Hove, which is some distance away. It is my constituents who face the prospect of dealing with it— whether through an incinerator at Mountfield, through waste disposal at Pebsham, or through a landfill site above Bexhill, at the Ashdown brickworks. All of those proposals are the result of a waste strategy that has not been thought through, and which fails to recycle nearly as much waste as could be recycled.
  That is not to say that the news in my constituency is all bad. In a way, it is a tale of two cities. Part of my constituency is covered by Wealden district council. Its Conservative administration has a terrific record, with a recycling rate of some46 per cent. through a doorstep scheme. It is one of the leaders in the UK and it offers a model that the Government should try to apply across the country. Sadly, things are different in the Rother area. The people there are keen to recycle, but there is no doorstep collection service, and although many do their bit, as a result we have only a 10 per cent. recycling rate. More needs to be done. Councils such as Rother are looking to central Government to give a much stronger lead in terms of strategy and financing. The Government's arrangements make it very difficult for councils such as Rother to make the very significant step change that is necessary in order to meet the targets that we want them to achieve. I therefore genuinely welcome this Bill.
  There are many benefits associated with recycling, apart from just our own local imperatives. It reduces the need for polluting landfill and incineration, but it also reduces the demand for raw materials. It avoids mining, quarrying and forestry, and it creates jobs. As has been said, up to 40,000 jobs could be created by 2010. It also helps to save energy, and therefore helps to combat climate change. Moreover, it is popular: nine out of 10 people would recycle more if they were given better facilities, according to an Environment Agency poll of last May. Above all, it is good in its own self. Recycling for its own sake helps to remind people about where they stand in relation to the environment that they occupy, and it encourages thrift and responsibility. Many of these virtues enabled the older generation, who lived through the war and its aftermath, to develop habits that stayed with them for a lifetime. It was the subsequent generation that got used to the disposable, throwaway society.

  555
  As a member of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, I am particularly concerned about this subject. At the moment, the Committee is investigating the subject of waste through a formal inquiry. It was no surprise to find that doorstep recycling enjoyed very strong support among all of the expert witnesses that we called. For example, the Chartered Institute of Waste Management told us:
  "We fully support the principle of rolling out kerb side collection schemes because it is really the most effective way of capturing the recyclables from householders. It is so easy and convenient for them."
  Steve Lee, of the Environment Agency, told us:
  "The Agency has done some attitudinal survey work on normal people about recycling, how much they want to become involved in it, what was it actually that would induce them to be highly recyclist, and, surprise, surprise, we find that most people, the vast majority of people, say that they would be only too happy to participate in separated collection and recycling provided it was made easy for them."
  Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appeared before the Select Committee, she appeared somewhat complacent. She said:
  "I am getting the distinct impression that an awful lot of people who have come to see you have all got very good excuses for why they are not doing enough to tackle the problem of waste. They are all saying, 'If only the Government did something different', but that none of them needs to do anything different."
  That reminds me of the proud mother, watching her son in a passing-out parade, who turns to her husband and says, "Look, dear, the entire parade is out ofstep— except for our little Johnny!"
  I hope that this Minister is a little more prepared to accept that the Government could, and indeed should, improve their record, rather than simply looking around for other people to blame. I know that he is keen to do more for the environment, and I hope that he will do so now in an applied way. I hope and anticipate that he will support this Bill— not just today, but during its subsequentstages— and that it does not get lost amid the Government's legislative programme.
  What is clear is that the last completed inquiry into waste was unimpressed with the Government's record. A Select Committee report entitled "Delivering Sustainable Waste Policy" found that
  "national targets for recycling and composting … for 2010 (30 per cent.) and 2015 (33 per cent.) are depressingly unambitious … We recommend that new targets be set of 50 per cent. by 2010 and 60 per cent. by 2015."
  It also concluded:
  "The kerbside collection of source-separated waste is a necessity if we are to transform waste management."
  The Committee continued:
  "It may seem rather obvious but if householders are to recycle their waste, they must be given the opportunity to do so relatively easily. In practice, this means that kerbside collections of recyclable materials are required".
  My party is committed to this Bill and to raising recycling rates. However, I hope that we will not have to wait for an election in order for it to reach the statute book. This country needs an ambitious step change. It requires leadership and strategy to come from the centre, to enable people to make the change that they want. I very much hope that this Bill succeeds and that it provides the step change that we need.
  11.28 am
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), and I congratulate her on introducing this important Bill. I appreciate that brevity is the order of the day, and I intend to impose my own programme motion on my remarks. However, I cannot waste the opportunity to say a few words about my own district council. Braintree district council, although not necessarily a pioneer, has made great strides in introducing recycling in the town of With am, which has 10,000 households, and it expects 50 per cent. of household waste to be diverted away from landfill sites. Across the entire Braintree district, some 16 percent. of waste is currently recycled, and the council is on target to reach a figure of 48 per cent. in the next four years. It receives £1.4 million in grants from the national waste minimisation and recycling fund. I sometimes think that such things would be better known if they had simpler names; nevertheless, such grants must be incredibly helpful to our local authorities.
  As others have said, recycling becomes much easier for people when we move away from bank collection to doorstep collection, One has to have a certain devotion and enthusiasm to take disposables to a bank, but devotion is not necessary when one can simply put them in a separate container within one's own household curtilage. Through that process, numbers are gained at an immeasurable pace.
  The avoidance of incineration and landfill is the overriding attraction of recycling. In my constituency, the old Rivenhall airfield is one of the prospective sites for an incinerator. It is euphemistically referred to as a brownfield site, because the United States air force happened to use it during the war for the purpose of bombing Germany, but in essence it is agricultural land. If the incinerator is built in that rural location, it will contaminate not only the air, which is a matter of scientific analysis, but the environment and local residents' quality of life, through the burden it will impose on the roads and local facilities.
  I am most encouraged to hear London Members on both sides of the House tell the House of the strides that London boroughs are taking towards recycling. Since Roman times, my county, Essex, has been the dumping ground for London's waste. It is about time that that ended, but it never will if incineration becomes the order of the day. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) told the House, the incinerator has an appetite that can never be satisfied—it demands ever more waste to be fed to it. What an easy option it is for an urban authority to put its waste out of sight and out of mind by sending it many miles down the road to one of our constituencies.
  I wish the Bill every success. It appears to have all-party support, and we must be mindful not to mutilate it in Committee. I am sure it will become one of the most important pieces of Legislation that we pass this Session.
  11.32 am
  Mr. Mark Field: I, too, shall keep my comments brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on introducing the Bill. I confess that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who is no longer in his place, I have been unlucky in the ballot for private Members' Bills in my two years as a Member of Parliament. Had I come as high as the hon. Lady, I would probably have considered a recycling measure. She will know that in October, I introduced a debate in Westminster Hall on recycling of household waste by individuals.
  Much of the effort must come from the heart. Although the Bill refers to powers and duties for local authorities, we have to inculcate a sense of responsibility among the population at large. Inevitably, a carrot and stick approach will be used—the stick of higher taxes, which might be levied on supermarkets and manufacturers, and the carrot of encouraging people as far as possible to do the right thing. All MPs who visit schools or have school parties visit us here will know that young children have a positive attitude towards recycling, which is heartening.
  When I was growing up and as a young adult, I was fairly indifferent to recycling. As has been said, the big push towards recycling has become a mainstream political activity only in the past decade or so. Many of us remember the European elections of 1989, in which the Green party scored great success. That heightened awareness of environmental issues, of which recycling is one. I take it to be part of my responsibility as a local Member of Parliament to avail myself of the recycling facilities in the City of Westminster. I probably cut a rather sad figure as I go to collect my newspapers on a Sunday morning carrying a basket—courtesy of Westminster city council—full of newspapers, bottles and other paraphernalia, which I dump into the various bottle banks and other recycling sites. That is a positive thing that all Members of Parliament should do, and it is encouraging that it is now being done by far more people generally.
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) commented on the European position. Although I accept that we have to compare like with like, there is little doubt that this country's figures are extremely disappointing. Some weeks ago, I went to Germany on a short lecture tour. I was struck, especially in the former East Germany—a socialist command economy from 1945 to 1989—by the enormous strides that had been made in recycling. The people with whom I stayed made it clear to me that what we call recycling they call secondary raw materials; they took the view that recycling was essential in view of the scarcity of raw materials. On every railway platform, and throughout all the main towns, are large bins segregated for paper, plastics and other types of waste.
  We in this country should look at the example set by much of Europe, because we are to a large extent the dirty man of Europe. Various statistics have been quoted. At the time of my debate last year, about 10 per cent. of our household waste was recycled, and the figure of 12 per cent. has been mentioned today. Those are extremely low rates compared with those in much of the rest of Europe. In places such as Germany, roughly 50 per cent. of household waste is recycled, and I imagine that the rate for municipal waste is similar.
  558
  The Bill sensibly calls for doorstep recycling to be introduced by 2010—an ambitious but none the less realistic target, which focuses our minds firmly on what we need to do. I am slightly concerned about one or two of the caveats mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, especially those relating to clause 3. I have reservations about the costs and the provision of funding to local authorities, especially in a general economic climate that might become more difficult for this country in coming years. As a London MP, I was disappointed to see that the new funding formula might result in several London boroughs of all political colours suffering as the funding for environmental, cultural and protection services is cut. That is the experience in the City of Westminster, and I hope that all London MPs will do their bit, irrespective of party allegiance, to ensure as far as possible that as the new funding formula hits the capital and the southeast, funding for environmental and recycling services is ring-fenced.
  My focus is on London, and is not party political in nature. I am a great walker throughout London, and I have seen the successes that we have achieved. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) is no longer in the Chamber, because she is right to say that Camden is a terrific success story. As one walks though the streets of Camden, one sees the many households that have recycling paraphernalia outside and are committed to recycling. The same is true of the London borough of Haringey—another Labour authority—and the borough of Lewisham. Similarly, one can see a strong commitment to recycling when one walks the streets of Blackheath, Deptford and down into Catford.
  We have to do more. In London there is a high level of education on the subject, which is a positive starting point. I hope that the Bill will play its part in ensuring that we put some pressure on local authorities. However, to return to my initial point, much of the effort must come from the heart; there must be a sense, shared by everyone, that this is our responsibility and that we have only a leasehold on this planet. As the hon. Members for Lewes and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, parts of the country outside London feel that over the decades they have been treated as dumping grounds. In Essex there are many landfill sites, and an increasing number of incinerators are planned. As far as incineration is concerned, we are at a crossroads. Let us hope that the Bill will play an important part, and that we make the right decision for the future.
  11.39 am
  Sue Doughty: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on the work that she has done, not only in securing this debate but in preparing the Bill so as to get as much support as possible from all sides. Like everyone else, I will support the Bill—and in Committee we will have to remember that any amendments must be constructive and acceptable, so that it becomes law. Without this Bill, we will lose an important part of our recycling strategy.
  One problem with recycling and waste management in this country is the fact that we are victims of our economic success. We buy things and we throw them away. Through television, children become used to the idea that always having the latest toys and gadgets, and

  559
  always having over-packaged food—in fact, people are probably paying more for the packaging than for the food—is acceptable. It is hard to undermine that idea as people grow up, but we will have to. It is rather like what happened when I was young, when we were encouraged to eat what was on our plates because we had to think of the starving in Africa—although thinking of the starving in Africa did not work, because we still did not learn to like tapioca. However, we will have to do something.
  We have to look at what other countries are doing, especially the poorest countries. We have talked about chucking things away, but those of us who have been to Africa, or to some Asian countries, will have seen how they deal with goods. They are constantly repairing, reusing and cannibalising goods. We should learn more about that. However, there is the problem of making goods attractive. The recycling exhibition yesterday not only showed us some virtuous things to do, but showed some jolly attractive things to do, too. It was very encouraging. I visited one of the plastics recyclers last year and saw how it dealt with fairly contaminated plastic—recycling it for use in underground pipes, for example, for which a particular quality was needed. Why is it that Belgium sends its plastic bottles to us for recycling, but we send ours somewhere else?
  We have to think about the huge amount of plastic that is used to bottle water. It seems ludicrous. This week in my constituency, I was awarding prizes at an water company's event, looking into the ways in which water was delivered to households. It was a good competition. We have to let our children know that the water that comes out of the tap is of such a quality that, unless it is tainted by chlorination or something, they should think carefully before buying yet another bottle. They can fill bottles from the tap, and then keep them in the fridge if they want, but they should not keep buying bottled water. We have some of the cleanest water in the world. What we do is a farce. We have to minimise waste, not do things that create more waste.
  We want the Government to do a lot on waste management. This debate is not about the shortfalls of the Government and I do not intend to turn it into one, although it is tempting. We have to be careful about economic instruments. Some good points have been made about the fact that we have to increase the landfill tax rate massively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said, we have to introduce a resource tax and an incineration tax, so that we are not feeding the beast of the incinerator. We have to reduce the dreadful landfill mountains, and the misery of the people who live close by them. Those people suffer the pollution of contaminated air, seagulls, noise, mud on the road and all the other awful things.
  We are in danger of alienating the public on a number of issues. There is a political argument over which council is recycling more than which other council. However, many good words have been said, irrespective of their political direction, about councils that are making headway. In Guildford a difficult bit of literature came through our doors; it shows how recycling figures have changed but fails to say that we changed the way in which we counted the figures. An adjustment was made, which showed an increase. It is possible to paint the wrong picture by forgetting to point out that one is not counting the same things, but is putting them on the same graph.
  560
  During questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 19 December, a comment was made about figures being misreported to give an erroneous impression. That is being dishonest. The public want to know that when they put things in to be recycled, they will be recycled. Arguing about figures on a false statistical base can only demoralise the public. This Bill talks about proper reporting, making information clear, and making an onwards and upwards improvement in our recycling figures. The Bill sets high targets, which we must reach. Other countries are far ahead of us. In Germany and the Netherlands, recycling is already at 50 per cent. With political will, we should be able to do that too.
  We will support this Bill, and I am proud to be a sponsor of it. However, I plead with the Government to raise their sights. When will we see a response to the "Waste not, Want not" report, so that we can see how things fit into the greater economic argument? I look forward to the Committee stage, and to seeing the Bill becoming law. It will be a jolly good piece of work when it is complete.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on this private Member's Bill. I am pleased to note the cross-party consensus and I want to add my party's support as well. I wish the Bill Godspeed and ask the hon. Lady to thank, on behalf of us all, as I am sure that she will, those who have assisted her in preparing this Bill. It is a worthy piece of legislation. It deserves to be passed—albeit with one or two amendments that I shall come to in a moment.
  In response to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), I have to urge her not to do down the Welsh mineral water industry too much. Ty Nant, which is the best and best known mineral water—from my constituency, of course—is available in glass bottles, both blue and pink.
  Norman Baker: Is there a deposit?
  Mr. Thomas: There is no deposit on them, but they are easily recyclable. The only way I can get my children to drink water is by giving it to them in a bottle. If it comes out of a tap, they will not drink it. There are obviously health issues to be dealt with as well.
  Like the Welsh preachers of old, I want to take a text for my remarks over the next few minutes, and examine the Bill from the point of view of that text. The text, which is a quote, is as follows:
  "I would say that something like a third of all local authorities have doorstep recycling in at least part of their area. We want that to be all of their area and all local authorities."
  The author of those words is sitting on the Government Front Bench, namely the Minister for the Environment. He was speaking at a public meeting at Caxton house, Archway, London on 7 November 2002.
  The right hon. Gentleman posed the crucial question: how can we bring doorstep recycling to every local authority and within every area of every local authority? If that is not done through this Bill, how will it be done? That is the question that the Government will have to ask if they cannot fully support the Bill during

  561
  consideration in Committee and thereafter. I hope that we shall not see again what happened to an earlier conservation Bill that was given As Second Reading, was considered in Committee and then, somehow, became lost in the ways and means of things in this place. I hope that we shall see the Bill come fully into effect.
  I want to address how we achieve the aims of both the Minister for the Environment and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford from the perspective of Wales. There are some differences between Wales, England and Scotland. This is a UK Bill that would set a UK target. We must work out how that is done in the constituent parts of the UK. It is worth bearing in mind how we might achieve the target.
  Last November, the Wales Consumer Council produced a useful report entitled: "Waste not, Want not: recycling and Welsh consumers." We can gather from the report how important recycling is for people in Wales. Seventy per cent. of people said that it was a priority for them, citing it as "very important" or "important". Interestingly, the respondents were more enthusiastic in the rural parts of Wales. In Cardiff, 61 per cent. were strongly committed to recycling, whereas in mid and west Wales, in the area I represent, the figure was 80 per cent. I do not know whether that reflects the old tradition of reusing every piece of material on the farm, and therefore of having a different attitude to recycling. Perhaps those who live in the countryside have a certain feeling for the environment that is around them. These figures go against the tendency to think that recycling is for urban areas, not rural areas. One of the challenges is to get doorstep recycling to every household, even in the most rural of our areas.
  The report tells us that doorstep recycling was seen to be the key factor that would encourage more people to recycle. That chimes in with earlier facts and figures that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford adduced. Eighty-four per cent. of those surveyed—consumers in Wales—said that a kerbside scheme would encourage them to recycle. Again, those in rural areas came out more strongly in favour, with 72 per cent. saying that more facilities would encourage them. About 90 per cent. of parents thought that a kerbside scheme would encourage them to recycle.
  The opportunity is there. There is no doubt that there is public support for the Bill, and for the aims that lie behind it. The question is, how can we make it work? In Wales, we start from a low basis. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who is no longer in his place, said that the UK is the dirty man of Europe. Unfortunately, Wales is the dirty part of the United Kingdom. We have the lowest rates of recycling in the UK as a whole. It is the country in the UK that is most dependent on landfill sites. As I mentioned earlier in my intervention on the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, that is creating a great deal of public dissatisfaction, particularly in respect of health issues. A petition was presented today to the National Assembly for Wales, containing 2,000 names, against the landfill site in Trecatti, in Merthyr Tydfil. We have also had difficulties with the Nantygwyddon landfill site in the Rhondda. Incidentally, it was built with European money that was meant to be used for tourism. That is the
  562
  bind that we got ourselves into 10 years ago about landfill in this country. It seems that we were prepared to use any scrap of money to build landfill and not to move on to more environmentally sustainable methods.
  In a Welsh context, we have ended up with recycling of waste being as low as 8 per cent. In England, I understand that it is running at between 12 and 15 per cent. Wales is heavily dependent on landfill sites, which the population is rejecting. It is also rejecting incineration. Those who have come forward to propose incineration in Wales have been heavily rejected by public opinion.
  The more positive side is that the National Assembly, with all-party support, has produced a waste strategy for Wales that is more ambitious than that for England. The target for 2009–10 is to achieve 40 per cent. recycling and composting of municipal waste. I understand that the target in England is 30 per cent. The programme for Wales is more ambitious, but there is a greater gap to overcome. We must focus on how we can achieve the target.
  We need to set in motion the right fiscal methods throughout the UK, as hon. Members have said. For example, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford is wearing recycled jewellery. I do not know what the VAT on such jewellery is, but perhaps it should be less than VAT on new jewellery. We may need to look at reducing the tax burden on fully recycled products or at encouraging other ways of getting recycled products on to the market. We certainly need to look at the landfill tax. All those things are UK fiscal matters which need to be dealt with by the UK Government in line with the obligations put on them by the Bill, but they will have an enormously beneficial effect in Wales.
  My only regret is that we are not yet ready politically to talk about a zero waste strategy, and to look at our waste stream as a resource for reuse and reinvestment. More progressive parts of the developed world are looking at that. New Zealand, for example, is thinking about a zero waste strategy for the whole country—the aim is to create jobs dealing with the waste stream, not just in recycling and composting but in reuse. We have not developed such a programme to any great extent in the United Kingdom. I accept that such thinking is a little way off, but the Bill is the best opportunity that we will have this Session to progress towards a reasonable target of 50 per cent. recycling and composting throughout the United Kingdom.
  As I mentioned earlier, the National Assembly has made it clear to local authorities in Wales that it expects them to avoid long-term contracts with guaranteed minimum tonnages and so on which in the past tied them to landfill, but now tend to tie them to the newfangled option of incineration. That advice is specifically designed to encourage authorities to be flexible enough to move over to the new recycling target. The Assembly has pressured the Government to make those plans mandatory for local authorities. Perhaps we can look at that in Committee, and consider how the whole United Kingdom can do something similar to what has been done in Wales so that we can help local authorities to avoid the double-bind by which they commit themselves to incineration for 15 or 20 years.

  563
  We should help them to leave such methods behind so that they can support a more fruitful pattern of recycling and composting.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as he referred to the report on what needs to be done in Wales. I cannot recall from the report how much money the Welsh Assembly is putting into the project. Local authorities obviously need support—can the hon. Gentleman recall the figure and say whether it is sufficient for local authorities to carry out the Assembly's proposals? Which authorities are in a position to get the programme under way fairly soon?
  Mr. Thomas: Thankfully, I wrote the figure down earlier—it is £79 million for the initial period, and is generally seen as sufficient to get local authorities moving on the project. Local authorities' records, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are varied. I am afraid that his own area of Bridgend recycles 6.1 per cent. of materials; it is not the worst, but it is not the best either. The better authorities include, I am happy to say, my own authority, Ceredigion, as well as Conwy and Powys. Again, rural areas seem to be doing better than urban areas, which is a curious anomaly—one would expect recycling to be a bit easier in urban areas.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bridgend. I do not want labour the point, but it is about to move over to a 100 per cent. recycling scheme. Some people, however, are a bit worried because it involves incineration.
  Mr. Thomas: In that case, I will not go down that path. I am glad that recycling is at least part of the plans in Bridgend, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is also pleased about that.
  I pay tribute to the vast number of community organisations that have been involved in the recycling and reuse of materials over the past 15 to 20 years. When recycling was something done by bearded, sandaled hippies, it was community organisations that led the way.
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: That was us!
  Mr. Thomas: I do not include Liberal Democrats, and certainly not hon. Ladies who sit for the Liberal Democrats, in that. My first recycling effort was collecting Corona pop bottles in order to take them back to the shop to get a few extra pence. When I began recycling as a student, I did it for a community organisation, the Aberystwyth recycling centre, which is still going strong and still running recycling, now in partnership with the county council, but at the time it was a voluntary community effort.
  We tend to overlook the specialist aspects of recycling, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Those include the recycling of batteries, some kinds of plastic, computers and precious metals, and the refurbishment of furniture for resale or reuse. That is still done by community organisations. Local authorities have not ventured much into those fields. There are organisations such as CRAFT in my constituency, which employs six people with learning
  564
  difficulties, who work on renewing furniture that is then made available to people on benefit. That is part of a virtuous circle involving not just recycling, but social and economic benefits. That is sustainable development at work, but it comes about through the impetus, initiative and entrepreneurship of community organisations. Even at this stage, local authorities lag behind.
  One of the major advantages of the Bill, although it is not explicitly stated, is that if we can set ambitious targets to be reached in the next 10 to 15 years, that will motivate local authorities to innovate in other areas as well. They will not reach a 50 per cent. target just by recycling and composting. They will also have to address the issues of minimisation, reuse, refurbishment and sustainable development. That is why the Bill is worthy of support by the House, in Committee and ultimately by the Government, through enactment and proper funding, to ensure that we reach the targets and that the hon. Lady's vision is realised.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: May I associate myself with the closing comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)? I have not heard a voice of dissent all morning, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on his thoughtful, sensible and praiseworthy approach to the Bill. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend suggests that I should be more effusive in my praise, but that is unnecessary, as anyone who reads his speech will recognise the wisdom of his words.
  I begin with the difficulty that we all face when dealing with the subject of recycling. For example, the Bill contains three blank pages. It is important that when we deal with recycling matters, we do not miss such open goals. That brings me to the dilemma that I face in my constituency, where the councils of Herefordshire and Worcestershire have combined to consult the public on the issue of municipal waste management, in particular on what should be done with the solid waste. The councils have sent out a helpful leaflet—in fact, they sent it to me twice. In the spirit of recycling, it seems, it is important that we get plenty of paper and often. They have asked my constituents to choose from seven options.
  I shall share the options with the House, as I know that there are experts listening who may be able to guide me. It is symptomatic of the problems that we face in this country that the options given to us are often difficult to understand.
  Option one is:
  "Based on achieving a combined level of recycling and composting of 33 per cent., 39 per cent. of MSW"—
  municipal solid waste—
  "would be sent to thermal treatment and 28 per cent. would be sent to landfill."
  Option two is:
  "Based on achieving a higher combined level of recycling and composting of 45 per cent., and a lower level of thermal treatment and the residual would be sent to landfill."
  Option three is:
  "Based on achieving a higher level of recycling and composting at 45 per cent., but 46 per cent. of MSW would be sent for mechanical biological treatment and the residue from this process

  565
  along with other waste would be sent to landfill. Mechanical biological treatment can only reduce the volumes of waste by around 20 per cent."
  Option four is:
  "Based on achieving a higher level of recycling and composting at 45 per cent., a further 27 per cent. of MSW would be sent for treatment at an anaerobic digestion plant and the residue from this process along with other waste would be sent to landfill. Anaerobic digestion reduces the volumes of waste by around 40 per cent."
  Option five states:
  "This option is similar to option one, but involves both Worcestershire and Herefordshire having separate waste management facilities to enable them to operate independently. The option is based on achieving a combined level of recycling and composting of 33 per cent., around 45 per cent. of MSW would be sent for thermal treatment and the remainder would be sent to landfill."
  Option six is:
  "Based on achieving a combined level of recycling and composting of 33 per cent., a further 25 per cent. of MSW would be sent for thermal treatment and 16 per cent. would be sent for treatment at an anaerobic digestion plant. The residue from both these processes and additional waste would be sent to landfill."
  Option seven states:
  "This option aims to achieve an aspirational target for recycling and composting 45 per cent. of household waste. This gives an overall recycling and composting target of 49 per cent., a further 16 per cent. of MSW would be sent for thermal treatment and the remainder would be sent for landfill."
  Those seem complicated choices for people who are not necessarily expert on the subject, yet they are the sorts of questions that we are asking households in my constituency to decide upon. They are also being asked to decide upon various different processes for other types of waste. That is unnecessarily complicated and shifts the burden of responsibility from the expert to the inexpert in way that is a shame, but riot shameful. I hope that my constituents will rise to the challenge and that we will deal with MSW in the most appropriate way. However, if anyone listening to the debate wishes to draw my attention to one of the preferred options, I should be grateful and I urge them to do so. The Minister may wish to guide me on that at a later date.
  There are several reservations about the Bill, in particular, that its introduction may challenge the autonomy of local government and the need to resist further prescriptions from central Government without additional resources, and I hope that the Government will respond to that.
  There is also a lack of a market for recyclables and a lack of a green procurement from industry, manufacturing and the Government, which places burdens on local authorities to find end users for the waste materials that they have collected.
  The division of authority and responsibility for the waste collection and disposal authorities could mean the fining of one for the failures of the other. Again, I hope that the Government will address that problem.
  One of the more minor suggestions that causes me concern is that kerbside collection is not always the most appropriate way to recycle waste in every area and bring-sites or bring-banks may prove more successful in inner cities where space is constrained.
  566
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the 20 per cent. from the landfill tax credit scheme is not sufficient to fund a nationwide doorstep collection and recycling scheme. Even if more of the landfill tax revenue were to be directly transferred to the local authorities, it would simply be redirecting money that had been paid by them for landfill. I hope that the Minister will address those problems when he replies.
  I am a supporter of the Bill and a signatory of early-day motion 333A. I hope that the Bill will sail through. A 50 per cent. recycling target is utterly laudable and receives huge support form my constituents. I hope to see the Bill on the statute book at great speed.
  12.9 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: In adding my support to that of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I am delighted that universal support has been expressed for the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on introducing an important Bill on which she has done a great deal of work. She has encouraged the campaigners who wanted such a Bill by proposing a sharp target that can be readily identified and aimed at. Like other hon. Members, I have received a large postbag on the issue, and I congratulate Friends of the Earth on mobilising its membership, which I am sure has accounted for a large amount of that correspondence.
  Like other hon. Members, I have extreme concerns about landfill and incineration. I have one active landfill site in my constituency, one that has been completed in recent years and another that is more than 40 years old. All three have caused tremendous problems at different stages of their development and they will continue to cause problems for the local area, probably for a minimum of 20 or 30 years to come. The gassing from older landfill sites will continue for some time. My constituents are only too aware of the problems associated with such sites. One of the answers is to try to reduce the amount of waste, and my party has repeatedly expressed support for waste minimisation methods.
  Stockport metropolitan borough council is one of the foremost authorities on waste disposal and work with waste. In our area, we have seen that collection of waste from the doorstep is undoubtedly the best way of encouraging recycling. Waste recycling started in our area via voluntary bodies, schools and other organisations such as the scouts. Such organisations have collected waste paper for a long period and have had a dramatic impact on the community's impression of recycling. It would be a great shame if we were to think that adding doorstep recycling into the equation meant that we should remove all those other activities. Substantial community benefits are achieved through the involvement of voluntary organisations in collecting paper and so on. In my area, 642 tonnes of paper were collected last year by schools and voluntary organisations. Across Stockport metropolitan borough, they collected more than 1,000 tonnes of paper. We should remember that there are other community benefits to be had from the organisation required for such collection. Simply replacing one means of collection with another is not an option, and I am happy to say that Stockport council has not done so. Instead, it has encouraged both sorts of collection to continue side by side.

  567
  Plastic recycling is undoubtedly a problem. I was the chair of environmental health in Stockport between 1995 and 1997. In all the time I was involved with collection of recyclable materials, plastic recycling was the hardest nut to crack in Stockport, as I am sure it has been throughout the country. It is very difficult for a local authority to solve the difficulties on its own. Government help or better regional strategies are needed to try to solve some of the issues not only in ensuring that collection occurs but in deciding what is done after the materials are collected if there is no proper market for them. It is difficult to establish continuity in the market for plastics.
  Stockport council is the highest achieving metropolitan authority in the north—west. According to the new counting methods, it recycles 11.23 per cent. of waste. It has the difficult targets of 22 per cent. for 2003–04 and 33 per cent. for 2005–06. However, several initiatives have been proposed. Stockport council has beacon status and has educated and informed other local authorities—and, indeed, other countries—about some of its recycling methods. It expects to meet the targets for 2003–04 and 2005–06.
  I am proud to have taken part in decisions on implementing the boroughwide doorstep paper collection. Last year, it collected more than 5,500 tonnes of paper. The amount of paper collected increased fivefold after the introduction of doorstep collection. Clearly, it makes a tremendous difference. We also have 159 recycling sites in the borough. Some people prefer to use them and it would be a pity to remove them because of doorstep recycling. They have been sited in locations that are easily accessible, and to which people drive anyway—a workplace, a local health centre or a shopping centre—so they do not necessarily make additional journeys to recycle. I advise multiple methods to increase recycling and reduce the amount that goes to landfill.
  In the past year, we have recycled more than 2,000 tonnes of glass and more than 40 tonnes of plastic. The total for recycling paper through voluntary organisations, paper banks and doorstep recycling was more than 8,000 tonnes. That is a dramatic amount. The council recently celebrated the collection of 100,000 tonnes of paper in the past few years.
  A new scheme, which provides green wheelie bins for garden waste, has been introduced. Before it started, it was estimated that 12,000 tonnes a year of garden waste would be collected. The scheme has proved so successful that the figure was revised upwards to 15,000 tonnes. About 18,000 containers have been distributed to households so far, and the refusal rate has been less than 1 per cent. The take-up has been huge.
  Sue Doughty: Will my hon. Friend advise me on how to convince Conservative and Labour councillors on Guildford borough council of the worth of such schemes? After a successful trial for collecting garden waste that increased recycling by 1.5 per cent. and would have led to a 6 per cent. increase, they voted down the
  568
  scheme. Will she give us some words of encouragement that we could use to convince the councillors who oppose recycling?
  Mrs. Calton: I can only marvel at their opposition. They should visit Stockport and see what is being done.
  Andrew Bennett: I am pleased that the council is working to provide green wheelie bins for garden waste and some domestic food waste. However, that is happening in the leafy parts of Stockport. In Reddish, the old black bags continue to be used. They suffer attacks by, for example, foxes, so much household waste in such areas is strewn around the streets. Is not it time for Stockport to consider the poorer as well as the rich parts of the borough?
  Mrs. Calton: I thought when the hon. Gentleman came in that he would probably make a point along those lines. I accept that most of the initial implementation of the green waste scheme has taken place in the Cheadle area, but I think that he misunderstands the position if he thinks the green wheelie bins were introduced to replace black bags. In fact, green wheelie bin collection supplements black bag collection. I think that if he puts the case for rapid implementation of the scheme in his area to the council, it will be brought in throughout the area just as doorstep collection of paper was: virtually no part of Stockport does not enjoy that service now. Some flats, of course, will not have much garden waste. I am sure that if he works closely with his local authority it will be keen to work with him—just as it is, I think, our purpose today to work together on an issue on which there is no difference between the parties.
  A further 15,000 green wheelie bins have been ordered, and will soon be provided throughout my borough. I was not convinced that those resistant to the idea of recycling would be all that keen on the bins, but my husband—who took longest to get the recycling message in our household—is now an avid user of the green bin. He is happy to go into the garden and fill it up every weekend if he gets the chance. There is hope for us all now that my husband has got the message.
  A pilot scheme in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has extended the paper collection system, which is now a multi-material collection, including glass and cans. The value of such schemes is demonstrated by the fact that there has been a 75 per cent. participation rate, and a doubling of the quantity of paper collected.
  Other innovative schemes have been introduced in Stockport. Home composting, for instance, has been linked to low-energy light bulb sales. Recently 1,900 composters were sold to members of the public in Stockport; at the same time 11,000 low-energy bulbs were sold. That happened in a single day. The bulbs will save enough energy in a year to light Stockport's streets for a month. Such schemes show how much Stockport is doing.
  More than 70 per cent. of schools in the borough have been involved in the schools waste action club. In the past year, 22 have had SWAC visits, 21 have had dustbin/recycling assemblies, four have engaged in paper-making activities and five have engaged in waste

  569
  audits. Cycler the rapping robot has visited three schools, and two have introduced composting. Someone said earlier that people needed to see what happened to waste and where it went. Accompanied external educational visits have been arranged for interested schools to sites such as the Adswood eco centre, the Bredbury refuse treatment plant and the Bolton thermal recovery facility.
  1 said earlier that Stockport was the highest achieving metropolitan authority in the north-west; in fact, I understand that it is the highest in England, and a leader in the field of waste management. I would like to pay tribute to Paul Dunn and the waste management team for their excellent work over a number of years. They really have put Stockport ahead of the field among metropolitan boroughs, but they would be the first to accept that that is nowhere near good enough and that much more needs to be done.
  As this is a discussion that cuts across party lines, I would also like to pay tribute to the Government's input. There has been funding in recent years to support the expansion of recycling in Stockport. The Greater Manchester waste disposal authority has had a £2.5 million grant from the Government to improve 22 civic amenity sites, and £200,000 has come into Stockport for additional garden waste vehicles. Such has been the success of that scheme that another vehicle is now needed to enable all the waste to be collected. A further £750,000 has come in for additional vehicles and containers for the multi-material collection. I hope that those sums will soon be evident not only in what was described earlier as the leafier parts of the borough, but in the parts represented by the hon. Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett).
  12.26 pm
  Mr. Roger Williams: May I, too, heap compliments on the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock)? The Bill has obviously received overwhelming support in the House from all the parties present today. Indeed, this issue has resonated throughout our constituencies, if my postbag is anything to go by.
  For some of my constituents, the term "kerbside recycling" is a bit of a misnomer, because they live so far from any recognisable kerb that they would not know where to go to find one. Indeed, the reason that they live where they do is that there are no kerbs anywhere near them. The terms "doorstep" or "roadside" recycling are, however, readily recognisable. In rural areas, recycling presents real problems in terms of how people access the recycling centres, because the journeys involved are often very long and some people do not have access to private transport. Public transport is obviously not really suitable for taking rubbish to recycling centres, and it is an expense for local authorities to get round all the houses to collect sorted and recyclable material.
  I would like to compliment the way in which the Bill has been drafted in terms of the devolved settlement for Wales and the responsibility that has been given to the Assembly to set targets for recycling and composting rates for waste collection. It is important to have
  570
  national targets, but they are sometimes more easily achievable if they are broken down. Wales certainly wants to play its part in achieving those targets. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has already pointed out that the target that has been set in Wales is probably higher than the one set in England, although it is not as high as the one in the Bill. That target is achievable, and we must not duck the responsibility to achieve it, because it is almost the minimum that we should be going for.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) talked about the low cost of primary products being the one thing that makes it difficult for recycling to achieve good economic results. If the cost of such products were a good deal higher, the whole business of recycling would become a profitable rather than a loss-making operation. More people would then want to be involved in it, which would make the whole operation a lot easier for local authorities.
  Some elements that go into recyclable products, such as timber used in paper making, are renewable, but oil, which is the basis of most plastic produced in this country, is strictly finite, so we should conserve and look after it to the very best of our ability, as less of it will be available to succeeding generations. That raises one little issue. Clause 2(3)(a) refers to waste disposal and collection authorities publishing a report on the "volume of waste collected". I am not sure whether targets are set on weight or on volume.
  Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is the first person to spot the deliberate mistake. The Bill should refer to quantity. Weight is used currently, but there are arguments for volume. We shall seek to make that small amendment in Committee, should we get there.
  Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. Lady. That issue has been raised with me by my local authority. It is keen to recycle plastics, but they do not contribute a lot to the targets that it is trying to achieve as the weight of that product is not great. As I have said previously, however, plastics are the one thing that we ought to be concentrating on, as they are based on oil, which is such a limited resource for future generations.
  It is important that young people and communities in particular are involved in recycling projects, and I shall draw two examples to the attention of the House. The first is in the constituency of my hon, Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) at Cae Post near Trewern, where young people have been involved in sorting plastic for recycling. The effect has been to find customers for plastic that was not thought to be of high enough quality to recycle, which not only provides employment for young people who have found it difficult to get jobs, but ensures that plastic that previously went to landfill or to incineration now goes to recycling.
  The second example involves the fact, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, that plastic is used to a greater and greater extent in the agriculture sector. It is difficult to dispose of in an environmentally sensitive way, but the young farmers' club in the Brecon area in my constituency has put in place a system whereby the young farmers, working together in their clubs, bring all the plastic to one collecting site on a

  571
  particular farm. A commercial organisation called P. and M. Birch then collects it on a reasonably economic basis, although it needs some funding from the Assembly and local authorities. Plastic that has either accumulated on farms or would have been burned by farmers is now disposed of perfectly properly and in an environmentally sensitive way.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: That point supports what I said earlier. This is a UK Bill, of course, but it would have huge effect in Wales. For example, if the Government decided to introduce a plastics tax—a tax on carrier bags is the most obvious example that might be the first to be introduced—that would affect the Bill and the target at Welsh level. Therefore, it is surely right that the Bill has a UK target, but that, as the hon. Gentleman and I have said, we work in Committee to ensure that it gives the National Assembly maximum flexibility to meet its own target. Of course, the Assembly's money will be spent on these matters, as he has just emphasised.
  Mr. Williams: I agree that it is important for the Bill to have a UK dimension, and there should be flexibility within it so that the Assembly can play its part in meeting the UK targets.
  The Bill will take us further down the road that so many of us and our constituents want to take. I wish it well.
  12.34 pm
  Mr. John Horam: I apologise for not being present during the main part of the debate. I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few seconds. I wish to draw to the Minister's attention the excellent progress being made in the London borough of Bromley, where my constituency is located, which has rolled out 119,000 green bins over the past six months and, as a result, pushed up the rate of recycling considerably.
  I draw to the Minister's attention—it may have been already—the excellent work being done by London Remade, which hon. Members on the Labour Benches, at least those representing London constituencies, and Conservative Members may know quite a lot about. Only a week or so ago, my Committee, the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, had the pleasure of visiting many of the schemes that it is backing, with Government help. I pay tribute to the Minister for that. It is doing excellent work, which should be further supported.
  I flag up the fact that the Select Committee will be bringing out a report on waste shortly. As the Minister is a member of the Committee, I am sure that he will look at it extremely sympathetically.
  12.36 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for presenting the Bill to the House. It is remarkable and indeed meritorious that so many hon. Members have attended on a Friday to support the Bill. I do not think that it is unprecedented but it is pretty unusual that there has been consensus across the whole House on the Bill; the characteristically curmudgeonly speech by the hon.
  572
  Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) can probably be interpreted as being in support of the Bill. That is striking.
  The Bill addresses a key environmental challenge and is one which is certainly a Government priority. My hon. Friend said that it was a passion for her. It is also a passion for me.
  In 1997, the Government inherited absolutely the wrong structure for waste management. Eighty-five per cent. or more of household waste was being landfilled. In 1992, the recycling level was 2 per cent. In 1997, it was 6 per cent., I think the lowest in Europe. There were 20 or 30 incinerators and, as far as I know, no effort was made to achieve waste minimisation.
  That is all being changed. The level of landfilling of household waste is going down, albeit too slowly. On business as usual, there is still a serious prospect of a doubling of the level of landfilling in this country over the next two decades, when we have to reduce it by two thirds, but we are making a start in the right direction. The number of incinerators is down to 14 in the United Kingdom. Considerable effort is being put into waste minimisation, although I would be the first to say that it is nowhere near enough. In terms of recycling, the latest figures I have are around 13 per cent., which is more than double the figure in 1997, although it is still very low.
  I think that I carry the whole House with me when I say that my hon. Friend made a powerful case for her Bill. There is no question but that there must be an increase in doorstep recycling. We believe that the targets that I have set of doubling the level of recycling, reuse and recovery by 2003–04 and trebling it by 2005–06 for every local authority will almost certainly require doorstep recycling almost universally across the country. Otherwise, those targets probably cannot be achieved.
  My hon. Friend made a powerful point when she asked why we had such high levels of landfill in comparison with other countries. It is because, in so many cases, there is no doorstep recycling at present and because recycling facilities are too far away for many people. Clearly the Bill is a serious attempt to address that issue and I welcome it in that sense.
  This country remains dependent on the least sustainable form of waste management, which is landfill. Even now, we still landfill nearly 80 per cent. of household waste, which is a wholly lost opportunity. Landfill has been referred to today as almost a medieval practice; we are piling it into the ground. I agree. It is certainly in opposition to sustainable development. In addition, landfill is also the source of 25 per cent. of the UK's emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, adding to climate change problems.
  The landfill rate is still well above the European average and our rate of recycling, which can gain value from waste, remains at about 13 per cent. in 2001–02, well below the European average. The Government are taking waste management seriously and we have done a great deal to address waste problems. First, we are proposing to triple the level of the landfill tax from £13 to £35 per tonne. We have published the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill to tackle the immediate problem of our over-reliance on landfill in the municipal sector.

  573
  The Bill will introduce a landfill allowance trading scheme to help the UK meet the reductions in landfill needed to meet the landfill directive.
  We must get people to understand that we have to reduce the amount that goes to landfill to no more than two thirds of the levels of 1995, which are much lower than today. That is a huge switch; we have heard today about the 30 million to 40 million tonnes that would otherwise be landfill that must be disposed of differently. Members will welcome the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill in that regard and we will debate it next week.
  In addition, the strategy unit report has made a series of recommendations to the Government and we have listened carefully. In answer to the question as to when we will publish our conclusions, the answer is shortly, and shortly means shortly.
  I repeat that we support the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill's objectives but, as some Members recognised, we have some problems with it. The first question is the requirement for a strategy to be prepared within six months to achieve a 50 per cent. municipal waste recycling rate. We are not clear that that would fit with the rather more comprehensive waste strategy 2000, which looked at the whole of the waste stream and not just municipal waste, and addressed the whole of the waste hierarchy, not just recycling.
  The Government are considering the issues as part of the response to the strategy unit report, "Waste not, Want not". We think that it is important to focus on the action needed by central and local Government to meet our published targets, rather than to publish a further strategy so soon after others have been produced. At least one hon. Member said today—this chimes with what external commentators have said—that a significant proportion of local authorities are not going to meet their more modest 2005–06 targets, let alone the much higher ones for a further term ahead. Our efforts are rightly concentrating, therefore, on delivering the already stated targets.
  Although I do not want to place too much emphasis on the administrative issue, it is important to point it out. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to prepare a strategy for the whole of the UK in a devolved policy area. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned the importance of the role of the National Assembly for Wales, which is absolutely true.
  Speaking just about England, we would have to look very carefully at the proposed 50 per cent. target, which is far beyond the current target of recycling 30 per cent. of household waste by 2010. It is also above the figures of 35 per cent. by 2010 and 45 per cent. by 2015, which were recommended by the strategy unit when it examined the targets. We are looking at these issues in response to the strategy unit.
  Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No—I just want to finish this point because it is rather important. The Government as a whole are not yet persuaded of the practicality of
  574
  delivering a 50 per cent. target, given that resource allocations beyond the spending review of 2002 have not yet been determined.
  Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meacher: If it is on that point. I should first point out to hon. Members that this has been a consensual debate, and although I do not intend to depart from that in any way, I am conscious that others also want an opportunity to speak.
  Norman Baker: The key point is that the landfill directive is bearing down, requiring local authorities to choose now between the alternatives. They can choose either incineration or recycling, but if the recycling target is lower than 50 per cent., they will, I suspect, opt for incineration, particularly given the absence of an incineration tax.
  Mr. Meacher: I do not believe that that is so. One requirement in accepting a waste plan that involves incineration is that it should not pre-empt the possibility of future recycling targets. Reference has been made to the "hungry mouth" of an incinerator, and the degree to which it can pre-empt the recycling of materials. That would be a prime consideration in deciding whether to give approval to such a plan.
  Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I will, but I shall not make a habit of it.
  Clive Efford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that recycling levels have remained extraordinarily low for too many years, and that although local authorities make the right noises, they have not done enough to improve their recycling performance? Is it not time that we set a challenging target, in order to achieve the recycling levels that we want to see?
  Mr. Meacher: I am constantly being told not only that the targets that I set a few years ago are challenging— "challenging but achievable", according to the usual Whitehall terminology—but that they will not in fact be achieved by a significant number of local authorities. I am determined that they do achieve them, but to go significantly beyond them—almost twice as far—is a move to which we should first give very serious consideration. We shall undoubtedly consider this matter in Committee.
  On the further important issue of municipal waste strategies, guidance for local authorities establishes a framework for the issues that need to be addressed in preparing such strategies. However, there are wider considerations, such as how mandatory strategies would fit in with the local government freedoms and flexibilities agenda. Such issues need to be balanced. The Government have stated their position publicly. We said that
  "decisions on municipal waste strategies and waste recycling plans will be taken in the light of the Strategy Unit's waste report"—
  these are the key words—
  "after which there will be no more than one waste related plan."

  575
  That remains our position.
  Having said that, let me accentuate the positive aspects of the Bill. It requires that strategies include policies to enable householders to dispose of waste sustainably and to have provision at or near their home—in other words, it requires that the proximity principle be accepted and adhered to. We strongly agree that giving as many householders as possible an opportunity to participate in recycling is crucial, as it ensures a clean and secure source of recyclate for reprocessing and maximises the opportunity for everyone—including the elderly and infirm and those without access to a car—to participate.
  The strategy unit recommended widespread roll-out of kerbside collection, but it is not contentious to point out that that has to be combined with the provision of accessible bring-sites, especially where kerbside collection is not practical or economic—perhaps the type of housing makes the provision of kerbside collection difficult, for example, high-rise blocks—or where it is wholly uneconomic, for example, in very rural areas. I listened carefully when, in her opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford drew attention to an example of what I consider to be good practice by quoting the case of a caretaker taking a basket from outside a flat to the collection point. We must ensure that such examples are disseminated.
  Furthermore, it is important to realise that collection is only part of the cycle of recycling. There is little use in rapidly and significantly increasing the amount of recycling only to find that there are no markets for the recycled material and it ends up in landfill. Reprocessing facilities and, above all, markets for the final product are needed. Several hon. Members mentioned that. By itself, dictating collection will not secure recycling. That is why it is important that we look at the issues in the round.
  The Bill would provide a power for waste disposal authorities to direct waste collection authorities in the manner in which waste is to be collected. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned that. The waste disposal authority would thereby have a power to determine the way in which a collection authority fulfils its statutory collection responsibility. In effect, it would make the collection authority an agent, and do so at the collection authority's expense. That is not the Government's solution. I draw the House's attention to the fact that the Government have already
  576
  tabled an amendment to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill that tackles the same issue, but in a different form. That Bill gives a power to direct the form in which the waste is delivered so that it can be easily recycled.
  Almost all of the many contributions to the debate were supportive of the Bill. I have taken note of several points to which I would reply now, were I not conscious of the passage of time. It might be for the greater convenience of the House if I say that I shall reply to them in writing. Let me conclude by saying that the Government take seriously the whole issue of sustainable waste management. We have sympathy with the Bill's aims, but I emphasise that a number of amendments have to be made in Committee if the Bill is to secure the Government's support. On that basis, I am content—perhaps I should say pleased—to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee.
  12.48 pm
  Joan Ruddock: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
  First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have attended today's debate, those who have made such powerful and interesting speeches, those who have sat on their speeches because they want another Bill to be considered today, and all those who have given me support both inside and outside the House.
  I will not take time now to answer the points made. However, I would like to point out that Delleve Plastics is the company that has had to import plastic bottles, so all the hon. Members who mentioned difficulties with plastics should refer to that company.
  I thank all the sponsors of my Bill, especially those seven who contributed to the debate. I am delighted to have had the support of all the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen today——albeit with reservations in some cases.
  In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. I thank him for sharing his passion with us:, we all know it is genuine. I thank him for saying many positive things about the Bill. I look forward to working with him in Committee to deal with the points about which he has reservations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 ( Committal of Bills ).

  Legal Deposit Libraries Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.55 pm
  Mr. Chris Mole: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I want to thank all my right hon. and hon. Friends who are here today. The aim of this Bill is to update and extend the law on legal deposit. The legal deposit libraries of the United Kingdom and Ireland entered the 21st century operating under legislation that was passed in 1911, and which covers printed publications. However, more than 60,000 non-print items were published in the UK last year and it is expected that that figure will increase by four or five times by 2005. Non-commercial publications, including websites, add enormously to the number. At present, there are no systematic or comprehensive arrangements for the collection and preservation of such non-print publications. Without new legislation to ensure that non-print materials are saved for future generations, the 21st century could be seen as a cultural dark age that failed to archive a substantial and vital part of the nation's published heritage.
  I take this opportunity to thank the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the libraries, and the staffs of both, for their advice and hard work during the drafting of the Bill. My interest in legal deposit comes from my background in the information and communications technology industry and in local government. As a researcher for British Telecom, I saw the burgeoning volume of electronic media and the importance of research publications that are available only in that format. As the former leader of a council that was a library authority, I understand the importance of the local and national archives. They form a key part of our heritage.
  The purpose of legal deposit is to ensure that the nation's published output, and thereby its intellectual record and future published heritage, is collected systematically and as comprehensively as possible. We do this to make material available to current researchers in the libraries of the legal deposit system, and to preserve it for the use of future generations of researchers. Both purposes are important. The system dates back several hundred years and has been vital in preserving and making available the published record of previous generations for the researchers of today and of the future.
  What might we be losing? The material at risk includes: major directories, such as the Europe Information directory, which is available on DVD; news sources, including the web-published results of public opinion polls from companies such as MORI; indexes to help researchers to locate material such as the Legal Journals Index; the Cochrane Library, which is arguably the best single source of reliable evidence on the effects of health care and which is available only on CD-ROM and the web; a wide range of important local government and national Government documents, such as the Home Office series of "online only" research reports; and an increasing number of e-journals, such as Sociological Research Online, which is available only on the web.
  578

  The Bill will allow legal deposit libraries to look seriously at archiving selected material from websites. Already, there are nearly 3 million websites in the .uk domain. To be frank, many of them contain trivial and irrelevant material, but we should think about archiving coverage of important events—events such as 9/11, general elections, millennium celebrations, the Queen's golden jubilee and the Commonwealth games. The burgeoning number of observatories that provide quality-of-life statistics for our regions and localities would be a gold mine for those who wish, retrospectively, to understand the nature of our times. All of them contain materials that future generations of researchers will want to access.
  We have already lost an e-novel that was started by John Updike. The project was collaborative and was added to, chapter by chapter, by other authors. We have also lost records of events such as the petrol blockade sites, election sites such as bellforbrentwood, which has either gone or is about to go, and sports websites such as the Euro 96 football championship site in England.
  Although there have been some revisions, the 1911 Act forms the basis of legal deposit as it is enacted today, namely, that publishers must deposit with the British Library within one month of publication a copy of all books published in the UK and Ireland. Five other libraries have the right to claim, within 12 months of publication, copies of the same material. The five other legal deposit libraries are the national library of Scotland, the national library of Wales, university library Cambridge, the Bodleian library Oxford and Trinity college library Dublin.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill does not change the position of those other five libraries as regards printed material, which is the current position, and serves only to extend provision, to a certain extent, of non-printed material?
  Mr. Mole: Throughout the development of the Bill we have sought to ensure that, in practice, the principles of access to materials for readers in Wales and Scotland will continue to be the same as they are now.
  In the mid-1990s, following pressure from the legal deposit libraries and other interested parties, the Government issued a Green Paper on legal deposit and the possibility of its extension to other types of material. A working group chaired by Sir Anthony Kenny concluded in 1998 that only a system of legal deposit would secure a comprehensive published archive. He stated:
  "The Government believes that it is extremely important to ensure that material published in this country is incorporated into our national archive irrespective of the medium used. The arrangements for legal deposit, which are concerned primarily with published material in print form, underpin the nation's academic, research and educational sectors. We intend to ensure that these benefits extend also to material published in formats other than print."

  579
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, responded to the report in a parliamentary answer in December 1998. It ended:
  "I believe the report makes a convincing case for moving towards legislation for the legal deposit of non-print publications on the basis of minimum burden on publishers and minimum loss of sales."—[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 3221, c. 682W.]
  My right hon. Friend requested that, in the meantime, a code of practice for the voluntary deposit of non-print publications should be drawn up and agreed between publishers and the deposit libraries.
  It was under that direction that the joint committee for voluntary deposits, with members representing publishers and deposit libraries, was set up. The JCVD oversees the operation of a draft code developed by it and endorsed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Publishers Association, the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, the Periodical Publishers Association and the legal deposit libraries.
  The voluntary code, in operation since January 2000, covers non-print publications in microform—basically on microfilm, as well as offline electronic media, such as CD—ROMs, DVDs and magnetic discs. To date, more than 100 publishers have signed up to the scheme and more than 1,000 monographs and 850 journals have been archived.
  The purpose of the voluntary system was to plug the growing gap in the national published archive ahead of eventual legislation to introduce the statutory deposit of non-print publications. It was also intended to act as a pilot phase, during which matters of definition, procedure and control could be agreed by the publishers and libraries and any difficulties in implementation monitored.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the then Secretary of State, said in response to the working party:
  "I agree with the report's conclusion that a voluntary code will not be viable in the longer term and I believe the report makes a convincing case for moving towards legislation for the legal deposit of non-print publications."
  The scheme proved useful in assisting in the process of drafting effective and workable legislation. The JCVD arrangements will continue for the collection of film and sound materials.
  Despite the success of the voluntary code of practice between publishers and legal deposit libraries, well over half of electronically delivered publications—the fastest growing group of materials—and about a quarter of hand-held publications, such as CD-ROMs, are not currently deposited. They are typically materials used in long-term research, which are of cultural significance and are a vital part of the nation's published heritage.
  Collecting, storing and preserving that material will present the legal deposit libraries with a major challenge. They are already working with other countries to identify the best ways of preserving electronic materials. New systems are being developed to allow information to be migrated to media that will be used by future generations, permitting materials to be accessed even when their original formats have become
  580
  obsolete. No one expects easy answers, but solutions are evolving. The Bill sets out a framework to enable the Secretary of State to implement secondary legislation in the form of regulations addressing the exact ways in which new media material will be collected. That is necessary to make sure that the legislation remains future-proof—materials published by technologies currently in development and those that have not even been invented yet can, if necessary, be brought within the scope of the legal deposit.
  Mr. Frank Doran: I want to make a practical point, but first I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. I have received a significant amount of lobbying from people in my constituency, where there are two university libraries—Aberdeen university library and the Robert Gordon university library. They are anxious that the Bill should be enacted.
  Clause 2 deals with the issue of new and alternative editions. My practical point concerns, for example, newspapers that are published and sold on the streets in hard copy form and, at the same time, published on a website on the internet. At the moment, the hard copy is required to be sent to the various archives mentioned by my hon. Friend, but the clause would seem to provide publishers with the option of sending either the hard copy or the online copy, which, for some, would be cheaper. At the same time, the provision may not cover issues of importance to future generations. For example, classified ads tell us a lot about what people think—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can make his intervention more succinct. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) has got his drift.
  Mr. Mole: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have got the gist of what my hon. Friend is saying. If two different media in which a publication appears are essentially the same, the clause requires only one version to be deposited, but if there is a substantial difference between the online edition and the print edition, they will be treated as separate publications. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend to understand the intentions behind clause 2.
  I shall skate across the Bill's financial implications, as they are set out in the regulatory impact assessment, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Some publishers have expressed concern about clause 7, which deals with access and preservation. I believe that that is a matter of implementation, so it may be better addressed by the Secretary of State. However, I can reinforce the point that the legislative process involves detailed consultation with all stakeholders prior to the introduction of secondary legislation. Notwithstanding that fact, both the legal deposit libraries and publishers' representatives agree that new legislation is necessary to safeguard the future integrity and completeness of the national published archive. They agree, as do the Government, that new legislation should be generic to ensure that new formats and information carriers are included, by means of secondary legislation, within the legal deposit as they appear.
  In conclusion, the legal deposit libraries provide vital collections for researchers in business and industry, as well as academics and students across the UK.

  581
  However, with the explosion in e-publishing, they face the prospect of becoming irrelevant. Unless we extend the law as many other countries are already doing, valuable material will be lost forever. The Bill provides a timely opportunity to update and extend the law on the legal deposit, and I commend it to the House.
  1.9 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on securing a high place in the private Members' ballot, and more so on choosing to introduce a Bill on such an important and worthwhile issue, which has widespread support in all parts of the House and from a large number of prestigious and prominent bodies in the United Kingdom. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the authoritative way in which he presented his Bill to the House.
  I have received substantial correspondence on the matter, as I am sure have many hon. Members present today, from a wide spectrum of interested parties and groups ranging from the Royal College of Surgeons of England, to the Arts and Humanities Research Board, from the Society of College, National and University Libraries to the National Maritime Museum. A common theme throughout the correspondence was overwhelming support for the Bill for the benefit of researchers, industries and the general public, both now and in the future.
  On a slightly cautionary note, I also received correspondence from the publishers, who are anxious that the Bill may have been too hastily compiled, without adequate consultation with them. However, they were at pains to stress their overall support for the merits of the Bill, but felt strongly that their voice had been overlooked on some issues of huge consequence to their industry. I shall elaborate on their concerns a little later.
  The current system of legal deposits dates back to legislation passed in 1911. The House at that time recognised the importance of archiving all UK publications in the interests of the recognition and prosperity of our national heritage. The original legislation has left us with much to be grateful for, ensuring that even the most seemingly trivial publications are preserved for future use, when their content may provide an essential resource.
  The practice of depositing printed publications to the six legal deposit libraries—the British Library, the university libraries of Oxford and Cambridge, the national libraries of Scotland and Wales, and the library of Trinity college, Dublin—has led to the compilation of an immeasurably useful archive and resource that charts the history and heritage of the United Kingdom. To date, the British Library alone has archived more than 50 million items as a direct result of the Copyright Act 1911.
  Speaking of the British Library, I take this opportunity to say what a great success, if largely unsung and unrecognised, that venture has been. On a recent visit, I was very impressed with the building, its architecture, its facilities and the professional way in which its services were presented. The British Library is
  582
  not, however, just the building or, for that matter, the books and archive material in it. The quality of its services is due to the staff at all levels, and I pay tribute to them all, and in particular those who have worked tirelessly in the joint committee on voluntary deposits and contributed so significantly to the Bill.
  It is important that we act with the same foresight as the Members who approved the original legislation in 1911, to ensure that the modern methods of publishing material are encompassed in the legal deposit legislation. The obvious advantages of publishing in non-print form, as a cost-effective and far-reaching medium, mean that many individuals are choosing to publish their material online in websites and electronic journals, or on non-paper media such as microform, CD-ROM and DVD. That is a reflection of the technological advances of our age, an era that future generations are likely to overlook unless we acknowledge the importance of these new methods of publishing. Just as the original Bill sought to preserve our heritage for the benefit of future generations, we must act to safeguard all modern publications for the same purpose. However, we must proceed with caution and common sense. Although we are all eager to include digital and non-print publications in the national archives and limit the loss of future material, we cannot rush into a matter of such importance without proper and in-depth consultation with all the parties involved.
  Last year, it was estimated that more than 50 per cent. of electronic publications and some 25 per cent. of handheld publications failed to be consigned to any of the six legal deposit libraries. The web has not been systematically archived thus far and much valuable content has already been lost. Examples of materials that are being lost include web editions of the major newspapers, the Cochrane library mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and important e-serials such as the Oxford Economic Forecasting's "Weekly Briefing".
  The most recent figure of 60,000 non-print weekly publications published within the United Kingdom is set to rise sharply in the coming years as individuals come to recognise the benefits of these new methods. In failing to register such items, we are failing to acknowledge elements of our modern culture and potentially harming the progress of future research by denying a new generation of researchers access to a vast archive of information.
  I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the joint committee on voluntary deposits, working alongside the legal deposit libraries in their continuing endeavours to extend the national public archive. Their successes have meant that material that would otherwise have been lost to the libraries has been properly and justly archived. However, online publications and websites are not a part of that undertaking and therefore some 3 million websites in the UK are being overlooked as a result of our outdated legislation. The internet has provided us with an immense archive and source of information that should be acknowledged within the legal deposit system.
  Before we endeavour to include this technology, however, we must assess whether the facilities and safeguards are in place to carry that out. I come now to one of the chief concerns of the publishing industry, as represented to me by the digital content forum, a group established by the Department for Trade and Industry

  583
  and the Publishers Association whose membership comprises a number of eminent bodies within the publishing world, including the British Educational Suppliers Association, the Newspaper Society, the Computing Services and Software Association and the European Publishing Council, to name but a few.
  In our haste to address the omissions within the legal deposit system, we may have overlooked key areas of concern, including the potential for breach of copyright of the highly valuable material deposited with the libraries by the publishers. Those publishers, who incur the cost of consigning their material to the legal deposit libraries, naturally seek a guarantee from the Secretary of State and the Department that adequate measures will be put in place to safeguard their publications from piracy and copyright infringement.
  Furthermore, under clause 6(2)(f), the Government seem to seek to make the publishers liable for the cost of potential IT incompatibility by granting the Secretary of State the power to specify the publishing format, which may not correlate with that of the depositor. Does the Minister accept that that could be a costly and time-consuming burden to place on the publishing industry, and that therefore we should look into the merits of that practice before endorsing it? We must also be aware that it may be necessary to readdress some of the copyright laws and amend them accordingly owing to the unique nature of online publications.
  The legal deposit libraries certainly have the experience to encompass all new material included within the legislation in their deposits. The success of the legal deposit scheme thus far has ensured that the foundations for expanding the scope of the national intellectual archive are already in place. However, while the willingness and co-operation of both sides may already be established, the means for carrying out the expansion may not be readily available.
  The digital content forum was keen to illustrate the experiences of the Dutch national library in implementing a similar scheme where substantial public funding was needed to address the problems that it encountered. The scale of what we are proposing here today may need to be considered in more detail in Committee and perhaps in the other place in order to placate and benefit all those involved.
  It was generally agreed by all those with a vested interest in the legislation that the joint committee on voluntary deposits would be required to continue its effective work or else that a similar body would be set up in its place to oversee the new measures and help to sustain good relations between the industry and the legal deposit libraries. A renewed role and responsibility for such a body is an issue that may also have to be addressed, owing to the technicalities of implementing such a Bill. For example, websites can alter with extraordinary frequency, so will it be the role of that body to decide when a site qualifies as a new publication?
  I am delighted that it has been recognised in the drafting of the Bill, in clause 8(7), that the Secretary of State should be required to consult deposit libraries and publishers before making any new regulations under the Bill. I seek an assurance from the Minister that undue Government intervention will not be imposed on any of the interested parties, which could be enabled under
  584
  clause 7. I have been informed that the promises to publishers on consultations after the Bill's publication were not adhered to. Publishers were promised a consultation period of several months; instead, they got five days. It also seems that the draftsmen have not obviously sought to address the need for a balance of benefit and burden for all parties involved.
  In the interests of the Bill being UK-wide legislation, I understand that the appropriate consultations with the devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have taken place and that all the issues have been adequately discussed and considered. The Bill will further compound the strong relations that previously existed between the British Library and the national libraries of Scotland and Wales through their co-operation in effectively carrying out the necessary application and administration. The outcome of such co-operation ensures that individuals throughout the United Kingdom can benefit from the system of legal deposits.
  I therefore offer the support of the Opposition for the purposes of the Bill in the interests of the continued success of the legal deposit scheme. In an age of increasing numbers of non-print publications, it is vital not to lose sight of the simple objectives of legal deposits in ensuring that all UK published material is archived and preserved for use in the present and in the future. In step with the new opportunities afforded to the publishing world as a result of technological advances, the legislation needs to be updated to reflect a rapidly expanding medium of publishing and to safeguard the preservation of UK publications.
  However, I should like to reflect the concerns of those who have raised objections about the apparent hastiness in drafting the Bill. We have only one opportunity to implement this worthwhile measure, so we must endeavour to do so with caution, due consideration and, above all, proper and full consultation with the groups that will feel the impact of our decisions today.
  We shall be looking to improve the Bill in Committee so as to reflect the concerns expressed by the publishing community. Without its full and unconditional support, such a Bill will probably be unworkable, and we will not be giving the Bill unconditional support in future if those issues have not been properly and satisfactorily addressed. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that he is both aware of those recent difficulties and prepared to address them in due course.
  1.23 pm
  Linda Perham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on his good fortune and his excellent choice of measure to champion.
  I am a chartered librarian who worked in public, workplace and academic libraries for 30 years before my election to this place. I also chair the all-party group on libraries and information management, which was formed in 1998 on the initiative of the Library Association, now reborn as CILIP, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals.
  The clear and sustained support of both the Secretaries of State who have held the post since 1997, and their Arts Ministers, is much appreciated in the library world. I hope that the Minister who is present today is willing to assist the passage of my hon. Friend's

  585
  Bill, which seeks to address a key issue that affects the availability and preservation of material vital to the pool of knowledge world wide.
  I am especially pleased to be speaking on a Bill about libraries. A survey carried out a few years ago discovered that visiting libraries 'was the fifth most popular pastime in the UK, after visiting the pub, eating out, driving for pleasure and eating out at a fast food chain. In 1998 the Prime Minister said:
  "The Library is a platform for self-development, a gateway to knowledge and a catalyst for the imagination".
  The excellent May 2000 report on public libraries by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport said:
  "Libraries are one of the longest-established and most popular and valued public services … the ubiquitous public libraries network is underpinned by the national libraries and archives".
  The Bill would ensure that valuable material is not lost for present and future seekers of information and knowledge just because it is in a non-print format. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has already covered the materials that do not yet require legal deposit; the number of information sources that are being wiped out is staggering.
  The Culture, Media and Sport Committee report to which I referred said that libraries would have to provide both electronic and book material. Almost six years ago, the Government committed themselves to establishing the public library information technology network to promote lifelong learning, public access to knowledge and social inclusion. The people's network project, which has come via the New Opportunities Fund, provides an information and communications technology learning centre that offers access to materials and ICT training opportunities in each of the UK's 4,300 public libraries.
  If we are raising public expectation of access to the world wide web and delivering the means to do that in local libraries, how can we afford to allow so many rich sources of information to disappear, literally into the air, by letting slip the opportunity to preserve non-book material? Our legal deposit libraries must have such material, to ensure that a full range of media are archived and accessible to meet the thirst for knowledge in a changing world.
  Legal deposit in this country—in England, more specifically—will celebrate 500 years of existence in 2010. It started with Sir Thomas Bodley, the scholar, diplomat and alumnus of Oxford university. He devoted himself to re-establishing the university library, which was reopened in 1602 and renamed the Bodleian library in his honour. He negotiated a deal with the Stationers Company to build up the library's collections, and in 1610 the company agreed to send a copy of every new book registered at Stationers Hall to the Bodleian. Although I am an Oxford reject—and a Cambridge and Bristol reject—I have nothing but praise for the Oxford graduate who began the process of preserving material for wider use.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Linda Perham: I am afraid that I do not have time.
  586
  The first Copyright Act was passed in 1709, and further Acts followed in 1801, 1814, 1836 and 1842. The 1814 Act required the deposit of items within a month and the penalty for non-compliance was £5—the equivalent of £200 today—plus the value of the book and all legal costs. However, the Bill would amend the Copyright Act 1911, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, is the latest legislation that covers legal deposit. Meanwhile, the comprehensiveness of our national intellectual archive is becoming seriously deficient.
  Publications deposited in the British Library are preserved for the benefit of future generations. They are added to our national heritage and are available in the library's reading rooms. They are recorded in the British Library public catalogue, which is accessible on the internet, listed in the "British National Bibliography" and used by librarians and information managers, and by the book trade for stock selection. The catalogue is available in print, CD-ROM and online formats and it has a worldwide distribution.
  The British Library is not only a unique resource for scholars but a gateway to the world's knowledge. A great part of its mission is the dissemination of knowledge, and that is dependent on the delivery of electronic services.
  The British Library received more than 5,000 responses to a consultation carried out in 2001, and 85 per cent. of respondents agreed that the library should increase its collections of digital material. One of the priorities decided after the consultation was the creation of an integrated technical system to provide access to printed and digital material. The British public and the wider world need to be able to access the whole spectrum of knowledge, irrespective of its format. The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is well overdue, and we must not lose the chance to extend the range of media that is subject to copyright. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) has decided to update a law introduced by that most reforming and enlightened Government in 1911. My colleagues and I will certainly support him.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) rightly mentioned the significant role of the British Library, and pointed out that it was far more than just a building in the St Pancras area. It is also a large facility in Boston Spa in Yorkshire. I know that because my dad used to drive minibuses full of Sheffield university students there. Its importance is growing, in that it extends the physical reach of the British Library and also underpins much work in the higher education sector.
  In a letter to me, Bob Boucher, vice-chancellor of Sheffield university, said something worth quoting:
  "From a higher education perspective, it is my opinion that strengthening legal deposit is a key step in underpinning our increasingly knowledge-based economy; and that there will be long term benefits for UK competitiveness."
  We need to make people aware of that broader scope. The demands we are making of publishers are being made for the wider benefit of the United Kingdom economy.

  587
  I must thank the British Library officers who not only briefed me on the Bill but allowed me to be distracted by mediaeval illuminated manuscripts. Some of those, interestingly, will be covered by the Bill. One of the best ways of issuing such manuscripts for people to see is via CD-ROM, and the library has some wonderful systems. 1 hope that legal deposit will mean that the work of anyone in the UK who publishes a mediaeval illuminated manuscript will find its way into our legal deposit libraries. The Bill strikes me as an important step involving material from the very old to the very new.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing his proposed measures via regulations. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly said that we should ensure the continuation of the excellent cooperation between publishers and libraries through voluntary agreements. We do not want to place too heavy a burden on publishers. There are some very difficult technical issues: for instance, what defines publication? That is clear enough in the printed world, but not so clear in the non-printed world. I do not think that tidying up such issues could be done in the Bill directly rather than through regulations, given a rapidly changing technology.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that clauses 6 and 8 of a 12-clause Bill provide a regulation-making power, would the regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House or to its negative counterpart?
  Mr. Allan: We will tidy up such issues in Committee—and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the concessions that the Opposition can often screw out of the Government is the changing of a negative to an affirmative resolution. I think I have made it clear that in this instance, as in many involving technical issues, regulations are appropriate regardless of how they are introduced—but I look forward to teasing out the answer to whether an affirmative resolution, a negative resolution, or a "maybe" resolution somewhere in between, is the most appropriate option.
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): In fact, it will be an affirmative resolution.
  Mr. Allan: I thank the Minister for clarifying the matter. We can claim an Opposition success at this early stage.
  I hope we can work with bodies that are already trying to deal with some of these issues. There is a huge amount of expertise out there. Sheffield university tells me that it already has a close relationship with the British Library through a
  "joint Concordat, which fosters collaboration in a range of technical areas and underpins research".
  There is a lot of technical co-operation between university libraries, which are also at the forefront of the process of receiving electronic publications. A vast amount of work, especially scientific work, is already received in that form. Sheffield Hallam university has, in its Adsetts centre, a library specifically designed to cope with either electronic or print media.
  The expertise exists to reconfigure the whole library according to the balance between the two.
  588
  I would also like to refer the hon. Member for Ipswich and the Minister to what is going on in industry. It is interesting that certain bodies are now trying to come up with cross-industry standards, particularly using systems such as extensible markup language—or XML, to use a terrible three-letter acronym—as a way of defining how data can be stored so that it can be retrieved in the future. Companies such as the Boeing corporation, which is designing planes with a far longer lifespan than the programmes used to produce the documentation for them, are having to tackle these issues now, and are trying to come up with open standards.
  One positive spin-off that I hope will come out of the Bill is that if these common standards and interfaces are being advanced for legal deposit purposes, there could well be a beneficial effect on publishers in general, in that it would encourage them to use that standard for their general work and storage, for example, it would make their collections more valuable if they chose to sell on the copyright in the future if it was held in those commonly defined standards. There is, therefore, a huge amount of work in the academic and industrial sectors that can be drawn on. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will receive widespread support for his Bill, and I wish him every success in taking it forward.
  1.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I, too, support the Bill, which, as others have said, updates the 1911 legislation and extends the scope of depositable materials to encompass the new technologies and the online publications and websites that have been referred to. If only 50 per cent. of this kind of material is being deposited on a voluntary basis, we are left with a real difficulty, because it is not always possible to determine now what might be of value to future generations. That is the important distinction between voluntary and compulsory deposit schemes. If we believe in the value of deposit, we have to be prepared to keep the nature of the material to be deposited under constant review. There is no doubting the importance of online publications and websites—they represent a huge part of academic publication—and I am sure that the changing web editions of newspapers will be of value to future generations. They are cultural artefacts—although they may not appear so now—just as the votive tablets found around Greek shrines, or the letters retrieved from Hadrian's wall, were cultural artefacts.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) reminded us that the history of compulsory deposit went several centuries further back than 1911. In a way, it goes back even further. The founder of the very first library, Ashurbanipal of Assyria, appears to have requisitioned tablets from private collections when establishing his library, and when the Ptolemys came to set up their new library at Alexandria—a new city, with no existing booksellers or books—they sent agents to the docks to requisition by compulsion any copies of books that were found on the ships. The books were copied and returned to the ships, or in some cases kept and copied, with the copies being made available to their owners. So there is nothing new about the history of compulsory deposit.
  Several tests should be applied to the Bill. Is its new scope reasonable? Will it be burdensome? How will the material deposited be protected from copying? What are

  589
  the powers of regulation? So far as the scope is concerned, it seems reasonable. The draftsman has done his best to reconcile the style of the statute with the modern world of new technology, although he seems to have copped out slightly on the definition of all this material, which he defines simply as
  "work published in a medium other than print".
  That is perhaps a clever alternative to defining it himself. I certainly regret his use in clause 6 of the Americanised spelling of the word "programme". I think that we could have avoided such spellings in British legislation, and perhaps the Minister could help us with that in Committee.
  Will the legislation be burdensome? A thorough regulatory impact assessment has been deposited in the Library, as the promoter of the Bill has told us. Option 2 seems to detail some quite considerable costs, but goes on to point out that they will be outweighed in the end by the benefits. I am certainly content with that. Will the new material to he deposited be fully protected from abuse? The publishers will want more assurances that original work is to be protected, not least because so many matters are left to regulation, although I am sure that that can be explored further in detail in Committee.
  I am glad that the powers of regulation are future-proofed, because we cannot be sure which even newer technologies we may have to encompass in 30, 40 or 50 years. I am reassured, too, that, as the Minister pointed out, most of the powers would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which affords some protection.
  There has been criticism this week of the haste with which the proposals have been produced, but it might be fair to say that the Bill has been a long time in the making—it was, as I think the promoter said, first proposed some seven years ago. The House has a rare opportunity to update copyright law, which is not a subject that commands priority time. It is remarkable that the Copyright Act 1911 has stood the test of time for so long, but we owe it to the supporters of that Act to ensure that it is kept up to date. I for one find it refreshing that a society that may be on the eve of war can make time to consider its cultural capital and ensure that the processes of cultural transmission are improved rather than weakened. I support the Bill.
  1.41 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall be brief. I, too, support the Bill and welcome its introduction by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole). I do not have 30 years' experience as a librarian, which he hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) has, but I worked for several years in the national library of Wales in Aberystwyth, which is in my constituency. What is more, I worked not with books, but with non-print materials—the electronic media. I am perhaps the only Member here who has dealt with acquiring, cataloguing and archiving those materials, so on that ground too I welcome the Bill.
  It is also right to point out that on 1 April the new National Assembly body for supporting libraries and archives in Wales, CyMAL, will establish itself, again in Aberystwyth, where, of course, we have the college of
  590
  librarianship as was, which is now the school of information studies. We have a real sense of knowledge and expertise, particularly on the technical, information and archiving sides, which I hope and expect to be rolled out to support the Bill and work done with other libraries in the UK, and the British Library in particular.
  I want to make two brief points. First, we will be at risk of suffering a cultural loss if we do not pass the Bill. I shall give an example. If Members want to know my party's current political thinking, they will find nothing in print, not because we do not have any political thinking, before anyone butts in, but because our deliberations and publications are all on the web. Our political organ is Tribancoch.com, and these days it is published only on the web.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: Time does not allow, I am afraid. I want to conclude, and the hon. Gentleman's Bill is up next.
  Wales Watch was the only satirical publication to give an alternative view of Welsh politics—unfortunately, it has just ceased publication—and, again, it was available only on the web, not in the printed media. The Minister, who represents Pontypridd, may not be interested in reading about Plaid Cymru on the web, but I know that he would be interested in the gwlad rugby website, which is the main forum for discussion of Welsh rugby in Wales. Again, it is available only on the web.
  I shall give a final example in this regard. No Welsh language daily newspaper is published in Wales in print—there are only weekly and monthly publications—but the BBC prints a daily Welsh language newspaper on the web, which is called Cymru'r Byd. It appears on the BBC website every day, and is updated every few hours or so.
  As Members all round the House have said, a range of cultural artefacts is about to disappear, but the national library is printing some of them, which is interesting: a library is printing material that will be collected by other libraries. Peter Lord has produced an excellent publication entitled "The Visual Culture of Wales" under the auspices of the centre for Celtic studies. It is published in print, but the CD format is, of course, much bigger and it carries more pictures and allows more exploration, so it is substantially different from the book. It gives a wider view of the visual and cultural history of Wales. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) mentioned, the national library publishes its own visual items—print collections, map collections and pictures—on the "Gathering the Jewels" website.
  Two things arise in connection with the detail, but I will not go into the detail now. We will do so, I hope, in Committee after the Bill receives its Second Reading. The first difficulty we need to explore is technology. The most famous example is the BBC's Domesday book project. Having been collected through schools and colleges—young people throughout the United Kingdom were involved—the material was unable to be read by the new Acorn computers.
  It has taken the BBC years and years to reconstruct the book. It is now available, I understand, but as someone who collected that material I know how easy it is for it to become out of date. We collected computer

  591
  programmes and computer games. I am sure that it is not possible to play those games any more. It is easy to see how we played chess with the Lewis chess men. It is not so easy to see how we played computer games in the mid-1980s or 1990s. That is a key question. Technology and squaring that circle will be important.
  I would like the Bill to place as much emphasis on the expertise of librarians and archivists as possible. We have a possible way forward in the way in which, not the British Library itself, but the other copyright libraries have gone after certain material. They have had to be aware of what is out there in order to collect it. To a certain extent, that was always going to happen with electronic publication. It is the expertise of the archivists and librarians that will identify the publications that are out there and seek to collect them.
  The final point is not a frivolous one; it needs to be said. The most popular publication on the web at the moment is pornography. The most popular searched term is probably Anna Kournikova, babe or something like that. Pornography is collected by the British Library and other libraries. It is a publication. Therefore, collected electronically, it will come within the ambit of the measure.
  We must be aware of that as we debate and discuss the issue in Committee. I will not go down that track now, but we need to be aware of it. I will not mention Mr. Desmond or anyone else at this stage. I say simply that that is a real issue which will face anyone who is collecting electronic media. With those few words, I hope the Bill receives its Second Reading.
  1.47 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on and for securing time for the Bill. I am delighted to be present to offer the Government's support and doubly delighted to hear the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) tell us about the vast collection of pornography in Aberystwyth at the national library of Wales.
  The purpose of the Bill is to provide a framework for the safe keeping of our national intellectual output for future generations. Over the past three years, publishers and deposit libraries have been working collaboratively using the voluntary code of practice to manage the deposit of non-print material. That has enjoyed some success, as we have heard. Recent research shows that, under the voluntary deposit scheme, the British Library receives around three quarters of non-print monographs and up to half of all electronic UK publications. That improvement is due in substantial measure to the good work of publishers and deposit libraries through the joint committee for voluntary deposit, which has performed such a good job in overseeing the operation of the code and solving emerging issues.
  It was always the intention that the voluntary scheme for depositing non-print material would be temporary. The growing non-print publishing industry means that if we do not have powers to provide for deposit of its products in future, we risk losing the opportunity to capture an important part of the national archives. Indeed, there has already been a tangible loss, as we have heard from hon. Members. While the voluntary scheme is a vast improvement on the situation of three
  592
  years ago, it is still not sufficient to safeguard our intellectual heritage. Each day that goes by without a statutory base for the deposit of non-print material sees the loss of published works whose value in the future could be incalculalble. The loss of this material to future research should not be allowed to continue.
  The Bill provides a solution. It will ensure that the nation's published output—both in print and non-print—will be collected and stored for the benefit of present and future generations. The Bill provides for two systems, one for print and one for non-print. I reassure the hon. Member for Ceredigion that the system for print will carry on as before. It is in the area of non-print material that we are seeking to break new ground.
  I fully recognise the expressions of concern from the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who said that we need to proceed carefully and to take full account of the interests of electronic publishers and rights holders. In any future regulations, we would need to get the correct balance between the legitimate needs of the national archive, which can be expected to vary in accordance with different classes of material, and the implications and costs for the businesses of publishers and other stakeholders. I am glad that he made that point.
  The Bill for non-print publications will be generic, and there are good reasons for this. With the possibility of new classes of electronic publications being introduced at any time, the Bill needs to have the flexibility to allow for such changes. Without such flexibility, it is likely that the Bill would be out of date within a very short space of time. However, as I have said, when we make regulations for new classes of publication, we shall do so only after careful and meaningful consultation with publishers and other stakeholders.
  Brian White: One of the key issues is the ability to read that content, so we need to ensure that access mechanisms are retained along with the material.
  Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is right and reiterates a point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I am sure that I wrote several brilliant novels on an old Amstrad that I certainly cannot read now. That is a shame; the world has been denied them. My hon. Friend is right and we must take that into account.
  The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations regarding the type of material deposited, the location of deposit, timing of deposit, the number of deposited items, when items are considered to be duplicates, and the manner in which deposit libraries will provide for the access to, and safeguarding of, legally deposited material. Regulations will be made only after full consultation with the major stakeholders, in particular the publishers and the deposit libraries. That is provided for in clause 8(7).
  The Bill has been prepared with a view to minimising any additional burden that may be placed on deposit libraries and the publishers. It is important that we should not introduce legislation that in any way undermines the commercial viability of publishing operations. Again, that was emphasised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

  593
  With electronic works, the questions of illegal use surfaces more readily. That is why the proposed secure network operating between the legal deposit libraries would be so important. It would enabie the legal deposit libraries to ensure access to legitimate users while managing that access closely and in co-operation.
  When making regulations, the Secretary of State will ensure that the necessary safeguards for accessing legally deposited material are included so that publishers can have full confidence in the security of the system. The issues of intellectual property rights and copyright are the concern of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as are the business implications for publishers and other stakeholders.
  I want to emphasise that the views of the publishing industry, the deposit libraries and any other stakeholders will be sought at every stage. The Bill's provisions also give special regard to the interests of Wales and Scotland. Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly will be consulted on all regulations and will have the right to consent to regulations that seek to restrict their entitlements. The legal deposit system will provide for a comprehensive UK archive to be developed at the British Library, while ensuring that Scotland and Wales are able to add to their own national archives in a manner that will enhance their respective value to researchers for many years to come. The British Library will continue to work closely with the national library of Scotland and the national library of Wales in the spirit of the concordat of devolution.
  In our opinion, this Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich on introducing it, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Mole: I want to do no more than welcome the wide-ranging support from Members on both sides of the House for the importance of the process of legal deposit and the institutions that support it; to observe the valid concerns of publishers—I hope that they will be addressed in Committee, and I am happy to meet publishers to ensure that they are taken on boardS—and to thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today and shared their expertise. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 ( Committal of Bills).

  Government Powers (Limitation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  1.57 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Solicitor-General and, above all, to Her Majesty, to whom I express profuse thanks for providing consent for the introduction of this Bill. I believe that it warrants a Second Reading, and I hope that the House will give it its dutiful and sympathetic consideration today.
  The essential purpose of the Bill is
  "to amend the law in relation to the permitted number of Ministers of the Crown; to limit the powers of Ministers to make certain appointments; to make provision with respect to the parliamentary scrutiny of European Union proposals and other subordinate legislation; and for connected purposes."
  The background to its introduction can be simply stated. The power of modern British Governments has grown, is growing, and according to current trends will continue to grow. There is a widespread anxiety across the political spectrum that the power of Governments should be diminished or constrained, and that the tendency of Ministers to abuse the powers that they currently enjoy has grown to an unacceptable degree.
  I am specifically concerned to refer, in the time available, to a number of important matters in respect of which Government power needs to be circumscribed: first, in respect of the appointment of Ministers; secondly, in respect of the appointment of special advisers; thirdly, in the context of appointments to non-departmental public bodies; fourthly, in relation to appointments to taskforces; and fifthly, in relation to the scrutiny of European Union legislation by the ordinary mechanism of the statutory instrument.
  Let me deal first with the size of the Government. The Bill, which I commend to the House, would impose a limit on the number of Ministers of the Crown. Under the terms of my Bill, that limit would be 82 Ministers, with a maximum of 63 Ministers of State or Under-Secretaries of State. To give context and meaning to our deliberations, it is important to emphasise that the current Government comprise 116 Ministers—34 in excess of my generous limit. I invite the House to consider whether it really believes or supposes that the public are persuaded that a larger Government, more decision making and an increased number of Ministers have made, are making, or will make for better government.
  Norman Baker: Perhaps they at least guarantee a minimum of support for the Prime Minister in the Lobbies.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but dare I say it is of a partisan character that I am not inclined to replicate today? This is a serious, solemn and sober measure that I commend to the House. Of course, today the Prime Minister has relatively few friends and a great many enemies, and although not all his enemies are in the Cabinet, a good many undoubtedly are.

  595
  I want to focus on the wider picture. I genuinely believe that whether a Labour or a Conservative Government are in office, the tendency to the aggrandisement of Government has been very marked for a lengthy period, and that tendency now needs to be decisively arrested and reversed.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Perhaps my hon. Friend will touch in passing on the size of what we in this place call the payroll, which, as he knows, is a device whereby the Government seek to swell their own ranks in the Westminster and Whitehall context. It involves not only Ministers, but Whips, who must not be forgotten, and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who have been much in the news recently and who all seem to be on the point of resignation over Iraq, as well as chauffeur-driven cars, private offices and all the other accoutrements of ministerial office. Will he comment on the pernicious effect of all that on the Parliament-Government relationship?
  Mr. Bercow: I, too, am concerned about that relationship. The essence of that concern is that increasing the size of Government, putting more people on the payroll and constraining the capacity of individual legislators to express their personal opinions deprives the public of the authentic representative and independent-minded House of Commons, which, in a modern democracy, they ought to be able to depend on and enjoy. That is one of the reasons why I want a smaller Government and a greater independent-minded capacity to scrutinise.
  I have talked about the appointment of Ministers and stated my belief that their number should be reduced. I am also extremely concerned about the massive and exponential growth in the number of special advisers, from 38 in the last year of the Conservative Government to no fewer than 81 in 2001. The cost of those special advisers to the taxpayer, who is obliged to finance those arrangements, rose in that period from £1.8 million a year to no less than £4.4 million a year. My Bill is designed to check and constrain that trend.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that all special advisers are redundant. Does he not agree that at least two have been of value? Edmund Burke was special adviser to Rockingham—and was not my hon. Friend special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) when she was Secretary of State for National Heritage?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for his historical exegesis and for reminding the House of the relatively modest contribution that I made to the capacity of Government when John Major was Prime Minister. I did indeed serve as a special adviser. However, the way in which the role of special adviser has developed has been profoundly damaging. I say, without any hesitation or apology to the House, that when I served as a special adviser to the Heritage Secretary and, before that, to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I did not suppose for one moment that I had the right to countermand the professional judgment of members of the permanent civil service. I recognised that my role was to be an additional and alternative
  596
  source of principally political advice to my ministerial boss. It was not for me to interfere in the professional, impartial and politically neutral—but competent—discharge of press relations work. The situation has changed in recent times, but although a code of conduct for special advisers was issued in July 2001, it is still far from satisfactory.
  Norman Baker: 'Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Not at the moment.
  My Bill calls for Select Committee approval of ministerial and special adviser appointments. The whole Jo Moore saga showed the extent to which the Government have been corrupted at their roots by improper and untoward behaviour on the part of people who have not the slightest understanding of, let alone respect for, the traditions of impartiality and neutrality of the professional civil service. I could willingly dilate on that point for several minutes, if not hours, but I sense that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is waiting—with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat upon his brow—to intervene.
  Norman Baker: Not entirely! I wanted to back up the hon. Gentleman and ask whether he agrees that the most pernicious element of the arrangements for special advisers was seen when one of the first things that the Prime Minister did on coming to power in 1997 was to give two special advisers—Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell—executive power over civil servants. Is not such an arrangement simply indefensible?
  Mr. Bercow: It was utterly improper that that should happen, just as it was wholly inappropriate for the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move, That the House do sit in private.
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (motion to sit in private): —
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify whether there is any rule of thumb, standard or precedent for the amount of time that the Chair expects to elapse during a Division before the Chair asks the Serjeant or the Deputy Serjeant to investigate? I understand that last week at an equivalent time on Friday about 16 minutes was allowed to elapse before the Deputy Serjeant appeared in the Lobby. Perhaps you can help us in this matter for now and for the future.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter of common sense that the House wishes to proceed with its business in an orderly way. The normal time for the conduct of a Division is around 12 minutes. On a day when one surmises that relatively few Members are present, it should not take longer than that. The House should proceed on a sensible basis—it should not take longer than 12 minutes for a Division to be completed.
  The House having divided: Ayes 0, Noes 19.

  Division No. 114]

  [2:07 pm

  AYES

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Andrew Dismore and

  Ann Keen

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baker, Norman

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Bercow, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Fallon, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Maclean, rh David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Wiggin, Bill

  Francois, Mark

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Dr. Phyllis Starkey

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.
  Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the legitimate concern of all right hon. and hon. Members about the esteem or lack of it in which the House is held by the wider public, and in light of the fact that this country could be on the brink of a declaration of war, are you aware of any precedent for an hon. Member—in this case, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—seeking to deny the right of another hon. Member to develop the argument in support of a Bill to circumscribe Government powers, through a piece of jocular parliamentary game playing?
  598
  I seek your guidance on that important matter, the more so, I must add in parenthesis, in light of the fact that my mother has the singular misfortune to be the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
  Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter is worse than my hon. Friend has described. I am sure that I witnessed Government Whips seeking to prevent or dissuade Government Members from entering the Lobbies, a matter which surely must be proven beyond doubt by the fact that although the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) sought to exclude the public from our deliberations through his spurious motion a moment ago, you have declared that there were no votes in favour of his motion, not even his own. On the basis of what Government Back Benchers, in collusion with Whips and indeed Ministers, have just done in this House of Commons, surely the House is left hovering on the edge of disrepute. Is there nothing that can be done to prevent this sort of abuse?
  Mr. Dismore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can probably deal with this.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will not expect me to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every event that has occurred in the Chamber and in the Division Lobbies in past years, but I think that I can safely say that what has happened is not without precedent. With regard to what may happen outside the Chamber in terms of persuading right hon. and hon. Members whether and how to vote, there has been a multitude of precedents for such encouragement. We should now proceed.

  Sex Discrimination in Private Clubs Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.27 pm
  Mr. Chris Mole rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) to speak on his behalf?
  Mr. Mole: I was about to say that, with the leave of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), I beg to move that—
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you, and I certainly do not want to test your legendary stoicism and patience, but is it proper practice for a Bill's promoter not only to be absent but to have arranged for another hon. Member to speak on his behalf, and to fail to apologise for, still less to explain, that absence? This is an extraordinary abuse of parliamentary procedure.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A moment ago, you referred to precedent and practice in the Chamber. I think that you will agree that I am a pretty assiduous attender on Fridays in particular, although I like to think that I am an assiduous attender on every sitting day of the House, but I cannot myself remember the last occasion on which an hon. Member with a Bill on the Order Paper on a day such as this, that Bill having been manoeuvred into place by that hon. Member's colleagues, apparently casually failed to be here and did the House the dishonour and disrespect of passing the buck to one of his colleagues who is here in his place. Is there nothing that can be done to defend standards in this House of Commons? What on earth is going on these days when hon. Members are apparently so casual in their attitude to their responsibilities?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly not without precedent. Indeed, it could even be said to be quite a regular occurrence that an hon. Member asks another hon. Member to move a Bill on his behalf. That is not unknown. On this occasion, I understand that Mr. Speaker was notified in advance. As to any special circumstances applying on this particular day because of other procedures followed by hon. Members, I cannot say whether that adds to or subtracts from the occasion, but it is not unknown for one hon. Member to speak in place of another.
  Mr. Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your ruling, I am concerned about the propriety, in the widest sense, of the procedures of this House and the proper observation of etiquette. May I trouble you to advise the House whether, in terms of conformity with the usual courtesies, it is acceptable for a substitute Member to request a Second Reading for a Bill without any explanation of, let alone apology for, the absence of the promoter?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not give the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) the chance to make any such remarks, as he may have been disposed to do.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 4 April.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    FOOD LABELLING BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

    CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 21 March.

  Ciproxin
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  2.31 pm
  Sandra Gidley: I welcome the chance to put before the Minister my concerns about a clinical trial that took place in 1993 and 1994 in Southampton general hospital and other hospitals throughout the country. While some may think that there is no advantage in raking up history, some serious questions about the trial remain unanswered. Those questions are not only about the actions of Southampton general hospital, but cover wider aspects of the nature of clinical trials and how the safety of the public is safeguarded.
  I was first alerted to this issue by a constituent, Dr. Steven Karran, who was at one time a member of the ethics committee at Southampton general hospital. At that time, I did what most constituency MPs would have done and wrote a number of letters about the subject. What then concerned me was that my letters to Bayer, the drug company, were not satisfactorily answered. A similar situation arose with regard to my letters to the Medicines Control Agency. Finally, when I asked the medical director at Southampton general hospital for an appointment to discuss the issue, I was passed from pillar to post, and to this day, that discussion has not taken place.
  I should like to stress that that is highly unusual. In all other matters, staff at the hospital have been unfailingly helpful and they are usually only too willing to discuss whatever concerns I may have. Needless to say, I smelt a rat. Hence, I requested today's debate in the hope that the Minister would be able to obtain satisfactory answers where I have so far failed and that he would not be fobbed off as I have been.
  I need to set this story in context, as some of the events leading up to the clinical trial in question are of great significance. I shall use the term "Ciproxin" to describe the drug throughout this debate. That is the easier-to-say brand name of a drug called ciprofloxacin, which is an antibiotic with a wide variety of uses. The drug is made by a company called Bayer.
  The story starts in 1987. At that time, the ethics committees in Wessex were informed by Bayer that the Medicines Control Agency had issued a licence commonly known as a CTX for a 300-patient study of antibiotic protection in patients undergoing gall bladder surgery. The drug used was Ciproxin. The trial took place because Bayer was aware of something called the Flowerdew studies on a related drug, which had indicated a much higher than expected number of post-operative infections. It had also been shown that the blood levels of the drug were lower than expected, and that was thought to be the case because the drug had been administered at the same time as other pre-meds—drugs that are given in advance of a surgical procedure involving anaesthetics.
  The drug company wanted to find out what effects the pre-meds had, so the licence that was issued was conditional on Ciproxin being given 60 minutes before the administration of any of the other commonly administered drugs that are routinely given on that basis.
  602
  The interval of an hour was determined on the basis of studies of Ciproxin in the blood. The drug was administered and blood samples were taken to establish the length of time it took before the drug levels in the blood were high enough to take effect. Delaying the administration of the pre-med for an hour meant that the drug had a chance to reach a level at which it was clinically effective. That is not the case when the drugs are administered together. Giving various drugs at different times before an operation affects the demands made of staff on a busy surgical ward. If all the drugs cannot be administered at the same time, the work load doubles.
  The clinical studies showed that, when given well in advance of any other pre-med, orally administered Ciproxin can provide good protection from serious post-operative infections. Bayer published those results in 1989, and staff at Southampton and Glasgow were well aware of the results.
  Now we reach the interesting part. In 1992, Bayer submitted a detailed protocol to the MCA to study the use of orally administered Ciproxin to prevent serious post-operative infections caused by elective or planned large bowel surgery. The septic risk of such surgery is five times greater than that in the previous study.
  Professor McArdle, who is based in Glasgow and had been involved in the earlier research, wrote and designed the study. Bayer was also involved. There is no evidence of new studies that show the earlier study to be flawed. No evidence shows that the pre-med problem was anything but real. Yet the new study, which Bayer largely funded and supervised, ignored the known premed problem.
  If the MCA was doing its job properly, it should have known about the pre-med problem. I have written to the organisation and its letter to me is a masterpiece of obfuscation. It claims that it was not allowed to provide information because it was given in confidence. We are considering a matter of public safety and interest, but we cannot find the answers or have proof of the study's findings.
  I want to ask the Minister some crucial questions. Did the MCA grant a licence to Bayer in 1992 to undertake extensive clinical trials in elective large bowel surgery, using orally administered Ciproxin tablets to prevent post-operative infection? Did Bayer declare in its licence application the problem caused by the simultaneous application of other pre-med drugs? Bayer identified that problem in 1986, and it led the company to conduct a trial in which the antibiotic was administered before other pre-med drugs. Will the Minister undertake to let me see the application so that any shred of doubt about the trial can be laid to rest?
  I am not sure who constitutes the villain of the piece. Is it Bayer through acting fraudulently? Is it the MCA, which made a mistake by letting the trial go ahead? Was somebody not on top of the job, and unaware of an earlier trial? I am not sure who is covering up for whom. Despite all the known doubts, the MCA issued a CTX to Bayer, granting it permission to undertake clinical research in 850 patients. That means that 850 patients will be put at greatly increased risk of contracting a severe post-operative infection.

  603
  There is some dispute. I have a sworn statement from Dr. Karran, who says that he has seen evidence that 46 per cent. of the 60 Southampton patients in the trial were adversely affected and contracted post-operative infections. However, in a letter to me, Bayer claimed:
  "The results of the study as a whole also indicate that the rates of post-operative infections were similar between patients receiving ciprofloxacin … and those receiving the other, commonly used antibiotic combination. The rate of early post-operative wound infection, the primary goal of this treatment, were low and equivalent in both treatment groups."
  I have not seen Dr. Karran's proof, but I am acutely aware that Bayer has been selective with its language in its letter to me. It cites only early post-operative wound infection. Clearly, other sorts of infection are associated with bowel surgery, but they have been specifically ignored. I also find it especially worrying that Bayer has not released the results of the research. Why not?
  Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a pharmacist. I was regularly inundated with drug representatives' glossy literature, which selectively quoted bits and pieces of the latest research that showed their product in a marginally better light than its competitors. This job can make one cynical, but I suspect that if the results of the trial had shown Ciproxin to good advantage, the research would have been published.
  That raises another fundamental question that has a significant impact on public safety. Should the onus not be on drug companies to publish the results of any clinical trial, so that the information is in the public domain and can inform the wider debate? The answer that is always given is "commercial sensitivity". I understand the need for that in the short term, but the argument does not stand up in regard to the longer term. What price do we actually put on patients' safety?
  Dr. Karran was on the ethics committee at Southampton hospital when the 1992 proposal was presented to the hospital in October 1993. He had been involved in the previous trial, and was therefore well acquainted with the potential problems of the proposed trial. Once aware of those problems, the ethics committee rejected the original protocol.
  In an attempt to be helpful, Dr. Karran said he would be happy to support the trial if the Ciproxin was given separately from the other drugs. The professor in charge of the trial told the committee that the Southampton amendment would be followed by him and his research team. The study was therefore approved on the amended basis only. Bayer failed to act until June 1994. At that stage it admitted the existence of a potential problem, and informed all ethics committees of hospitals taking part in the trial except the one at Southampton. Why did it wait so long?
  It may be asked why there was a problem if the protocol had been rejected. Unfortunately, in November 1994 Dr. Karran realised that the trial was going ahead under the rejected protocol of 1992 rather than the revised protocol of 1994. That was particularly serious because at the time most patients at Southampton received at least one of the pre-med drugs known to cause problems. A leaflet issued to patients undergoing the trial told them that they would be well protected against all post-operative infection—not just
  604
  the wound infection that Bayer mentioned. Bayer denied that, but I have seen a copy of the letter given to patients. It says
  "Either way you will receive medication with an active substance so that you are well protected against any post-operative infections".
  Bayer also claims that it has a letter from the Southampton ethics committee giving approval for the original trial.
  This is where it all starts to get a bit murky. Dr. Woodcock, who was secretary of the ethics committee at the time, wrote to the professor in charge of the trial at Southampton saying that the trial could go ahead subject to the necessary amendments. The professor wrote a letter in reply, parts of which were read out at an ethics committee meeting. Dr. Karran was under the clear impression that Bayer was happy to go along with the amendment. No one saw anything in writing at the time, but the decision was minuted.
  It is alleged that Bayer contacted the professor in charge of the trial saying that it did not want to change the protocol, and could not proceed until the objections were released. Indeed, it is said that Bayer refused to supply the drugs until that was done. There is obviously a financial aspect, but I will be honest and say that it is not my major concern and I do not know what payments have been made and to whom. Anyway, the unamended trial went ahead somehow. Dr. Karran found out about it by chance in November 1994. The patients involved in the trial had all been informed in writing that the protocol had been approved by the Southampton ethics committee, which clearly was not true: the protocol used was the one that had been rejected.
  That constitutes a major violation of the declaration of Helsinki—the European code of good practice. The first basic principle states
  "Biomedical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles and should be based on adequately performed laboratory and animal experimentation and on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature."
  That clearly did not happen in this case. The fifth principle states
  "Every biomedical research project involving human subjects should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others. Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society."
  Clearly that principle was not followed either.
  Bayer withheld critical safety information. It successfully deceived all other ethics committees in the UK and the Netherlands, as well as a number of physicians, nurses and pharmacists. Why did it all happen? It is often useful to consider motivation when trying to get to the bottom of a problem. Bayer's motivation is clear. Antibiotic cover for surgery was usually given by injection, which was costly and time-consuming. If the injection could be replaced by a tablet that was easy to administer, there would be a comparatively simple and cheap alternative—and the Minister knows as well as anyone the financial pressures on the NHS and our hospitals. There was huge sales potential if a licence could be obtained for oral use of the drug for routine prophylaxis. Hence the trial.
  Unfortunately, the drug's potential was spoilt because it could not be given at the same time as other pre-med drugs, and the inconvenience to staff presented

  605
  a major hurdle. There was, therefore, a huge incentive to try to establish a trial during which the administration of the drugs was not separated. Unfortunately, commerce appeared to win over ethics, with a drive to operate the trial in the manner that Bayer wanted rather than in the manner that the Southampton ethics committee had recommended.
  The motivation of the senior medical personnel at the hospital at that time is less than clear. Medical trials are usually expensive and bring a certain amount of kudos, although, as I have said, I have not looked at that aspect of the case in depth. The motivation of my constituent, Dr. Karran, is clear. I have now known him for nearly three years, and his story has not wavered in a single detail. Quite simply, he wants the record put straight. The motivation of the senior management of the hospital is also unclear, but this appears to be one of those occasions on which serious doubts were raised by Dr. Karran, but not properly investigated. There has been an internal inquiry, but no one has really come forward. It is unclear whether the problems were financial, or whether there was a closing of ranks among a group of high-level staff.
  So far as my motivation is concerned, I was originally helping a constituent, but, as time went on, I became intrigued by the lack of co-operation from some agencies and the lack of information coming from the Medicines Control Agency; there was an almost complete wall of silence. I then realised that the case could have wider implications, and that lessons could be learned that would be applicable to the many other clinical trials taking place at the moment. The MCA's behaviour in this matter does not inspire consumer confidence. The agency should protect the public from fraudulent and potentially misleading information, but it has clearly failed to do so in this case. Whether that was through incompetence or by deliberate intent is unclear. The public audit trail is non-existent, so it is almost impossible to get to the bottom of this matter. Do not the public deserve better?
  I am also concerned about the actions of Bayer. As I said earlier, I believe that, in the interests of public safety, details of all clinical trials should be in the public domain. The current position is that the MCA has investigated its files but has repeatedly refused to disclose the relevant information, citing confidentiality and the code, although it has intimated in writing that the information provided by Bayer and McArdle in 1992 for the colorectal CTX was incomplete. We know that a licence was issued by the MCA, but one critical question remains unanswered. When making that application, did Bayer declare the problem caused by the simultaneous administration of other drugs used for the pre-operative preparation of patients? Does the Minister agree that, if Bayer did not declare the problem, its action was fraudulent and that some sanction should be taken against the company? If the problem was declared, will the Minister undertake to provide me with a satisfactory explanation as to why the MCA allowed the trial to go ahead, knowing the risk to the public? Who made that decision, and how could that person justify putting the lives of up to 800 patients at risk?
  2.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing this important debate. The allegations about the Ciproxin trial at Southampton general hospital that we have heard today have, as she knows, been the subject of previous—and ongoing—investigations. She will understand that, for that reason, it would be inappropriate for a Minister to comment substantially on the case. I understand that Lord Hunt also declined to comment on the case in responding to a letter from the hon. Lady in May 2001.
  The case has now gone on for some considerable time—since the beginning of the last decade, in fact—and to comment might prejudice any current or future proceedings. I also understand from correspondence that some of the issues raised in this debate have previously been investigated by the police, the General Medical Council, the Southampton university hospitals trust and, of course, the Medicines Control Agency. Because those organisations are best suited to judging the scientific and ethical issues raised by the hon. Lady, I am not prepared to say any more about the Ciproxin trial. However, an important question that arises from this debate is whether patients volunteering for clinical trials are adequately protected by the procedures and guidance that is currently in place.
  I respect the integrity and sincerity with which the hon. Lady put her argument, but she will understand that the matter involves a considerable history.
  Sandra Gidley: I am aware that there have been investigations, but the problem is that the results are not in the public domain, so how can any member of the public be satisfied that due procedures were followed and that there was nothing fraudulent about the trial? I would be happy if someone showed me the information and said, "Here it is, Sandra. Go away and don't bother us any more." That has not happened, and we have come up against a brick wall.
  Mr. Lammy: What I will say is that I will attempt, within the law and within the practice of the House, to answer some specific questions as far as I can, although I remind the hon. Lady that I am treading lightly because this is extremely delicate ground.
  First, what are the outcomes of the various investigations? Information on the police and GMC investigations has not been made public, and the hon. Lady is right when she says that. Southampton university hospitals trust has completed a thorough investigation and concluded that there is no evidence to support the substantive allegations made by Mr. Karran on the Ciproxin trial. Professor John Primrose is a senior consultant who was involved in the trial. There was a minor breach of research protocol, which was raised with Professor Primrose, but no further action was required.
  Sandra Gidley: Can the Minister say what the minor breach of research protocol is? If the breach is the fact that the wrong trial went ahead, I would not regard it as minor.
  Mr. Lammy: I can undertake to ask officials and lawyers within the Department, after the debate, to take

  607
  a close look at some of the issues raised. I may be able to elucidate in a letter to the hon. Lady, but I must tread lightly on what is established precedent.
  The MCA reviewed its records in April 2001, finding that the information that Mr. Karran alleges was deliberately withheld had been provided in another context. The agency concluded that there was no intention to mislead and that no further action was necessary. Mr. Karran has been informed of that on several occasions.
  The hon. Lady will also know that, within administrative law and other areas, such decisions can be subject to judicial review and other matters, so remedies are available should Mr. Karran take issue with the conclusions that people have reached. However, I am not sure, on some of those issues, that the House is the right place to conduct, as it were, a forensic retrial or that a Minister in the Department should be involved.
  The hon. Lady asks why the MCA has refused to disclose information on the clinical trials of Ciproxin to Mr. Karran. I say in response that the MCA has complied with the code of practice on access to Government information and has advised Mr. Karran of the relevant exemptions. The code provides for an internal review if individuals are dissatisfied with the agency's decisions. In addition, recourse is available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who may decide to investigate complaints that information has been unreasonably withheld under the code. So, it may be that avenues could be pursued, but that is as far as I can go on this occasion on those issues, which have continued for some considerable time.
  I return to what is an important issue: patient safety in clinical trials of this nature. The United Kingdom has long been regarded as a good place to conduct research. It is right that I put that on the record. A number of factors, such as the presence of highly motivated and educated investigators, a strong academic base, a comprehensive health service committed to research and development, well organised and funded medical research organisations and strong networks of general practitioners, have historically resulted in an efficient infrastructure for the conduct of clinical research. Many facets of that infrastructure provide protection for clinical trial volunteers. That protection has been reinforced in a number of ways since the Ciproxin trial.
  The Government want to ensure that volunteers who participate in clinical trials are safeguarded to avoid any unnecessary hazards. In the United Kingdom, there are a number of safeguards in the present regulatory system, which I will describe in turn.
  Sandra Gidley: Does the Minister think that the 46 per cent. of patients who suffered post-operative infections in the trial were safeguarded?
  Mr. Lammy: I have said that I am not going to be pressed on the specifics. We have various agencies that are well placed to look into these matters. There have been a number of investigations. The nature of any such trial is, of course, a delicate and difficult matter. What I
  608
  cannot do today is unpick an individual trial on an individual occasion. The hon. Lady knows that a number of trials take place every year with varying results.
  The current system of regulation under the Medicines Act 1968 requires that anyone who wishes to test a medicine in a clinical trial must obtain a clinical trial certificate or an exemption from holding a CTC. Most trials in the UK are conducted under one or other of those exemption schemes. The MCA receives applications from companies to supply about 250 different medicines for clinical trials each year. It authorises about 800 commercial clinical trials and 1,000 non-commercial clinical trials. Studies in healthy volunteers are self-regulated under guidance from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Royal College of Physicians, but are expected to be regulated under the EU clinical trials directive, which I would like to mention later.
  The application to the MCA must provide information on the medicine to be used, any non-clinical tests of safety, any previous clinical trials or results, or other clinical information about the medicine. The MCA's professional assessors subject any application to a robust scientific evaluation.
  Sandra Gidley: The Minister has just pointed out, rightly, that people applying for a trial must submit details of known problems. He said earlier that that clearly was not done in the Bayer case. Why is there not some sanction against drug companies that behave in that way?
  Mr. Lammy: I have outlined that there is a code of conduct. There is a number of avenues. Of course, the ultimate sanction is the law and our legal courts, inquiry by the police, as happened in this case, inquiry by the individual trust, as happened in this case, and inquiry by the MCA itself, as happened in this case. I realise that the hon. Lady raises these issues with integrity and because she believes that there are facts that need to be penetrated further. As she may know, I used to be a lawyer, but even so I cannot conduct a trial from this Dispatch Box. I am limited in how far I can go in this chain of inquiry—a chain that has gone on, I believe, for some nine years.
  If the hon. Lady has questions other than those that were raised on previous occasions, she can raise them with my Department. Our officials and legal advisers will look into the matter and we will attempt to do what we can. However, once there has been an investigation by the various agencies, there comes a time, I am afraid, when the matter has to rest—other than judicial review or some other process that she may be aware of, but which does not occur to me on this occasion. This matter has been looked into, and the integrity of Parliament's intention to protect patients—
  The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many lottery awards there were to organisations in the City of York constituency in each year since 1997; and what the average number of awards per constituency was in each year. [102648]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the National Lottery Awards Database, which is based upon the information provided by the Lottery distributers, the total number of Lottery awards made to the City of York, and the average number of awards per constituency made each year since 1997 is set out in the table:

  Calendar year

  City of York constituency

  Average number of awards per constituency

  1997

  27

  21.3

  1998

  16

  13

  1999

  31

  30.5

  2000

  37

  36.8

  2001

  48

  30.2

  2002

  32

  37.1

  >Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the administrative costs of each regional cultural consortium were in each year since 1999–2000. [102682]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information required is in the table.

  Regional cultural consortium

  1999–20001

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–032

  Eastern

  388

  26,358

  31,621

  37,884

  East

  Midlands

  857

  34,366

  15,927

  18,063

  North East

  1,355

  41,855

  32,415

  36,614

  North

  West

  230

  21,995

  42,890

  36,503

  South East

  968

  20,229

  36,929

  40,915

  South West

  4,823

  33,609

  22,043

  34,061

  West

  Midlands

  1,613

  31,089

  6,097

  29,457

  Yorkshire

  829

  29,800

  17,326

  38,344

  1 The Regional Cultural Consortiums were established in October 1999

  2 Expenditure calculated to 31 December 2002

  The Consortiums have also received support from staff based within the Government Offices in the regions.
  430W
  The Regional Development Agencies and the various regional cultural agencies have all been encouraged to help with funding and other means of support.

  The Consortiums use their resources to promote joint working by regional partners and to implement the Regional Cultural Strategies so that cultural and sporting interests make a significant contribution to economic development, regeneration and social inclusion in each region.

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy that adoption of a code of practice on ethical trading on the lines of that developed for the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games should be a necessary precondition for Government endorsements of any bid to stage a major sporting event; and if she will make a statement. [101918]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government will make a clear assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting the biggest (mega) events such as the Olympic Games and Football's World cup prior to bidding.

  It is not policy to adopt a code of practice for ethical trading as a precondition to bid to stage a mega event. However any organisation set up to bid for or stage a mega event will be expected to follow the good practice learned from previous events such as the staging of the Commonwealth Games 2002.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the savings will be made in the Ministry of Defence's budget to fund the new aircraft carriers; and if he will make a statement. [102613]

  Mr. Ingram
  The new aircraft carriers have been an integral part of the Ministry of Defence's future spending plans since the Strategic Defence Review. There is thus no requirement to find any savings to accommodate this longstanding key capability.

  Cluster Bombs
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cluster bombs are stockpiled by the Ministry of Defence, broken down by type. [102358]

  Mr. Ingram
  Stockholdings of cluster bombs are held at an authorised war reserve stock figure. Details of the precise numbers of weapons could provide a potential adversary with information that could undermine our defence capabilities. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which types of cluster munitions the UK armed forces possess. [102359]
  431W
  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom armed forces possess the following types of cluster munitions; the multiple lunch rocket system (MLRS), Shell 155 mm HE L20A1 extended range bomblet shell (ERBS), Shell 155 mm HE M483A1 and the BL755.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use by the RAF of cluster munitions. [102360]

  Mr. Ingram
  Cluster bombs are one of a range of weapons systems available to the RAF, and are a legal weapon that fulfils a legitimate military role that cannot be performed by other means. Where the RAF has used cluster bombs, it has done so in a manner that is fully consistent with our obligations under international law.

  Crisis Management
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medium-term plans there are to give the EU military staff a planning capability for crisis-management operations; and if he will make a statement. [102677]

  Mr. Hoon
  European Union member states agreed at Nice in 2000 that the EU Military staff would carry out strategic planning tasks, including"military aspects of strategic advance planning"

  for crisis management operations. This covers high-level consideration of options to support political/military decision-making, including particularly planning activities up to the point when the EU approves a military option. As part of the assured access to NATO planning capabilities agreed last year, the EU may call on NATO planning support for these activities.

  More detailed operational planning is not in the terms of reference of the EU Military staff. It was agreed at Nice that NATO's planning bodies will carry out operational planning for EU-led operations with recourse to NATO assets and capabilities. Operational planning for other operations would be carried out in existing European national and multinational headquarters, such as our own Permanent Joint Headquarters.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether geographic limits will be set to politico-military action by the EU for crisis-management purposes; and if he will make a statement. [102788]

  Mr. Hoon
  Currently there are no geographical limits set for crisis management operations which the European Union might conduct as part of the European Security and Defence Policy, although in practice distance would be one of a large number of factors which would determine whether or not an operation could be undertaken. I do not expect this to change.

  Cruise Missiles
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what authority the UK Government have given the US Government to load cruise missiles on to B-52 bombers at RAF Gloucestershire; and for what purpose. [102419]
  432W
  Mr. Hoon
  The use by United States Visiting Forces of United Kingdom bases is a matter for joint decision by HM Government and the US Government at the appropriate time. The deployment of the B-52s to RAF Fairford was part of our continuing contingency preparations and did not represent a decision to take military action.

  I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Equipment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by company, the outstanding value of offset obligations imposed and accepted in respect of defence equipment supplied from overseas to the UK. [102077]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding details of Industrial Participation (offset) obligations by company in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The total value of extant IP obligations is £5.4 billion of which £2.3 billion remains to be completed.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of privatising the Defence Export Services Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [102579]

  Mr. Ingram
  The future of the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) was considered as part of the Strategic Defence Review in 1998. At that time a number of options were assessed, including privatisation, but it was concluded that the value of DESO support for defence exports stem from its being an integrated part of MOD and, hence, Government.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on releasing information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to unpublished papers concerning the Scott Report and Mr. Gerald James. [100713]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]: It is Ministry of Defence policy to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 once it enters into force. Requests for personal data will continue to be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, as amended by the Freedom of Information Act.

  EU Military Capabilities
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on progress with implementing the Headline Goal to give the European Union the means of carrying out the full range of Petersberg missions; and if he will make a statement; [102674]

  (2) what measures are planned to overcome the budgetary problems affecting achievement of the Helsinki goals; and if he will make a statement; [102678]
  433W
  (3) what assessment has been made of shortfalls in the military capabilities of the EU member states; what assessment he has made of the prospects for overcoming them; and if he will make a statement. [102675]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Helsinki Headline Goal has been broken down into 144 capability targets, of which 104 had been met following the Capabilities Improvement Conference in November 2001. Of the 40 shortfalls about half may be resolved by improved management of existing forces. For the rest, a European Capability Action Plan (ECAP) was launched after the conference, comprising multinational panels tasked with suggesting possible solutions.

  Steady progress has been made with implementing ECAP. The panels are in the process of issuing their final reports. Panel suggestions will be taken forward by Member States on a voluntary basis, with steps being taken to establish "Project Groups" to take these solutions forward. Decisions on defence budgets and priorities within them are matters for individual member states.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken to incorporate the fight against international terrorism within the range of European Security and Defence Policy missions; and if he will make a statement. [102672]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) seeks to enable the European Union to deal with the full range of conflict prevention and crisis management missions defined in the Treaty, the "Petersberg Tasks". These missions (humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking) already give ESDP considerable scope to assist in the fight against international terrorism. Further work was commissioned, building on the Declaration of the Seville European Council concerning the contribution of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, including ESDP, in the fight against terrorism. This includes strengthening arrangements for sharing intelligence, and developing common threat evaluations. We are also supporting, in the framework of the Convention on the Future of Europe and elsewhere, proposals to allow a member state to call on the resources, including military, of other EU members, for civil protection tasks, following a terrorist attack.

  Iraq
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many extra body bags his Department has ordered as part of contingency planning for any war against Iraq; how many his Department holds in stock; and if he will make a statement. [101920]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department undertakes routine purchasing of body bags to maintain stock levels. The most recent order, to replenish stocks and provide for contingency requirements, was for a total of 4,040 bags. Deliveries have commenced.

  The Ministry of Defence does not hold a centralised data on the holding of body bags, most of which are held at unit level, with a reserve held by the Defence Storage Distribution Agency and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  434W
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received a copy of the pages of the Riegle report published by the US Senate on 25 May 1994, which lists the materials exported to Iraq which could contribute to a biological warfare programme; and if he will seek to establish from the USA what threat these materials provide to troops engaged in warfare with Iraq. [101400]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The Ministry of Defence is aware of the Riegle report. We remain concerned that Iraq continues with efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, as set out in the dossier "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction" published by the Government last September.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received about the amount of(a) bacillus anthracis, (b) clostridium botulinum, (c) histoplasma capsulatum, (d) brucella melitensis and (e) clostridium perfingens which have been exported from the USA to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [101401]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: We share information with allies and believe we have a good understanding of the potential threat that may derive from the biological materials, knowledge and technology known to be available to Iraq.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the consequences will be for troops operating in the Iraq area of the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission's possession of(a) E-coli, (b) genetic materials and (c) human and bacterial DNA. [101402]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The United Kingdom believes that the possession by Iraq of E-coli, genetic materials or human and bacterial DNA poses less of a hazard than their continuing efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, as set out in the dossier "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction" published by the Government last September.

  Jaguar Aircraft
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jaguar combat aircraft(a) have been produced under licence in India and (b) are contracted to be produced under licence in India. [102045]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemptions lb, 3 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that relate to information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs, to commercial confidences of a third party, and to information given in confidence.

  Mines
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government has taken to ensure that contracts for overseas work awarded by the US to(a) British private military companies and (b) UK-based subsidiaries of US companies do not include the handling, storage and maintenance of anti-personnel mine stockpiles. [101296]
  435W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Landmines Act 1998 prohibits certain conduct, including using or possessing an antipersonnel mine, or participating in the acquisition or transfer of an anti-personnel mine, or assisting, encouraging or inducing such conduct. These offences apply to conduct in the United Kingdom and to conduct by United Kingdom nationals elsewhere. Any indication of illegal activity would be a matter for the law enforcement agencies.

  Ministerial Directions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library ministerial directions issued by his Department since 1997. [98816]

  Mr. Hoon
  Yes.

  Ordnance
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much ordnance was disposed of in the UK in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; [98298]

  (2) what procedure is used by the MOD to dispose of old ordnance; and where it is disposed of. [98297]

  Mr. Ingram
  Out of shelf life ordnance, or that for which no market can be found, is destroyed by the Ministry of Defence under a contract with QinetiQ. Any base materials (i.e. brass cartridge cases) are sold for recycling.

  Disposal by sale of surplus ordnance is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency (DSA). That which is not sold overseas on a Government to Government basis (or gifted to Jordan under the Al Hussein Project) is disposed of within the United Kingdom or overseas by sale to properly licensed concerns through DSA's Marketing Agreement with Royal Ordnance PLC (now BAE systems).

  Ordnance destroyed is as follows:

  2000:

  17,265,342 round of small arms ammunition .22 to 30mm, grenades and mortar bombs.

  102,156 rounds of large calibre e.g. 105mm to 155mm, 4.5 inch ammunition.

  159,995 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Arisings.

  2001:

  5,470,802 rounds of small arms ammunition .22 to 30mm, grenades and mortar bombs.

  60,978 rounds of large calibre e.g. 105mm to 155mm, 4.5 inch ammunition.

  392,930 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Arisings.

  2002:

  1,212,124 rounds of small arms ammunition .22 to 30mm, grenades and mortar bombs.

  241,861 rounds of large calibre e.g. 105mm to 155mm, 4.5 inch ammunition.

  127,851 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Arisings.

  436W
  The quantities of ordnance sold via Royal Ordnance PLC are as follows:

  2000:

  7,114,866 rounds of small arms ammunition.

  2001:

  1,228,970 rounds of small arms ammunition.

  2002:

  686,998 rounds of small arms ammunition.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what redundant(a) weapons and (b) munitions have been sold since 1997; and to whom. [97288]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 February 2003] : Surplus weapons and mtutitions sold in the last five years are listed as follows:

  1998–99

  Weapons: Nil

  Munitions:

  9,599,691 rounds to licensed companies—via Royal Ordnance PLC (now BAE SYSTEMS)

  1999–2000

  Weapons:

  Light Gun—Royal Ordnance PLC

  SLRs associated leaning equipment, magazines—FCO (for subsequent gifting to Sierra Leone as part of a wider assistance package)

  Munitions:

  30,626,813 rounds to licensed companies—via Royal Ordnance PLC

  AIM Sidewinder Missiles—MOD Oman

  1,999,931 rounds— FCO (for subsequent gifting to Sierra Leone as part of a wider assistance package)

  2000–01

  Weapons: Nil

  Munitions:

  Exocet missiles and homing heads—Aerospatiale France

  Stingray Warheads—BAE SYSTEMS

  Stingray Torpedoes—Norway

  10,970,167 rounds to licensed companies—Via Royal Ordnance Plc

  2001–02

  Weapons: Nil

  Munitions:

  Mk46 Torpedoes—Raytheon Naval and Marine 8,738,5149 rounds to licensed companies—Systems via Royal Ordnance Plc

  2002–03

  Weapons: Nil

  Munitions:

  30 mm Aden Ammunition—BAE SYSTEMS

  13,621,235 rounds to licensed companies—via Royal Ordnance Plc

  Note:

  Rounds referred to above were all either 7.62 mm, 5.56 mm or 0.303 mm ammunition.

  Minesweepers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the disposal of minesweeper Pagham. [99782]

  Mr. Ingram
  The ex-HMS Pagham was formally gifted by the Ministry of Defence to the Stranraer Sea Cadet Unit on 1 May 1999 having been on loan to the unit since 1978. This decision was made in light of an assessment of the likely receipts from the sale of the vessel on the open market and other relevant factors, including the expenditure incurred by the Stranraer unit on maintaining and improving the vessel during the loan period. Other forms of disposal were not considered to be cost effective. The MOD no longer has any responsibility for the vessel.

  Skynet 5
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Skynet 5 Project. [101595]

  Mr. Ingram
  Negotiations leading to deal closure on the Skynet 5 PFI programme are nearing completion. We expect contract award to take place shortly.

  Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational, technical and political benefits are to the UK of acquiring the planned unmanned aerial vehicle system; and if he will make a statement on the system's inter-operability with that of the Israeli Army. [101213]

  Mr. Ingram
  The general benefits of the Watchkeeper system, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers, comprising Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, their sensor packages and associated exploitation facilities, were outlined in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's written statement to the House on 7 February 2003,Official Report, columns 21 -22 WS. We expect to select a single successful Watchkeeper contractor by mid-2004. On interoperability, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on 24 February 2003, Official Report, column 312W. This indicated that our primary focus is on interoperability with NATO allies.

  Water and Food Rations (Gulf)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the water and food rations for armed service personnel operating in the Gulf region. [100861]

  Mr. Ingram
  Land and Air Forces in Theatre are provided with a fresh cooked breakfast and evening meal each day and the United States supplied MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) for lunch. Meals are cooked by military chefs, from field kitchens. Bottled water is supplied through reliable sources within the region, providing six litres of water per person per day. Personnel undertaking training outside the main operating bases are provided with 24 hour Operational Ration Packs. The Naval Forces have sufficient stock embarked to be self-supporting, with resupply available from Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list Cabinet Committee meetings he has chaired in the last 12 months. [101818]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement given on 6 February by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Cabinet Committees.Official Report, column 19WS.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities in Devon have suffered a cut in real terms in central government funding on the basis of the new burdens principle; and if he will define the proposals and initiatives within the principle. [102042]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Finance Settlement 2003–04 provides all authorities in Devon with an above inflation increase in formula grant. Three authorities in fact receive increases above 10 per cent. Where the Government have provided additional funds to those announced in SR2002 for specific new burdens, such as an extra £21.53 million for the End of Life Vehicles Directive, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has adjusted the 2002–03 baseline to enable a like for like comparison. This means that the above inflation grant increases we have guaranteed to all councils are over and above the extra money councils will be receiving for new burdens

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to the new burdens principle which requires Government Departments to fully fund the extra costs on councils of any new initiative for which they are responsible. We looked with local government in the context of the Spending Review 2002 at the new burdens to be imposed on local government, along with the pressures on council expenditure and the scope for efficiency savings. This year's Settlement takes into account the outcome of that work and is reflected in the general grant increases over the next three years of 5.8 per cent., 4.9 per cent., and 6.9 per cent.

  In addition, there were a number of new burdens on local authorities which could not be finalised at the time of the Spending Review. The following transfers were added to the Local Government Finance Settlement 2003–04:

  Teachers' Pensions £585.908 million

  Concessionary fares £50 million

  End of Life Vehicles Directive £21.530 million

  Enterprise Bill £4.306 million

  Animal Feedstuffs £2.5 million

  Revenue consequence of Supplementary Credit Approvals for detrunked roads £1.444 million.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the rate support grant was in(a) Essex County Council and (b) Braintree District Council in each year from 1990 to 2002. [102727]
  439W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The amounts of revenue support grant paid to Essex County Council and to Braintree District Council in each financial year from 1990–91 to 2002–03 are given in the table.

  Revenue support grant paid to Essex County Council and Braintree District

  £ million

  Essex County Council

  Braintree District Council

  1990–911

  14.6

  1991–921

  13.5

  1992–93

  30.7

  1993–94

  386.2

  2.9

  1995–95

  442.7

  3.8

  1995–962

  395.3

  3.6

  1996–97

  388.5

  3.0

  1997–98

  406.4

  3.3

  1998–993

  331.0

  2.9

  1999–2000

  339.7

  2.8

  2000–01

  332.1

  2.6

  2001–02

  375.3

  3.0

  2002–03

  348.5

  2.5

  1 Between 1990–91 and 1992–93, all revenue support grant for shire areas was paid direct to the collection funds of district councils amounts for individual authorities were not separately identified.

  2 Responsibility for policing transferred from Essex County Council to Essex Police Authority on 1 April 1995.

  3 The area covered by Essex County Council was reduced on 1 April 1998, when Southend and Thurrock became unitary authorities

  Note:

  Figures are not necessarily comparable between years due to changes in function and responsibility. The main changes are listed.

  Revenue support grant was not the only general grant paid to each authority by central Government during the period shown in the table. Other grants paid include redistributed non-domestic rates.

  Residential Care (Funding)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the transfer of funding between social services departments when one department chooses to place residents into residential care in the area of another. [100540]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  In England, a council should provide social services to those who are assessed under section 47of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 as needing such care services and are considered to be ordinarily resident within that council's area, in accordance with Local Authority Circular 93(7), a copy of which is available in the Library. Once a council has accepted responsibility for a service user, that council should provide and fund the appropriate services whether that service be provided within that council's boundary or outside. There is therefore no requirement to transfer funds between social services departments when one council chooses to place an individual in the area of another council.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Free Fruit Schemes
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what recent communication he has had with the organisers of free fruit schemes for schools; [99740]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the take-up of free fruit schemes in British schools; [99739]

  (3) how many schools in the United Kingdom are participating in free fruit schemes. [99741]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have made a commitment to introduce a National School Fruit Scheme for four to six-year-olds across England from 2004. The scheme is being introduced through large scale region wide pilots in 2002–03 and 2003–04 with funding from the New Opportunities Fund. The scheme has been introduced in the West Midlands and London and is currently being introduced across the North West.

  The scheme is voluntary for schools but our aim is to encourage all eligible schools to take part. The total number of schools currently participating is currently 4,411; around 88 per cent. of those eligible. This means that around 600,000 children are receiving free fruit each school day.

  The total number of participating schools will increase as the scheme is expanded to new regions. In regions where the scheme has already been introduced, regional five-a-day co-ordinators and school fruit area co-ordinators are working with regional and local colleagues in health and education to encourage take up of the scheme by all eligible schools. The Department of Health has regular communication with the five a day and school fruit co-ordinators.

  There are a number of locally funded projects which provide free fruit to schoolchildren outside the scope of the National School Fruit Scheme in England, although there is no information held centrally on how many schools or children are participating in such schemes.

  As health is a devolved matter the Department of Health has responsibility for England only. However, officials have regular contact with their counterparts working on similar schemes in the devolved Administrations.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fish (Pain)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research she has evaluated concerning whether fish feel pain; and if she will make a statement. [100360]

  Mr. Morley
  The maintenance of high standards of welfare for all animals including fish is a priority for DEFRA. The FAWC Report on the Welfare of Farmed Fish which was published in September 1996 considered
  441W
  the applicability of the term pain to fish. Since this report was published we are aware of further research on this topic.

  Projects have been conducted at centres of expertise in the Roslin Institute in Scotland as well as in the University of Edinburgh. We are aware of the recent report by the Fisheries Society of the British Isles on Fish Welfare published in 2002 as well as reports from Canadian sources on this important topic of pain in fish.

  While such research suggest fish do not experience pain in the same way as species such as mammals, further detailed research is required before a definitive position can be taken.

  Foodstuffs (Labelling/Standards)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) labelling and (b) standards schemes there are relating to the nature and production of foodstuffs in the UK; and what the requirements are for each. [102440]

  Ms Blears
  [Holding answer 13 March 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government does not collate information on the number of labelling and standards schemes relating to the nature and production of foodstuffs in the United Kingdom. These schemes fall into two general categories: those based on European legislation (such as that on organic food production), and those more commonly referred to as food assurance schemes, which are largely voluntary.

  Food assurance schemes generally set out certain production standards in areas such as food safety and hygiene, environmental protection, animal welfare and inspections. An independent review of 18 of the main assurance schemes (including those covered by the British Farm Standard denoted by its "red tractor" logo) was carried out for the Food Standards Agency and published in July last year. It contains detailed descriptions of those schemes. Copies of the review will be placed in the Library.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of two separate GM public debates running concurrently; and if she will make a statement. [100865]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are sponsoring a public debate on GM issues, which was announced last July, that encompasses a range of different activities. As part of that process, the Food Standards Agency announced that it would be conducting a series of events to independently evaluate consumers' views on the acceptability of GM food and how this relates to consumer choice. These activities will be a contribution to the wider public debate.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to ensure the Scottish Executive is involved in the(a) public debate and (b) approval process for GM crops. [101258]
  442W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Scottish Executive is fully involved in and is contributing to the funding of the Public Debate on GM issues, which is being managed at arms' length from Government by an independent Steering Board. The Steering Board are keeping the Scottish Executive fully informed of their progress.

  Decisions to authorise or not the commercial importation or cultivation of any GM crop will be taken, on a case-by-case basis, by European Union (EU) Member States collectively working with the European Commission in the context of EU Directive 2001/18. In preparing the UK's opinion the Government will seek the views of the Devolved Administrations on all applications.

  Meat Imports
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of specified risk material have been detected in meat imports into the UK from the EU over the past year. [100580]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1 January 2002, there have been 33 cases where specified risk material has been found in imported meat. Each case has been reported to the veterinary authorities of the Member State of origin for appropriate action to be taken. Of these breaches, one consignment came from France, one from the Netherlands, four from the Republic of Ireland, 11 from Germany and 14 from Spain.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she plans to take with regard to meat imports contaminated with specified risk materials. [100581]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  On the instructions of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Meat Hygiene Service continues to check at licensed premises every notified consignment of imported carcases beef for any presence of specified risk material (SRM). When SRM is found, the carcases affected are destroyed. The authorities of the exporting country and the European Commission are also informed.

  Further to this, the Chairman of the FSA has discussed the issue with the relevant European Commissioner (Commissioner Byrne). The United Kingdom has also instigated discussions at the European Union Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and at the EU Beef Management Committee. UK officials have also had profitable discussions at technical level with officials from the Member States concerned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Baroness Amos had on(a) the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, (b) the Kimberley

  443W
  diamonds process and (c) conflict prevention measures in the region during her recent visit to Africa; and if he will make a statement. [101800]

  Mr. Rammell
  During her recent visit to Guinea, Cameroon and Angola, my noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed a range of issues including regional peace and security.

  Discussions did not include the DRC or the Kimberley Process certification scheme for rough diamonds. But Baroness Amos is in regular contact with the key African players and other members of the international community on both issues.

  Eurobank
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost is to UK public funds of the resignation of the Attorney-General of the Cayman Islands. [103127]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been no cost to UK public funds arising from his departure from office.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Leader of Government Business of the Cayman Islands Government to discuss the collapse of the Eurobank case; and if he will make a statement. [103128]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My noble Friend Baroness Amos last met the Leader of Government Business during her visit to the Cayman Islands on 16ߝ17 February. She remains in regular touch with him.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he plans in the appointment of law officers to overseas territories as a result of(a) the collapse of the Eurobank case and (b) the subsequent resignation of the Attorney-General to the Cayman Islands. [103129]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. However procedures may be re-examined as part of the constitutional review process now under way in most Overseas Territories following up the commitment made in the 1999 White Paper "Britain and the Overseas Territories: Partnership for Progress and Prosperity". Our position remains that it is fundamentally important to protect the independence and impartiality of law officers and the judiciary in the Overseas Territories.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review security matters relating to overseas territories as a result of the collapse of the Eurobank case in the Cayman Islands; and if he will make a statement. [103130]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Human Rights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment his Department has made of the human rights situations in(a) Uzbekistan, (b) Turkmenistan, (c) Kyrgmenistan, (d) Algeria, (e) Jordan, (f) Qatar and (g) Pakistan. [101619]
  444W
  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer of 10 March 2003]: Human rights are at the heart of foreign policy and as such are integrated into policy-making at all levels. The FCO is therefore continually considering the human rights issues in all countries alongside other political, economic and security issues. However the human rights situations in the countries raised are as follows:

  Uzbekistan:

  We remain deeply concerned by reports of human right abuses in Uzbekistan. We recognise that the Uzbek Government has made small concessions in addressing the situation, including co-operating with the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture. However, Uzbekistan needs to do much more. We would like to see reform of the criminal justice system, as well as wider recognition of independent human rights groups, religious groups and political parties. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), raised human rights concerns with the Uzbek Ambassador in London on 10 February. We shall continue to press for tangible improvements in Uzbekistan's human rights record. We are also thinking together with the EU how best to handle the human rights situation in Uzbekistan at the next session of the Commission on Human Rights starting in March.

  Turkmenistan:

  We are greatly concerned at the recent developments in Turkmenistan following the reported assassination attempt on President Niyazov last November. We encouraged the EU to make a statement calling on the Turkmen authorities to comply with Turkmenistan's human rights obligations under international law. The EU is also considering how best to handle the human rights situation at the next session of the Commission on Human Rights.

  Through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) we have sought to establish a fact-finding mission to Turkmenistan to investigate all matters relating to the conduct of the investigations, including detentions, arrests and allegations of torture, as well as the trials, convictions and sentencing procedures. Turkmenistan has however refused to admit any mission of this kind. The OSCE has asked the Turkmen authorities to reconsider. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Kyrgyzstan:

  We recognise efforts made by the Kyrgyz Government to improve its human rights situation and to bring about political reform. Positive developments include a presidential decree on 8 January 2003 extending a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. We are however still concerned by cases of harassment of independent media and unofficial Muslim groups. We shall continue to help Kyrgyzstan make improvements, in line with its international obligations and commitments.
  445W
  Algeria:

  We regularly raise our concerns about human rights violations in Algeria with the Algerian Government. We continue to urge the Algerian Government to fully comply with all its obligations under international human rights law, including the investigation of human rights violations, and to allow visits by the UN special rapporteurs on the question of torture and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The UK with EU partners has also raised its concerns about a number of cases of human rights abuses with the Algerian authorities. The Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has offered information on some of these cases, but both we and our EU partners will continue to press for full answers.

  Jordan:

  We welcome the decision by the Jordanian Government to hold general elections in June 2003 (elections were previously postponed from autumn 2002). This decision represents the opportunity for people to exercise their democratic right to vote. We will encourage the Government to hold a free and fair electoral process. We have some concerns about the human rights situation in Jordan including the treatment of religious minorities, honour killings, and freedom of expression. Toujan al-Faisal was a former member of the Jordanian Parliament who was arrested in 2002 in connection with her public criticism of the Government's policies. We welcomed her release following a Royal Pardon in July 2002. We will continue to raise each human rights case as appropriate with the Jordanian Government or in conjunction with EU Partners.

  Qatar:

  Qatar has a good human rights record for a conservative Islamic society with an autocratic system of government. The social and political system is comparatively tolerant and increasingly open. The Amir has the right basic instincts towards human rights issues but recognises that change which could damage the fabric of his tribal people must be handled carefully and will take time. The Amir is encouraging women to play an active part in all walks of life; he has introduced his first steps towards democratic reform; the press exercises some self censorship; freedom of worship is tolerated provided it is discreet; there are plans to build Qatar's first churches; work continues on codifying sharia and civil law but Qataris are still to some extent associated in the Western mind with their Wahabi cousins in Saudi Arabia. Death sentences have been carried out but are extremely rare. There are, however general issues regarding the treatment of third country nationals and minors working in Qatar.

  Pakistan:

  The UK Government welcomed President Musharraf's speech of 12 January 2002 in which he condemned all forms of sectarianism and religious hatred and made the case for a moderate and tolerant Islam. We hope the new government will look carefully at human rights violations in Pakistan. The UK and EU are particularly concerned by sectarian and terrorist violence that has resulted in the deaths of a number of Christians across Pakistan, most recently the vicious attack on 25 December 2002.

  We have concerns about the abuse of the blasphemy laws and are seriously concerned about the imposition of the death penalty for blasphemy. The UK
  446W
  government opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. Women's rights issues remain a concern. We hope the new government will keep to the pledge of the out-going government to review the Hudood ordinances on Islamic punishments. We are particularly concerned by so-called "honour" crimes against women, forced marriages, domestic violence, kidnap and rate. We believe much can be done to promote women's rights within the existing Islamic legal framework.

  Israel
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning(a) the resettlement of Bedouin in the Negev and (b) the provision of services to Bedouin in the Negev; and if he will make a statement. [101584]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Israeli Cabinet will soon vote on a proposal to relocate 70,000 Bedu from the Negev to seven existing settlement areas. I have asked our Embassy in Tel Aviv to raise concerns about the treatment of the Bedu with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We continue to monitor developments closely.

  Our Ambassador in Tel Aviv visited the Bedu Regional Council of the Unrecognised Villages on 18 February as part of our Embassy's continuing dialogue with them. In 2002, our Embassy in Tel Aviv completed a successful advocacy-training programme for Bedu leaders and will shortly fund the construction of an 'environmental' medical centre for several unrecognised villages. The Regional Council has warmly welcomed our interest in, and support for, the Bedu's plight.

  North Korea
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the nuclear programmes in(a) Iran and (b) North Korea; and if he will make a statement. [101822]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been concern about the nuclear ambitions of both Iran and North Korea for sometime. The IAEA Director-General has recently returned from a fact finding mission to Iran. We await his report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

  On North Korea's programme I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Rammell) today UIN 101823.

  We continue to monitor closely developments in both countries.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the threat posed to the United Kingdom by North Korea's nuclear programmes. [101823]

  Mr. Rammell
  We assess that North Korea has the technical capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons, and that the volume of plutonium it has diverted from its nuclear programme would be sufficient to make one or
  447W
  two weapons. We also believe that North Korea could flight test a missile with the potential to reach Europe within weeks of a decision to do so. Once such a missile was flight-tested, it would take several years to deploy the missile operationally.

  Assessment of threat is based on both capability and intent. We currently have no evidence of North Korean intent to target the UK.

  We deplore North Korea's recent actions, including the expulsion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors from Yongbyon, and the stated intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  Sudan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Sudar on the clearances of villages in the oil field area of Southern Sudan. [101586]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in regular contact with the Government of Sudan. The US-led Civilian Protection Monitoring Team (CPMT) has investigated alleged attacks against civilians in Western Upper Nile as part of their normal mandate. At the request of Lt-Gen. Sumbeiywo the CPMT has also investigated alleged violations of the Memorandum of Understanding on cessation of hostilities which was signed at Machakos on 15 October 2002 and extended on 18 November 2002.

  On 4 February the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) signed an addendum which aims to strengthen the MoU. It contains many new and welcome initiatives, including the establishment of a Verification Monitoring Team to investigate alleged violations of the MoU by the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A, to build confidence between the parries and make more unlikely the sorts of outbreaks of fighting which we have seen recently in Western Upper Nile. We are ready to contribute personnel and resources to this operation.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals are employed in the southern oil fields of Sudan. [101587]

  Mr. Rammell
  We cannot state with certainty how many UK nationals are in Sudan. UK nationals are not obliged to register at the British Embassy in Khartoum. Of those who have registered 26 state that they work in the oil industry in south Sudan.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the progress of peace negotiations in Sudan. [101590]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK role in supporting the peace process is performed jointly by the FCO and DFID. The UK Special Representative for Sudan, Alan Goulty, leads the UK observer delegation at the peace talks. We continually carry out intensive consultations at ministerial and official level with the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army in support of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process. My right hon.448W
  Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently met the Sudanese Foreign Minister at UNGA in September 2002.

  United Nations Security Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his definition is of the phrase material breach as used in United Nations Security Council Resolutions. [101991]

  Mr. Rammell
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column. 437,

  "material breach is a term of art familiar in international law"

  and

  "means something significant, some behaviour or pattern of behaviour that is serious".

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government means by the term serious consequences used in the draft resolution on Iraq presented by it, the United States and Spain to the United Nations Security Council on 24th February. [102076]

  Mr. Rammell
  As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) stated on 4 March in a written reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Bothwell (Mr. Challen),Official Report, column 915W, the Council has warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations. As the Government have made clear, that means consequences up to and including the use of force.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications(a) Mr. Robert Mugabe and (b) other Zimbabweans subject to the EU travel ban have made to visit Europe in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [101780]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are not aware of any such applications.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the members of the Commonwealth troika on Zimbabwe; what assessment he has made of Zimbabwe's position in the Commonwealth following these discussions; and if he will make a statement. [101820]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have a regular dialogue with Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard about the situation in Zimbabwe. The political, economic and humanitarian situation has further deteriorated since Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth Councils on 18 March 2002. Zimbabwe has made no progress towards meeting the principles of good governance as set out in the Commonwealth's Harare declaration. On that basis, we see no justification for lifting its current suspension from the Commonwealth Councils.

HEALTH

  Avian Flu
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what implications for human health avian influenza has. [102366]

  Ms Blears
  Avian influenza viruses very occasionally infect humans. However, this is a very rare event. An outbreak of avian influenza (strain H5N1) in Hong Kong in 1997 resulted in the death of six people. There was no evidence of human to human spread. In Europe there have been several cases of avian flu without any human consequences. The United Kingdom has plans in place to deal with a pandemic situation should the need arise.

  Dietary Advice
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the Government's five-a-day programme for schools is sourced from British fruit and vegetables. [102547]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]: Under the National School Fruit Scheme, which is part of the five a day programme, apples, pears, bananas and satsumas are provided free to children aged four to six. Since the beginning of the current school year, approximately 63 per cent., of apples and 73 per cent., of pears have been of United Kingdom origin.

  The Department is working with a range of partners to maximise the opportunities for UK growers to supply to the scheme, including expanding the range of produce provided to include other types of fruit and vegetables.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to encourage low income groups to increase their consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. [97324]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's Five-a-day programme, a NHS Plan commitment, aims to increase access to, and availability and consumption of, fruit and vegetables particularly in low-income groups. Following successful piloting by the Department of Health, the New Opportunities Fund is providing £10 million over the next two years to support 66 local community initiatives led by primary care trusts (PCTs) based in the most deprived areas of England. Evaluation of the initial Department of Health Five-a-day community pilots showed that those who ate less than five a day at baseline increased their intakes by one portion over the course of the study.

  The Five-a-day communications programme will provide clear and consistent messages about Five-a-day, including the benefits of eating at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables each day and portion sizes. Work is also in progress with different organisations from across industry, including retailers, producers and caterers, as well as across government and with other agencies, to improve people's access to fruit and vegetables.

  Fully operational by 2004. the National School Fruit Scheme will entitle every child aged four to six in infant schools to a free piece of fruit each school day, as part of a national strategy to improve the diet of children. In
  450W
  addition, local initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in low-income groups may be found through health action zones, sure start, healthy living centres and other PCTs.

  Oldchurch Hospital
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received about Oldchurch Hospital in the London Borough of Havering in each of the last 10 years. [101981]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not routinely collect statistics on the number of complaints received about hospitals. We do receive letters from hon. Members and from the public in respect of complaints about the National Health Service. However, NHS complaints are best dealt with at local level through the NHS complaints procedure. Therefore, letters received by the Department are transferred to the relevant NHS trust where appropriate.

  In the last four years Ministers have received directly the following numbers of letters of complaint about Oldchurch Hospital.

  Year

  Number of Letters

  2000

  56

  2001

  65

  2002

  23

  2003

  15

  Information on previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on accident and emergency services at Oldchurch Hospital in the London Borough of Havering. [101984]

  Mr. Hutton
  Improving patients' experience of emergency care is essential. In light of this, "Reforming Emergency Care" was launched in October 2001, supported by £118 million investment. It sets a longterm programme of reform supported by extra investment and new capacity to address one of the public's key concerns about the national health service-waiting in accident and emergency (A&E).

  The NHS Plan set the target to reduce by 2004, the maximum time any patient spends in A&E from arrival, transfer or discharge to four hours. Barking and Havering Hospital NHS Trust is continuing to work toward achieving this target.

  Joint Working
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to combine the skills of health visitors and social workers. [102109]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is investing funds from the new human resources development strategy specific grant to support pilot sites to encourage and facilitate joint working across traditional professional roles. We are working in partnership with employers, across service boundaries, to develop new types of workers at different levels of expertise.
  451W
  Our aim is to consider how social care provision can be improved through new ways of delivering services that make the best use of staff skills and have the needs of the service user as their focus.

  Chorley Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget provision has been made for the employment of agency(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) other staff at Chorley Hospital for the next financial year. [101816]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no specific budget set aside for agency staff at the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many agency staff have been employed at Chorley Hospital(a) as doctors, (b) as nurses and (c) in other capacities in each of the last three years. [101413]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information available is shown in the tables.

  Doctors employed at Chorley Hospital since March 2000

  Number

  1 March 2000 to 28 February 2001

  83

  1 March 2001 to 28 February 2002

  149

  1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003

  187

  Note:

  The figures are shown as employment episodes. The length of each employment episode varies from a 1 day/night cover to very occasional periods of several months.

  Nurses employed at Chorley Hospital since March 2000

  Number

  1 March 2000 to 28 February 2001

  No records kept

  1 March 2001 to 28 February 2002

  2,831

  1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003

  4,280

  Note:

  The figures shown are for the number of shifts agency nurses have worked. Data is only collected in this manner.

  Other staff employed at Chorley Hospital since March 2000

  Number

  1 March 2000 to 28 February 2001

  No records kept

  1 March 2001 to 28 February 2002

  4

  1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003

  13

  Note:

  Other staff comprises of staff in the allied health professions and includes physiotherapists, radiographers and occupational therapists. The figures are shown as whole time equivalents.

  Source:

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  In all three categories, and particularly medical staff, the increase of the number of posts is due to major expansion of services since 2001.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health beds are available at Chorley hospital; and how many were available in each of the last 30 years. [102545]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on bed numbers is collected at national health service trust level and not by individual hospital site.
  452W
  From 1996–97 bed information for each NHS trust is available from the Department of Health website http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/

  Alcohol-related Illness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent international studies his Department has conducted into the effects of alcohol-related illnesses and deaths on countries' economies. [101068]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health has conducted no recent international studies on the effects of alcohol-related illnesses and deaths on countries' economies. However, the Cabinet Office strategy unit have looked at the strategies in a number of different countries as part of their work on developing the national alcohol harm reduction strategy.

  Audiology
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent to date on audiology modernisation(a) in phase I and (b) in phase II; how much is allocated for completion of the national programme; and how much of the total will (i) be offset by PCT expenditure and (ii) be raised by public/private partnership arrangements. [98675]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government invested £10.75 million on the first wave of the modernising hearing aid services project and a further £20 million on the second wave. A further £94 million has been allocated to ensure that a modernised service is rolled out to all national health service hearing aid services in England by April 2005. Primary care trusts are expected to contribute 25 per cent. of any additional revenue costs that are incurred through modernisation.

  Involving private hearing aid dispensers in providing NHS digital hearing aids has been tested out in two areas of the country. The trial has been very successful. On this basis, the plans for national roll-out of digital hearing aids will include developing public/private partnerships to boost NHS capacity, and to improve access for patients by providing a service "on the High Street" rather than in the hospital.

  Bed Blocking
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to tackle bed blocking in York and North Yorkshire. [95202]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has been proactive in a number of areas to help improve the problems arising from delays in patients being discharged from hospitals in York and North Yorkshire.

  In 2002— funding of £2.3 million has been available to local authorities in North Yorkshire, through the Building Care Capacity Grant to reduce delay in discharging people from hospital.

  The change agent team has also been engaged to assist the City of York, York Health Services NHS Trust, and the Selby & York Primary Care Trust to review and devise a more strategic approach to ensuring effective patient care, assessment and placement.
  453W
  Funding has also been made available to the York and North Yorkshire Councils under the Innovations Fund to help with the assessment processes and intermediate care.

  The Community Care (Delayed Discharges) Bill will also help tackle the problem by making councils responsible for meeting the costs to the national health service of delayed discharges where the councils' interventions could prevent the delay.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the London Borough of Havering regarding funding for care homes; and what his response has been. [101977]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am not aware of any recent representations from the London Borough of Havering regarding funding for care homes.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 514W, to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, on the Care Standards Act 2000, if he will place copies of the consultation in the Library. [101799]

  Jacqui Smith
  A copy of the analysis of the responses to the consultation document on amended standards for care homes for older people and adults (18–65) has been placed in the Library.

  Children's Servies
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of parental responsibility to register children with(a) local GPs and (b) other health professionals. [98342]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: At present patients register with a general practitioner to receive general medical services or with a personal medical services (PMS) pilot provider to receive PMS. In either case the service is provided by a GP or by another health care professional as appropriate. Patients do not, however, register separately with such other health care professionals.

  A registration application may be made on behalf of a child by either parent, or in the absence of parents, the guardian or other adult person who has the care of the child. Registration is not compulsory but the Government encourage everyone to do so for the benefit of the child, the family and the wider community.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of sustainable funding for children's hospices. [102544]

  Ms Blears
  The funding of hospices is a matter for local discussion and agreement and must be based on local health needs assessment. It is therefore important that hospices engage as much as possible with the health service. The package of care provided should be discussed with the local primary care trust, which is responsible for deciding which health services the local population requires, and ensuring the provision of these services.
  454W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account the: Children's National Services Framework is taking of multi-disciplinary, multi-agency working. [102103]

  Jacqui Smith
  Developing work from the external working groups working on the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services has emphasised the need for multi-disciplinary multi-agency working. This is likely to be reflected in the final document.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children under six have been removed from(a) GP lists and (b) primary care trusts in each year since 1998; and what the reasons were for the removal; [99182]

  (2) how many children under six are receiving only immediate and necessary treatment from GPs or primary care trusts. [99181]

  Mr. Hutton
  A patient may register with a general practitioner to receive general medical services (CMS) or with a personal medical services (PMS) pilot provider to receive PMS. Patients do not register with a primary care trust (PCT) to receive National Health Service treatment unless that PCT is itself a PMS pilot provider.

  Registration is not compulsory but the Government encourages everyone to do so for their own benefit and for that of the wider community. No data are, however, held on the number of people who are not registered with a GP or PMS pilot provider. It is not necessary to register with a GP to receive emergency or immediately necessary treatment and GPs are required to provide this to anyone who needs it at the time they need it.

  Although the Department collects information on the number of patients removed from lists, data are not collected or held on the ages of the patients concerned nor on the reasons for their removal, other than whether there was an act or threat of violence.

  Correspondence
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Warrington, North concerning Mrs. Gwatkin of Warrington dated 29 October 2002. [96405]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 February 2003]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 26 February.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the External Working Group o a disabled children with special reference to children with palliative care needs; [102542]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the task group to review the needs of children with severe disabilities and complex life-limiting, or terminal conditions. [102543]

  Jacqui Smith
  The external working group developing national service framework (NSF) standards for the ill child, which includes those with long term conditions, and the external working group on disabled children's services, are by joint working arrangements considering
  455W
  the particular needs of children with complex life-limiting conditions and those who require palliative care.

  Themes that are emerging so far, and likely to be covered, include the need for greater flexibility in service delivery and for multidisciplinary and multi-agency partnership working.

  The "Children's NSF—Emerging Findings" document, to be issued shortly, will give an overview of the areas that are likely to be included in the final NSF.

  Drugs
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many registered drug addicts there were in the(a) Leeds, West constituency and (b) the city of Leeds in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [96969]

  (2) how many registered drug addicts there are in the (a) Leeds, West constituency and (b) the city of Leeds; how many registered drug addicts in the (i) Leeds, West constituency and (ii) the city of Leeds are receiving (a) rehabilitation and (B) other forms of drug treatment; and if he will make a statement. [96970]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Information is not available in the form requested.

  Following the closure of the Home Office Addicts Index in 1997, the regional drug misuse databases (RDMDs) were the main source of information on people presenting to drug treatment services with a drug problem.

  A one off exercise was carried out to estimate the number of drug users in England in contact with drug treatment agencies in 2000–01. Around 2,105 individuals were reported to be in contact with drug treatment agencies in Leeds health authority in 2000–01.

  Information on the numbers of users reported as presenting to drug treatment services for treatment in the Leeds HA is given in the table.

  Number of users reported as presenting for treatment for drug misuse in Leeds health authority during the six months periods ending 30 September 1996 to 31 March 2001

  Six month period ending

  Number

  September 1996

  664

  March 1997

  653

  September 1997

  498

  March 1998

  536

  September 1998

  927

  March 1999

  895

  September 1999

  816

  March 2000

  910

  September 2000

  746

  March 2001

  787

  Sources:

  The Department of Health series of Statistical Bulletins "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases". Bulletins for the six months ending March 1998 onwards are available at http:// www.doh.gov.uk/public/work public health.html

  The number of drug misusers in Leeds HA receiving rehabilitation and other forms of treatment in 2000–;01 is shown in the table. In addition, drugs misusers usually resident in Leeds may be attending rehabilitation centres (or other forms of treatment) outside the area.
  456W

  Number of drug misusers in treatment in Leeds HA by type of agency, 2000–01

  Agency Type

  Number

  Community: Specialist services

  1,713

  Community : General Practitioners

  289

  Structured Day programmes

  219

  Resident rehabilitation

  19

  Others

  85

  Total

  2,105

  Notes:

  1. In the case of residential rehabilitation, places are often purchased at a residential centre that may be outside the drug misusers area of residence. In practice some local authority social services departments agree to fund long distance placements with the agreement of the drug misuser so he/she can be removed from the area where they are involved in drug using. This means that in theory drug misusers resident in Leeds may be receiving treatment in rehabilitation centres elsewhere in England.

  2. Following NHS reorganisation in 2002, Leeds health authority became part of West
  Yorkshire Strategic health authority.

  3. Data from the Leeds Drug Action Team shows investment and attendance as 201 additional structured day programmes and 19 placements in residential rehabilitation.

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistical Bulletin—"Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000/01" http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sbQ133.htm

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research into opioid substitution therapy. [101578]

  Ms Blears
  The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) is aware that there is well-developed research evidence into the use of opioid substitution therapy—particularly into the effectiveness of oral methadone maintenance treatment. An important part of the NTA role is to support high quality evidence based practice.It is recognised that some findings from the evidence base are not fully implemented and the NTA has built a variety of mechanisms to support the implementation of key research findings into to practice, including briefings, training, commissioning guidance and increasingly performance management systems. The NTA is also working with the Department of Health to develop dissemination of the findings of its current drug treatment research programme. The NTA has recently published a briefing on the advice of its expert group on prescribing, which includes a brief review of the evidence base for opioid treatment.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The NTA will commission new research in line with the outcome of its current priority setting exercise that is awaiting approval by the NTA Board in March. Research bodies will be invited to submit tenders in line with these priorities.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he is making to the European Food Standards Agency about ingredients formerly used in foods in the UK but not included in the annexes of the Food Supplement Directive as available for use in the manufacture of food supplements. [102617]

  Ms Blears
  Lists of permitted vitamins and minerals and their sources in the Annexes to the Food Supplements Directive remain open pending safety assessments of additional substances by the European Union Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) or its successor in the European Food Safety Authority. The Food Standards Agency has written to the European Commission with the aim of facilitating a meeting between United Kingdom stakeholders and representatives of the SCF to discuss the technical content of such dossiers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he will propose an amendment to the EU Food Supplements Directive to permit the sale in the UK of products not listed in the Directive but recognised by the competent UK authorities as safe and which are already on the market in the UK; [102619]

  (2) what (a) representations he has received from and (b) discussions he has held with the Food Standards Agency about the EU Food Directive; and if he will incorporate the Agency's views in proposals he makes for the revision of the Directive. [102618]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have no plans to seek an amendment to the European Union Food Supplements Directive. They have already secured provisions which enable member states to allow the continued sale of products which do not comply with the compositional requirements up to 31 December 2009, provided certain criteria are met.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the legal status of foundation trusts. [102176]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our proposals for national health service foundation trusts are set out in "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Subject to parliamentary approval NHS foundation trusts will be established under provisions to be included in the Health & Social Care (Community Health & Standards) Bill, which was published on 13 March.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will happen to a foundation hospital if it fails to meet its liabilities. [102179]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Independent Regulator would be able to intervene at national health service foundation trusts if it fails to meet its liabilities. The policy is explained in paragraphs 3.34 to 3.38 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". The provisions that apply if an NHS foundation trust fails to meet its liabilities are set out in the Health & Social Care (Community Health & Standards) Bill.
  458W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to allow primary care trusts to become foundation institutions; [102177]

  (2) what plans ha has to expand the provision of foundation status beyond the acute healthcare sector. [102174]

  Mr. Hutton
  The policy for applications for national health service foundation trust status is set out in 7.3 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how non-executive directors will be appointed to foundation hospital boards. [102181]

  Mr. Hutton
  Non-executive directors will be elected by members of the Board of Governors of the national health service foundation trust. Details of the policy are set out in paragraph 2.33 and 2.34 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether trusts applying for foundation status will be obliged to have consulted other acute trusts in their local area before being granted foundation status. [102209]

  Mr. Hutton
  The principles for local consultation by National Health Service foundation trust second stage applicants is set out in paragraph 7.11 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has with the Home Office, Customs and Excise and DEFRA(a) to prevent and (b) to detect illegally imported meat entering the UK. [102163]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency works closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on issues concerning the illegal import of meat and is assisting these departments as part of a cross-government action plan to improve enforcement and control of illegal imports. The FSA does not have arrangements currently with the Home Office in this area of work.

  International Nurses Advice Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2003, ref 99682, on the international nurses advice line, if he will break down the calls by the type of caller's query or problem; in how many cases caller's information has been passed to his Department at the caller's request; where callers heard about the advice line; how many repeat callers there were to the line; what the outcome was of problem resolution; and whether calls are recorded. [102562]

  Mr. Hutton
  The types of queries and problems made by callers to the international nurses advice line are not recorded. Issues that cannot be resolved by the call operators are directed to the Department of Health. To date 15 cases have been forwarded to the Department of Health for further assistance and were dealt with either by direct contact with the caller or by putting the caller in contact with the appropriate nursing association.
  459W
  Callers, when asked by operators, had heard of the advice line through various media and these included leaflets, posters and press articles, and through word of mouth.

  Data indicate that there have been three repeat callers to the advice line since its operation. The calls are not recorded but are monitored.

  Inventures
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the former Runwell Hospital site in Wickford, Essex has been included in the bulk sale of properties in the Inventures disposal; what(a) price and (b) terms will be secured by its sale; whether it will be sold with planning permission; and how much has been spent on the (i) maintenance and (ii) refurbishment of the site in the last three years. [102152]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: This hospital has been included in the portfolios of properties that will form the basis of the proposed real estate partnership with the private sector. Miller/Bank of Scotland have been chosen as preferred partner.

  The price and other terms of the sale are commercially confidential. A planning application for alternative uses has been submitted which Miller/Bank of Scotland will pursue.

  The hospital is not expected to close until 2006–7. In the past three years £1.5 million has been spent upgrading wards to meet fire regulations. A further £1.4 million has been invested in securing a safe and appropriate environment for staff and patients until the site is no longer needed for National Health Service use.

  Local Government Grant Formulae
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 314W, on local government grant formulae, what response he has made to the concerns raised by the Association of London Government in its report "The 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement" about the children's formula used in the local government grant formula. [101290]

  Jacqui Smith
  I wrote to Sir Robin Wales on 24 February responding to the points raised by the Association of London Government on the 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement.

  The current formulae were reviewed openly with local government and there was a public consultation last summer.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of letter E.814/00–01, referred to in paragraph 21 of the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long term care. [99383]

  Jacqui Smith
  A copy of the letter E.814/00–01 referred to in paragraph 21 of the Health Service Ombudsman's report on National Health Service funding for long term care has been placed in the Library.

  Looked-after Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on looked after children attending(a) private and (b) public boarding schools; and if he will make a statement. [99379]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills on 12 March 2003,Official Report, col. 297W.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many managers recruited from the private sector since 1998 have left the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [101885]

  (2) how many private sector managers have been recruited since 1998 (a) to run central NHS facilities and (b) to work in primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [101884]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the cost of managers to the NHS. [102520]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has not commissioned any research into the cost of managers to the national health service.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific financial provision he has made for increase in demand for specialist mental health services following forthcoming military action in the Gulf. [101083]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: There are no funds specifically earmarked for the provision of additional specialist mental health services following any military action in the Gulf.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the performance rating system in the mental healthcare sector. [102178]

  Mr. Hutton
  In July 2002, mental health trusts received an indicative rating on their performance during 2001–02. Later this year, the Commission for Health Improvement will publish full performance ratings for mental health trusts based on their performance during 2002–03.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adolescent mental health patients have been accommodated in adult mental wards in NHS establishments in the last 12 months; and what percentage of the total number treated this represents. [96059]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following data are taken from the Mental Health Service and Financial Framework Report, 2001–02 outturn, the latest available. There were 64,920 occupied bed days (OBDs) for patients under age 18 on adult psychiatric wards during 2001–02.
  461W
  This represents 36 per cent. of the total number of hospital OBDs (180,642) for that age group on both child and adolescent and adult wards during that year. 82 per cent. of the OBDs of under 18 year olds on adult wards, that is 53,243 out of 64,920, represented patients in the 16-18 age range; only 18 per cent. 11,677, represented those under age 16.

  MRI Scans
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for an MRI scan at(a) Airedale NHS Trust and (b) Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust. [101207]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on increasing the availability of beta interferon for MS sufferers in Sutton. [101513]

  Mr. Hutton
  Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust (PCT) has implemented the risk-sharing scheme for drugs for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). All eligible patients are being fully funded. These services are being provided to MS patients in Sutton and Cheam at Atkinson Morley Hospital, which is part of St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust.

  Muscular Dystrophy
  Mr Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the funding spent on research into(a) the treatment and (b) the causes of muscular dystrophy; and if he will make a statement; [100968]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount of Government funding in 2002–03 for research into (a) the treatment and (b) the causes of muscular dystrophy; and if he will make a statement. [100966]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. In 2001–02, the MRC spent an estimated 2 million on muscular dystrophy research. This was an increase on the estimated £1.1 million spent in 2000–01. Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect on NHS funding of a growing list of NICE approved treatments. [101577]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Dr. Evan Harris) on 12 February 2003,Official Report, column 824W. The cost of implementing appraisal guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been taken into account in the funding provided to the national health service.

  Neurology
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions he is taking to reduce waiting lists for neurologists; and if he will make a statement. [100106]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are reducing maximum waiting times. As part of the NHS Plan, the maximum waiting time for a first outpatient appointment will fall each year from over six months, down to five, four and finally three months by 2005. The Government's eventual objective is to reduce the maximum wait for any stage of treatment to three months. Provided that the Government can recruit the extra staff, and the National Health Service makes the necessary reforms, the Government hopes to achieve this objective by the end of 2008.

  Manpower has been recognised as key to the successful delivery of the NHS Plan and the national service frameworks (NSF). The long term conditions care group workforce team has been set up to support workforce development in the fields of diabetes, renal and long-term conditions. Its aim is to help deliver a multidisciplinary and integrated health and social care workforce to support service improvement.

  With regard to neurology, the care group makes recommendations on workforce numbers across the specialty including doctors and nurses. Recommendations are also made on changes in service delivery models to facilitate the best use of all staff.

  Between September 1997 and March 2002, consultant numbers in neurology increased by 34 per cent.. During the same period, consultant numbers in neurosurgery increased by 21 per cent..

  We are developing a national service framework for long-term conditions, which will have a particular focus on neurological conditions. It is scheduled for publication in 2004, and implementation from 2005. The NSF will help to drive up standards and improve the quality of, and access to, care for people with neurological conditions.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS bodies have received direct funding from the Regional Office and how much was paid to each NHS body, broken down by Directorate of Health and Social Care, in each of the last three years. [100711]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: Disclosure of these amounts can be analysed, along with other sources of income, in the income note of a national health service body's accounts. NHS accounts are published locally and are available from the individual NHS body.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the annual performance rating system for NHS trusts(a) is independent from the Government and (b) takes into account hospital specialisation; and if he will make a statement. [102175]
  463W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Commission for Health Improvement is the independent regulator of national health service performance and is responsible for developing indicators and publishing NHS performance ratings. Ministers continue to select key targets and the priority areas to be covered. In July 2002, specialist NHS trusts received their first performance rating based on performance during 2001–02.

  Nursing and Midwifery Council
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new requirements for entry to the Nursing and Midwifery Council Register have been agreed for implementation by 2005 by health visitor members of the NMC since April 2002. [102102]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) to propose, and the Privy Council to determine the requirements for entry to the register. The NMC, which comprises equal numbers of nurse, midwife and health visitor members, is considering in consultation with the professions tile parts of the future register and standards required for entry to those.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of respondents to the public consultation on the Nursing and Midwifery Council Register supported direct entry to the proposed third part of the register. [102099]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is an independent statutory body and is required to consult on its proposals for a new register. The NMC has not published a response to its consultation.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposed third part of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Register will allow direct entry for community public healthcare professionals. [102100]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council has powers to regulate only the professions of nursing and midwifery.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Nursing and Midwifery Council supports the proposals to expand the third part of the NMC register to include nurses and midwives who work as specialists in community and public health. [102101]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council is the body responsible for making proposals in respect of the parts of the register.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will approve a non direct entry proposal for the proposed third part of the NMC Register only as an interim measure until the children's workforce planning group has reported its findings. [102104]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has powers to regulate only the professions of nursing and midwifery. A proposal for a non-direct entry third part of the NMC register will be considered and if appropriate, approved by the Privy Council.

  The NMC will want to consider the implications for the register of any report by the children's workforce planning group when that report is available.
  464W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to allow a three part register that is equitable across the three groups regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. [102105]

  Mr. Hutton
  No. The Order allows, if the Council propose it and the Privy Council agree it, for there to be a three part register that is equitable across the three groups regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, each part with a designated title indicative of different qualifications and different kinds of educational training.

  Obesity
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a National Standards Framework to tackle obesity. [100546]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are not considering a national standards framework (NSF) for obesity. However, action to address obesity is being taken forward through the NSF for coronary heart disease and older people. Action to reduce obesity will be necessary to meet Standard 1 of the NSF for diabetes.

  Following publication of the Government's strategy for sustainable farming and food, the Department of Health is leading on developing a food and health action plan. This will pull together all of the issues on diet and nutrition, which is of direct relevance to the prevention and management of obesity, and promote action at national, regional and local levels.

  Current guidance available to contribute to tackling obesity includes guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on the anti-obesity drugs orlistat and sibutramine, and surgery and a national quality assurance framework for exercise referral systems to promote physical activity. The evidenced-based Five-a-day handbook will support staff in primary care trusts and other organisations to establish community-wide initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, and the Health Development Agency is providing a report setting out the evidence base for the prevention and treatment of overweight people and obesity, and the maintenance of weight loss. Evidence from the local exercise action pilots will also provide guidance for increasing physical activity levels.

  Older People (Drug Treatment)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the change from traditional to atypical antipsychotics drugs to treat older people in(a) care homes and (b) hospitals; what assessment he has made of possible over-medication of people using antipsychotic drugs; and if he will make a statement. [99380]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about the prescribing of antipsychotic drugs is only available in relation to prescriptions dispensed in the community. It is estimated that, in 2001, just under 40 per cent, of antipsychotics dispensed to older people were atypicals, while in April-September 2002 this proportion is estimated to have increased to just over a half. There are likely to be a number of reasons for the move to
  465W
  atypicals. One is that clinicians believe they are better tolerated by patients than traditional antipsychotices. The Government is aware of concern about the possible overuse of antipsychotic drugs for older people A number of steps should help ensure their appropriate use—in particular, implementation of the medicines management supplement of the older people's national service framework and the requirements in the care homes national minimum standards.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will receive answers to his questions refs(a) 89928, (b) 92551 and (c) 92538. [100502]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 636W and on 28 February 2003, Official Report, column 779W. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 March 2003, Official Report, column 338–39W.

  Patient Choice
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will determine whether a patient in Greater Manchester waiting six months for(a) orthopaedic treatment, (b) ENT treatment or (c) general surgery is eligible to choose an alternative hospital. [99107]

  Mr. Hutton
  Approval has recently been given by the Department of Health to the establishment of a national health service based "CHOICE" pilot scheme. In Greater Manchester, this is to be based around the Greater Manchester Surgical Centre at Trafford General Hospital. When fully up and running in October 2003, the pilot proposes that any patient registered with a general practitioner in Greater Manchester who has been waiting over six months in the specialties of general surgery, ear, nose and throat and orthopaedics for set of procedures will be eligible to choose an alternative treatment centre.

  Practice Lists (Child Removal)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to prevent GP practices removing children not immunised against MMR from their practice list. [99179]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners should not remove patients from their lists in these circumstances. The General Medical Council has issued guidance—"Duties of a Doctor— Good Medical Practice", which makes it clear that patients should not be removed because of the financial impact of their care or treatment on the practice.

  The Department fully supports that advice. The proposed new general medical services contract which was announced on 21 February is intended not only to provide for a consistently high quality service to patients but also to avoid perverse incentives such as any which might encourage removal of patients from practice lists other than for good reason.

  Smoking
  Chris Ruane
  To a ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has undertaken into the major health effects of passive smoking in(a) adults, with particular reference to pregnant women and (b) children, with particular reference to babies aged between eight and 12 weeks. [97575]

  Ms Blears
  The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health concluded in its 1998 Report that:
  Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long-term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20–30 per cent.Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of ischaemic heart diseases and if current published estimates of magnitude of relative risk are validated, such exposures represents a substantial public hazard.Smoking in the presence of infants and children is a cause of serious respiratory illness and asthmatic attacks Sudden infant death syndrome, the main cause of post-neonatal death in the first year of life, is associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The association is judged to be one of cause and effect.Middle ear disease in children is linked with parental smoking and this association is likely to be causal.
  The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health subsequently re-iterated this view in its 2001 Annual Report. The statement can be found on the following websites:
  www.doh.gov.uk/scoth/index.htm http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/report.htrn
  No further recent research has been commissioned by the Department into the health effects of passive smoking.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on the effects of passive smoking in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [98492]

  Ms Blears
  The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health concluded in its 1998 Report that:

  Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20–30 per cent.

  Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of ischaemic heart diseases and if current published estimates of magnitude of relative risk are validated, such exposures represents a substantial public hazard

  The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health subsequently re-iterated this view in its 2001 Annual Report. The statement can be found on the following websites:

  www.doh.gov.uk/scoth/index.htm

  http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/report.htm

  No further recent research has been commissioned by the Department into the health effects of passive smoking.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has carried out into the health implications of passive smoking. [98921]
  467W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health concluded in its 1998 Report that:
  Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long-term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20–30 per cent.Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of ischaemic heart diseases and if current published estimates of magnitude of relative risk are validated, such exposures represents a substantial public hazard.Smoking in the presence of infants ant children is a cause of serious respiratory illness and asthmatic attacks.Sudden infant death syndrome, the main cause of post-neonatal death in the first year of life, is associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The association is judged to be one of cause and effect.Middle ear disease in children is linked with parental smoking and this association is likely to be causal.
  The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health subsequently re-iterated this view in its 2001 Annual Report. The statement can be found on the following websites:
  www.doh.gov.u1c/scoth/index.htm http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/report.htm
  No further recent research has been commissioned by the Department into the health effects of passive smoking.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on(a) smoking in public places and (1)) passive smoking. [98843]

  Ms Blears
  The White Paper, "Smoking Kills" committed the Government to working in partnership with industry to reduce the problem of exposure to passive smoke through voluntary action rather than legislation. It praised the example of the licensed hospitality industry, which agreed, with Government support, the Public Places Charter. The Charter commits signatories to increasing the provision of facilities for non-smokers, improving ventilation and giving customers better information about the level of smoke-free facilities in a given establishment.

  We consider that if we are to ensure protection against passive smoking in public places, we need action nationally and locally both to raise awareness of the risks associated with passive smoking and to increase the prevalence of smoke free environments. The Department of Health will continue to encourage the development of smoke free policies, working with employers and communities.

  At a national level the Department of Health has, since 1998, worked with the hospitality industry to reduce the problem of exposure to passive smoking through the development of a Public Places Charter. An independent evaluation of the Charter is being commissioned, and further work will be considered on the basis of the findings.Locally, the Department is funding tobacco control alliances across England to work in communities to raise awareness and to increase the number of smoke-free environments. Findings from these projects will inform future development of the Department's work in this area.
  468W
  The Department of Health will, in addition to action already under way, develop education and information resources to raise awareness and understanding of the risks associated with passive smoking.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to support legislation against smoking in the workplace. [98922]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: Although the Government do not support legislation to ban smoking in the workplace, existing health and safety legislation, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, places responsibility on employers to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees.

  The Government are giving careful consideration to the Health and Safety Commission's proposals for an Approved Code of Practice on Smoking in the Workplace (ACoP). While consideration of the ACoP continues, other action is being taken to encourage the provision of smoke free areas in public and workplaces.

  We consider that if we are to ensure protection against passive smoking in public places and workplaces, we need action nationally and locally both to raise awareness of the risks associated with passive smoking and to increase the prevalence of smoke free environments. The Department will continue to encourage the development of smoke free policies, working with employers and communities.

  Locally, the Department is funding tobacco control alliances across England to work in communities to raise awareness and to increase the number of smoke free environments. Findings from these projects will inform future development of the Department's work in this area.

  The Department will, in addition to action already under way, develop education and information resources to raise awareness and understanding of the risks associated with passive smoking.

  Social Workers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 26W, on child protection, when the General Social Care Council is planning to report on the review of the current framework for post-qualifying training for social work; what the parameters of the review conducted by the General Social Care Council into post-qualifying training are; how many social workers hold the post-qualifying award; and if he will make a statement on the implementation by local authority social services departments of the action plan to effect planned developments. [100487]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is the intention that the General Social Care Council's review of the post-qualifying training framework will report their findings and recommendations later in the year. The GSCC intends to consult extensively on the future framework for post-qualifying awards during April and May this year. The scope of the review will include the range and design of qualifications within the framework and the administrative framework to support their delivery. Any statement on how recommendations from the review should be implemented will be made after this.
  469W
  The number of social workers in England holding the post-qualifying award, recorded by the GSCC is 1,875. However, this award is just one of a number of post-qualifying awards that can be gained after social workers have become professionally qualified in both generic and specialised areas. It these are taken into account, the total number of awards issued comes to over 9,500.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take against local authority social services departments that have been found to have recruited social workers who have not had their qualifications validated with the General Social Care Council; and how many times this has happened in the last five years. [100488]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authorities, as with any other employer of social care staff, should carry out appropriate checks to ensure that the social workers in their employ are properly qualified for the work they are employed to carry out. In September 2002, the General Social Care Council (GSCC) published codes of practice for social care workers and employers. Code 1 of the employers code requires employers to make sure that only people who have the appropriate knowledge and skills enter the social care work force. The codes are taken into account in the enforcement of National Care Standards.

  All courses in social work are approved by the GSCC, which has been in operation since October 2001. The GSCC is also the awarding body for the Diploma in Social Work and will validate the successful completion of the Diploma programme by an individual. The GSCC also offers an advisory service to employers and internationally qualified social workers, verifying whether or not the qualification is a professional qualification in social work in its country of origin.

  Prior to this date, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) was the awarding body for the Diploma in Social Work and offered the same service.

  However, there is no obligation to validate qualifications with the GSCC, or was there previously with the CCETSW, and no action is taken against those who do not use this service.

  Tobacco Regulatory Authority
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with other member states of the European Union about establishing a tobacco regulatory authority. [99283]

  Ms Blears
  Ministers have had no formal discussions to date with other Member States of the European Union about establishing a new tobacco regulatory authority. However, European wide legislation to introduce tighter controls on tobacco products is currently entering into force in Member States.

  The Government believes that much of the work to further regulate tobacco is being addressed through continuing developments under the Directive on the Manufacture, Presentation and Sale of Tobacco Products. This legislation was transposed into United Kingdom law in December 2002. It lays down maximum
  470W
  yields of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide for cigarettes; requires new larger and starker health warnings on tobacco products and bans the use of terms such as Now tar7 which suggest one tobacco product is less harmful than another.

  Article 11 of this Directive requires the European Commission to evaluate implementation of the Directive. This includes indicating where further review may be necessary in a wide range of tobacco regulatory areas, in the light of developments in scientific and technical knowledge. This could include evaluation of addictive effects of ingredients in tobacco products and methodologies for more realistically assessing the content and emissions of tobacco products. The Commission may also propose amendments to the current Directive. Full details of article 11 are contained in the Department of Health publication "Consultation on regulations implementing EU Directive 2001/37/EC— the Labelling Directive", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Unpaid Carers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government is taking to support unpaid carers; what plans he has to bring new funds to(a) help carers and (b) set up better support networks; and if he will make a statement. [100295]

  Jacqui Smith
  Through the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, carers are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support. They may also receive cash to purchase the services they need.

  The Carers Grant gives money to local councils to provide short breaks for carers to enable them to continue in their caring role. The grant has been increased annually since its introduction in 1999 from £20 million to £100 million in 2003–04. The Grant will continue until 2006, during which time it will more than double to £185 million to provide extended care and 130,000 further breaks to carers. Increased flexibility in the use of the Grant will allow councils to better support local carers networks.

  In addition the Department of Health makes grants to voluntary organisations to provide information to support carers.

  Utting Report
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which recommendations of the Utting Report the Government have implemented in full. [100779]

  Jacqui Smith
  Of the 20 principal recommendations contained in "People Like US—The Report of the Review of the Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home (Utting, 1997)", 11 were for the Government to address. Of these 11, two were rejected, recommendations six and nine, eight have been implemented in full, recommendations one, five, seven, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 19, and one, recommendation 20, was partially implemented. Recommendation 20 relates to the implementation of the remaining recommendations contained in the 1989 Pigot report. These were considered by the interdepartmental report "Speaking
  471W
  Up for Justice" and informed the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, now in the process of implementation.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Audit Commission report on the alteration by NHS hospital trusts of figures on waiting times; and which hospitals in the north-west have been accused of altering waiting time lists. [102546]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Audit Commission report "Waiting List Accuracy" was published on Wednesday 5 March. Three trusts were found to be deliberately misreporting their data, this practice is inexcusable, in all of these cases prompt action was taken to investigate and deal with the issues identified. Only one of these trusts is in the north-west, South Manchester University Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Working Practices
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his definition is of(a) multidisciplinary working and (b) co-terminosity; and if he will make a statement. [98593]

  Mr. Hutton
  In a health and social care context, multidisciplinary working refers to a number of trained and skilled professionals using and co-ordinating their particular expertise to ensure that people receive the best possible treatment and care. Co-terminosity means the alignment of organisational boundaries between health and social care agencies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reach a decision on the asylum application of Mr. Hektor Sinani, Ref S1034257/3; and where the papers relating to Mr. Sinani's application are located. [102250]

  Beverley Hughes
  Hektor Sinani s asylum claim was refused on 17 April 2000, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed on 13 March 2001. Mr. Sinani's papers are at Eaton House to consider further applications on the basis of his marriage and Human Rights grounds. These applications will be resolved within the next two weeks.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to deport failed asylum seekers to Somalia; and if he will make a statement. [103031]

  Beverley Hughes
  This position has not changed since my answer on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 714W.

  Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 321W, what steps he is taking to monitor the effectiveness of the
  472W
  provisions cited in his answer in helping the UK to meet its obligations under the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. [101809]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Further to my answer of 5 February, statistical information on use of the powers under sections 113 and 114 of the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCS) is collected regularly. The powers have been used in respect of two juveniles, detained on hoaxing charges and released on bail pending trial.

  As a result of investigations in London, four people have been charged under section 2 of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. In a subsequent investigation five other people have been charged under section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 with conspiracy to produce or develop chemical weapons. The protective security arrangements surrounding the security of pathogens and toxins under part 7 of the ATCS are being taken forward as part of the implementation of the Act.

  Capita
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department expects to pay to Capita for work carried out for his Department(a) in 2003 and (b) 2002. [101137]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The forecasted payments by the Home Department to Capita for work carried out in 2002 and 2003 are as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure (£)

  2002

  32,214,095.35

  2003

  65,509,238.61

  Correspondence
  Dr.Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East of 11 October and 25 November 2002 and 8 January 2003 regarding the case of Mr. Uones Mahmad Nizar (HO Ref N1030237). [100582]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 13 March 2003.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Bolton, South East of 12 September 2002, 29 October 2002, 4 December 2002 and 8 January 2003 regarding the case of Mr. Mohammed Iqbal (HO Ref J243444). [101342]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 13 March 2003.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Vauxhall dated 21 November 2002 about a constituent, reference number D1066307. [101834]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to my hon. Friend on 7 March 2003.

  Court Escapees
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people found guilty of a criminal offence escaped from court last year; and of these, how many failed to be recaptured. [100483]

  Hilary Benn
  Information received from the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service shows that 34 persons escaped from courts in England and Wales in 2002, but information held centrally does not identify whether these persons were convicted or whether a recapture took place. As this information will need to be collated I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available. In addition, a further 21 persons escaped but were recaptured within 15 minutes.

  Guildford/Birmingham Bombings
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bombs in(a) Guildford on 5 October 1974 and (b) Birmingham on 21 November 1974. [102127]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The cases remain open. Should any new evidence or information come to the attention of the police service, it will, of course, be investigated fully.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to ensure that all persons employed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are either UK citizens or have valid work permits. [101650]

  Beverley Hughes
  All candidates who apply to work for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) must meet the required eligibility criteria which is set out on each recruitment campaign. For administrative and executive grades candidates must be a British or Commonwealth citizen or a national of a state within the EU with no time limit on their stay in the UK. They should also have normally lived in the UK continuously for the previous three years. For Immigration Service grades candidates must be a UK national with five years residence in the UK.

  When a candidate applies for a recruitment campaign their application form is checked to ensure they fulfil the relevant nationality criteria. If they are successful in reaching the interview stage they are then required to produce either a birth certificate or UK, EU or Commonwealth passport. These documents are photocopied and any passport other than a UK or EU document is checked to ensure that the holder has Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK. This means that anyone who is declared successful at interview does not have any restrictions attached to their stay in this country and is allowed to work here.

  Prior to offering a start date to any candidate successful on a recruitment scheme enquiries are conducted into suitability for employment. These include security checks, inquiries into health and taking up employment or academic references and personal references. Only when we are content that all inquiries have been completed satisfactorily, will an offer of employment be made.
  474W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, broken down by grade. [102453]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  Directorate: Totals sheet— As at 1 February 2003

  Substantive grades

  Head count of full and part-time staff

  Senior civil servants

  20

  Grade 6

  39

  Grade 7

  173

  Inspectors

  145

  Senior executive officer

  319

  Higher executive officer D

  7

  Higher executive officer

  976

  Chief immigration officer

  631

  Immigration officer

  3,127

  Executive officer

  2,177

  Administration officer

  2,475

  Assistant immigration officer

  624

  Administration assistant

  1,454

  Chief typing manager

  1

  Typist

  29

  Personal secretary

  71

  Support grades

  347

  Industrial

  23

  Total

  12,638

  Lili Lin
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Lili Lin. [101987]

  Beverley Hughes
  Ms Lin was due to be removed from the United Kingdom on 6 March 2003. Ms Lin has since submitted a further application to remain in the United Kingdom. She will not be removed while this application is under consideration.

  Motorised Scooters
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to(a) the police and (b) local authorities to tackle problems caused by motorised scooters using pavements. [102284]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I understand that caselaw confirms that riding a motorised scooter on a pavement is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 the maximum penalty for which is a fine not exceeding Level 2 on the standard scale. The police will take action as they consider appropriate locally in each case to enforce the law. Where the offender is a child the police can warn him and advise his parents as necessary. Local authorities have no power to deal with the specific problem. They can make byelaws prohibiting the use of motorised scooters in particular areas.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 10 March, ref 96152, if he will reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question. [102827]
  475W
  Beverley Hughes
  I apologise for the delay in responding. At the time your letter was received in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) the file was in transit within the IND estate. As a result your letter could not be immediately linked to the file and responded to.

  Smallpox Vaccinations
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Health at out the availability to the general public of smallpox vaccinations. [101617]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: I hold regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues. This is an integral part of the routine process of government but it is not Government policy to disclose details of specific conversations. Discussions between Cabinet colleagues fall under Exemption 2 in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers Internal Discussion and Advice.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burundi
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) timescale and (b) process are for the release of her Department's pledged funds to Burundi; and if she will make a statement. [103112]

  Clare Short
  At the most recent Donors Roundtable Meeting on Burundi held in Geneva last November 2002 we reconfirmed that although the UK would not become a substantial bilateral donor to Burundi we would play our part in support of others, particularly the multilateral agencies. This includes continuing our existing bilateral assistance (mainly humanitarian assistance, work with the media, HIV/AIDS prevention and peace building). We also agreed to consider an additional contribution of US$1 million to the World Bank Multilateral Debt Trust Fund. We are in the process of releasing these funds to the World bank. Our total support to Burundi in the current financial year will be some £2.2 million.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [102744]

  Clare Short
  I have been closely involved in supporting the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition DFID has provided support to a number of peace-building initiatives in support of the Lusaka and Pretoria agreements. We have committed $25 million to the $330 million World Bank Multi-Country Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme for the Great Lakes region. We are assisting the UN's peacekeeping interventions through support to Radio Okapi, the MONUC linked radio station in the DRC. We have supported community based peace-building projects managed by the Christian Aid and 476W
  CAFOD in Eastern DRC, and provided funds for the peace-building work of Life and Peace Institute and International Alert. We have also provided some limited technical assistance to the office of the Facilitator in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue.

  Empowering Women
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much development aid was paid by her Department to schemes aimed at empowering women in(a) 1998, (b) 2000 and (c) 2002; and if she will list the projects concerned. [102236]

  Clare Short
  Because women make up 70 per cent. of the world's poor DFID puts women's empowerment at the heart of its work, actively pursuing it in the mainstream of all development activities. It begins with girls' access to basic education and completion of primary schooling; support for civil society organisations that represent women's needs and advocate for women in decision-making roles; and education of the whole community about the rights of women and girls.

  DFID expenditure on support including women's empowerment and gender equality as a principal or significant objective is available by financial year:

  £million

  1998–99

  26.4

  1999–2000

  56.9

  2000–01

  90.7

  2001–02

  166.9

  A project list cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Global Health Fund
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list the sources of money allocated to the Global Health Fund; and if she will make a statement; [103107]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with other international donors regarding the shortfall of the $10 billion a year required by the Global Health Fund; and if she will make a statement. [103108]

  Clare Short
  The primary role of the fund is to provide drugs and commodities for the prevention and treatment of AIDS, TB and Malaria. DFID have pledged $200 million over five years to the fund, $80 million of which has been disbursed. In addition DFID have committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to support the development of health systems in poorer countries. Strengthening such systems is vital if drugs are to be safely and sustainably supplied to the poor. Wherever possible the Global Fund should be providing support behind strategies that help deliver sustainable improvements in health care. The fund has strong founding principles in this regard, but performance to date in this regard has been mixed. Our future support for the Global Fund will depend on its effectiveness. It is one of several possible instruments designed to improve basic health care in poor countries.
  477W
  Sources of money allocated to the Global Fund can be found on its website: www.globalfundatm.org/contribute.html

  My Department is in frequent contact with other international donors and has repeatedly stressed the need for others to make multi year funding pledges to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria as DFID has done.

  The figure of US $7–10 billion per annum is a UNAIDS estimate of the total additional resources required to tackle HIV/AIDS. As Kofi Annan has made clear it is not a target for the fund.

  Overseas Aid
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the British Government has disbursed(a) in each of the last two years and (b) so far this year to (i) Uganda, (ii) Rwanda and (iii) the Democratic Republic of Congo. [102347]

  Clare Short
  In each of the last two financial years, the British Government have distributed aid to Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Total UK expenditure for each country, including the estimates for 2002–03, is as follows. As the hon. Gentleman will know, long-term expenditure in DRC is confined to humanitarian and conflict resolution interventions. Development is impossible without the establishment of peace and legitimate government. We

  Financial year

  UK bilateral assistance to South America (£ million). Includes DFID programmes, CDC investments and debt relief

  Largest financial recipient of UK bilateral assistance in South America

  DFID share of EC assistance to South America (£ million)

  Largest financial recipient of EC assistance in South America

  1997–98

  52.406

  Bolivia

  12.6 (1997)

  Bolivia (1997)

  1999–2000

  75.355

  Bolivia

  20.5 (1999)

  Peru (1999)

  2001–02

  51.238

  Bolivia

  38.4 (2001)

  Argentina (2001)

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Correspondence
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the hon. Member for Richmond Park will receive a reply to her letter of 14 January 2002 regarding the Pedler Family Judicial Trustee case. [99930]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor replied personally to Dr. Tonge's letter of 14 January 2002 on 28 April 2002.

  Abducted Children
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps have recently been taken by her Department to provide and improve statistics of cases of child abduction. [102237]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 66W. I would only add that the statistical information collected by the Child Abduction Unit is submitted to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference annually for publication on their website.
  478W
  are pressing President Kabila to agree to the installation of the Transitional government so that debt relief can be agreed and reconstruction can begin.

  Country/year

  £ million

  Uganda

  2000–01

  97,572

  2001–02

  68,724

  2002–03 Estimate

  62,500

  Rwanda

  2000–01

  32,878

  2001–02

  27,189

  2002–03 Estimate

  35,800

  DRC

  2000–01

  6,752

  2001–02

  10,262

  2002–03 Estimate

  14,500

  South America
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much development aid was paid to the South American continent in(a) 1998, (b) 2000 and (c) 2002; and which country was the main receiver of this aid in each of those years. [102235]

  Clare Short
  DFID's statistics are available by financial year only. The latest year available is 2001–02. EC statistics are by calendar year.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what steps are taken by her Department to hell) parents with abducted children to gain access to their children held abroad; [102239]

  (2) what assessment she has made of her Department's compliance with the recommendations established in Article 21 of the Hague Convention when advising parents who have had their children abducted to make an application for access; how those applications are handled; and what support is provided by her Department to ensure that the applications are successful. [102240]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention allows applications via the designated Central Authorities for arrangements to secure effective exercise of rights of access. The primary remedy, however, is the return of the child, and applications under Article 21 will generally be deferred until the return application is concluded. I am satisfied that the Child Abduction Unit discharges its functions on behalf of the Lord Chancellor as Central Authority for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in compliance with the requirements of the 1980 Hague Convention. The Child Abduction Unit ensures that all parents who have not obtained the child's return under the return
  479W
  provisions of the Convention, are advised of the possibility of seeking access through Article 21 of the Convention. The Unit will transmit any application made, whether for return of the child or for access rights, to its counterpart in the other country, monitor the case, liaise with all interested parties and assist as necessary. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will also provide appropriate consular assistance. The decision on any application is a matter for the court to which the application is addressed.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in attaining performance targets for the collection of outstanding fines imposed by magistrates courts. [99871]

  Yvette Cooper
  Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) have responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders.

  The table sets out the latest figures for the payment rate for individual MCCs. Fine enforcement performance is too low and the variations are too wide and unacceptable ranging from over 80 per cent. to under 40 per cent.

  MCCs set their own targets for improvement when they bid for a share of £9 million extra investment (netting off) for the financial year 2002–03. The aggregate of the local targets was an increase in fines collected of 7 per cent. The Government set out a target national performance level of 68 per cent. in the payment rate by end of March 2003.

  The payment rate currently includes confiscation orders as well as fines, so individual areas can see their figures distorted by high confiscation orders imposed in one quarter and collected at a later date.

  Some MCCs have demonstrated significant improvements in performance: Avon and Somerset (from 54 per cent. to 73 per cent.), Gloucestershire (from 42 per cent. to 73 per cent.) and South Wales (from 39 per cent. to 50 per cent.). Others have seen performance fall, such as GLMCA, which has deteriorated from 46 per cent. to 38 per cent.

  The total amount of money collected in the 12 months to December 2002 has increased by £2.3 million (or 1 per cent.) compared to previous year. However the total new amount owed has increased by 6.9 per cent. The current rolling year payment rate is 56 per cent. compared to 59 per cent. a year ago. Excluding the Greater London Magistrates' Courts' Authority the payment rate is 62 per cent.
  480W
  Fine enforcement performance is too low and the current variations in performance are unacceptable. That is why the Government have introduced a major program of work to tackle fine enforcement.
  Funded pilots of different approaches to fine enforcement showing significant increases in enforcement.
  Poorly performing MCCs must draw up action plans incorporating findings of the research in order to qualify for their share of next years funding.
  Extra investment in fine enforcement of £9 million in current year rising to £18 million next year.
  Introducing a unified courts administration with stronger management systems for tackling poor performance as part of the Courts Bill.
  Vehicle clamping of defaulters, discount for prompt payment and increases if the offender fails to pay on time, registering the debt with the registry of judgments to prevent defaulters from getting credit as part of the Courts Bill.
  Increasing support and advice for those who cannot pay as well as developing alternative sentence options in the community.

  Debt analysis—Rolling year: January 2002 to December 2002

  Amount imposed total(£)

  Amount paid total(£)

  Payment rate indicator (Percentage)

  Avon and Somerset

  10,719,413

  6,173,809

  73

  Bedfordshire

  3,220,859

  2,415,461

  59

  Cambridgeshire

  4,454,102

  3,466,611

  33

  Cheshire

  5,876,836

  3,502,782

  56

  Cleveland

  3,259,970

  1,882,948

  50

  Cumbria

  3,952,757

  2,683,011

  76

  Derbyshire

  7,054,261

  4,297,097

  57

  Devon and Cornwall

  10,021,264

  5,391,963

  63

  Dorset

  3,341,820

  2,488,518

  75

  Durham

  3,694,282

  2,864,660

  73

  Dyfed Powys

  2,624,932

  1,892,384

  71

  Essex

  10,111,948

  8,149,513

  75

  Gloucestershire

  2,200,862

  2,404,712

  73

  Greater London

  63,701,896

  40,166,205

  38

  Greater Manchester

  22,135,048

  14,473,929

  65

  Gwent

  4,074,201

  2,866,675

  63

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  7,595,592

  7,413,125

  76

  Hertfordshire

  5,456,665

  4,262,381

  67

  Humberside

  4,659,538

  3,800,992

  71

  Kent

  11,381,351

  5,825,408

  62

  Lancashire

  12,583,526

  6,998,720

  66

  Leicestershire

  7,018,052

  5,083,050

  75

  Lincolnshire

  5,460,427

  2,749,453

  62

  Merseyside

  7,901,028

  4,177,037

  32

  Norfolk

  3,431,075

  2,650,102

  76

  North Wales

  5,389,241

  2,790,064

  61

  481W

  Debt analysis—Rolling year: January 2002 to December 2002

  Amount imposed total (£)

  Amount paid total (£)

  Payment rate indicator (Percentage)

  North

  Yorkshire

  2,838,382

  2,442,514

  80

  Northamptonshire

  7,889,295

  3,495,245

  57

  Northumbria

  7,415,623

  5,200,127

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  5,746,751

  4,519,728

  64

  South Wales

  8,721,806

  4,805,327

  50

  South

  Yorkshire

  7,918,784

  5,288,728

  60

  Staffordshire

  7,330,713

  4,279,018

  68

  Suffolk

  3,256,469

  2,377,724

  66

  Surrey

  7,044,726

  4,478,625

  79

  Sussex

  8,229,910

  3,944,435

  60

  Thames Valley

  10,318,717

  7,323,217

  75

  Warwickshire

  4,127,276

  2,631,531

  85

  West Mercia

  6,128,518

  4,640,320

  72

  West

  Midlands

  21,847,735

  12,268,003

  53

  West

  Yorkshire

  11,758,544

  8,448,270

  54

  Wiltshire

  4,802,573

  3,588,043

  74

  England and Wales

  356,696,768

  230,601,465

  56

  Note:

  The payment rate also includes the net amount transferred in which over this rolling year was £54 million

  Ministerial Travel
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent, in each year from 1 May 1997 to date, on the Lord Chancellor's personal travel arrangements on official business, broken down by(a) provision and running costs of vehicular transport, (b) first class travel by rail, (c) standard class travel by rail, (d) first class travel by air, (e) club or equivalent class travel by air and (f) economy class travel by air. [96418]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information available without disproportional cost is as follows: the table sets out departmental expenditure on all ministerial car use since 1 May 1997 (the number of Ministers in the Department increased from two to three during 1999–2000; and from three to four during 2000–01). For other travel, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  £000

  1 May 1997–98

  *

  1998–99

  *

  1999–2000

  172

  2000–01

  216

  2001–02

  271

  2002–31 January 2003

  126

  * Reliable data not available without disproportionate cost

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was. [101843]
  482W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gifts
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list gifts received by Ministers in the last 12 months. [103556]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today published a list of gifts received by Ministers. The list provides details of gifts received since June 2001 valued at more than £140. Copies of the list have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  GM Technology
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since June 2001 when he has received representations from the US administration in favour of GM technology; and when he last discussed the issue with President Bush. [102817]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received no representations from the US administration in favour of GM technology. However, I have regular discussions with President Bush on a wide range of issues, including agriculture. The Government and representatives of the US administration. are in regular contact and have exchanged views on GM issues.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the legal basis for military intervention against Iraq. [102902]

  The Prime Minister
  There is a longstanding convention, followed by successive Governments and reflected in the ministerial code, that legal advice to the Government remains confidential. This enables Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence, as everyone else can.

  We always act in accordance with international law. At the appropriate time the Government would of course explain the legal basis for any military action that may be necessary.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has consulted previous prime ministers to secure their consent to commit British forces to battle in Iraq. [103051]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Christian Aid postcards urging action on Middle East peace and a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis he has received at Downing Street. [103170]
  483W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received over 45,000 postcards since the campaign began. The Foreign Secretary will be writing to Christian Aid, and will ask that the letter is placed on their website so that people can read it.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with the US Government concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following a conflict which leads to regime change; [102752]

  (2) what (a) discussions he has held with and (b) representations he has received from multinational oil companies concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following any conflict in the Middle East; [102753]

  (3) what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following any conflict in the Middle East. [102756]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken. It is our position that Iraqi oil is owned by the Iraqi people. Its revenues should be used for the good of the people. We make this clear in all our contacts on the subject.

  However, the current situation is not about oil, it is about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime deliberately flouting the will of the United Nations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to restrict the number of quoted companies which a single audit firm can audit at the same time. [100903]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the auditors of the public bodies sponsored by her Department. [100904]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The auditors in 2001/2002 of the public bodies sponsored by DTI are listed in the Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies 2002. The same auditors will be used in 2002–2003.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require the Auditing Practices Board to hold public hearings before setting any auditing standard. [100906]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No. The Report of the Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession, published on 29 January, recommended that the Financial Reporting Council, of which the Auditing Practices Board (APB) is a subsidiary body, should improve arrangements for transparency including ensuring easy access to clear information about the purpose of the organisation, its place in the regulatory framework and its work programme and performance, and that this should extend to the publication of summary board minutes and papers. The APB already publishes the minutes of its meetings.
  484W
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require UK companies to disclose reasons for setting up operation in offshore financial centres whose laws do not require them to publish audited accounts. [100911]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have no plans to do so. Companies are required to consolidate the activities of such vehicles in the UK parent's audited accounts if they are subsidiary undertakings.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to give audit committees of companies full access to the working papers of their auditors. [100912]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Auditors' conclusions should be shared in full with audit committees and with all company directors. Sir Robert Smith's review of the Combined Code Guidance, published on 20 January, clarifies and expands upon the existing guidance on the audit committee's role in reviewing the work of the auditor throughout the audit cycle. Copies of that report have been placed in the Libraries of the House. I have no plans to introduce a requirement on auditors to disclose all their working papers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to require the auditors of public limited companies to file copies of the audit tender with a designated regulator. [100914]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ban auditing firms from selling off-balance sheet financing schemes to their audit clients. [100978]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans to introduce such a ban. The provision of non-audit services by auditors to their clients is covered in chapter 1 of the Final Report of the Coordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues, published on 29 January. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to give incoming auditors a right of access to the outgoing auditor's working papers. [100979]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will give the Financial Services Authority an unrestrained right of access to the working papers of auditors. [100980]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services Authority already has powers to obtain information from auditors.

  Enron
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what inquiries her Department has made into the UK operations of Enron. [100756]
  485W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Conduct reports pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 have been received from the joint Administrators or joint Liquidators (all PriceWaterhouseCoopers) in Enron Europe Ltd. and 21 other subsidiary companies.

  The Disqualification Unit of The Insolvency Service is making inquiries into those failures from the viewpoint of disqualification of the directors No decision as to whether disqualification proceedings are warranted has, however, been made.

  EU Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many professional accountants there are in each member state of the European Union. [100902]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures are not available for accountants in general as there is no statutory requirement for them to be registered with a professional body.

  Industrial Development Schemes
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many schemes under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in each of the last six years have covered a specific geographical area within the UK. [102803]

  Alan Johnson
  14 schemes cover or have covered regional or national areas over the last six years, as follows:

  Regional Enterprise Grant Scheme:

  Regional Innovation Grant Scheme (Wales)—1988 to date

  Regional Investment Grants (Scotland and Wales)—1988 to 1997

  Wales Trade International Trade Promotion Schemes—2001 Assembly Investment Grant Scheme (Wales)—from 2002 Rover Task Force: an element of the modernisation and diversification programme (West Midlands)—2001 to date One off payment to Atlantic Telecom's Administrators to maintain services for sufficient time to allow customers in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester to switch to alternative suppliers—2001 Support for redundancy payments at Scottish Coal (Deep Mine) Ltd.'s Longannet Colliery—2002 to date Support for redundancy payments at UK Coal's Selby Complex, in Yorkshire (subject to negotiation with the European Commission)—from 2003
  Schemes administered by the Small Business Service that are available only in

  England:

  Enterprise Fund—Early Growth Funding, from 2002

  Enterprise Fund—Regional Venture Capital Funds, from 2002

  Enterprise Grant Scheme, from 2000

  Phoenix Fund—Community Development Finance Institutions, Challenge Fund, from 2001

  Phoenix Fund—Community Development Venture Capital Fund, from 2002

  Business Incubation Fund, from 2003

  486W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many schemes under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in Scotland have been funded(a) wholly and (b) partly by her Department. [102801]

  Alan Johnson
  Seven UK wide programmes operating in Scotland over the last six years were funded wholly by my Department, as follows:

  Enterprise Fund—Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme

  Enterprise Fund—UK High Technology Fund

  Phoenix Fund—support for Community Development Finance Institutions, Loan Guarantees

  UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme

  New ISERBS—Iron and Steel Re-adaptation Benefit Scheme

  Urban Post Office Reinvention Programme

  Support for redundancy payments at Scottish Coal (Deep Mine) Ltd.'s Longannet Colliery

  The Department and the Scottish Executive provided a joint package of support in 2001 to Atlantic Telecom's administrators to maintain a fixed wireless network for sufficient time to allow customers to switch to alternative suppliers.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many schemes in Scotland have been funded under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in each of the last six years. [102802]

  Alan Johnson
  The use of Section 8 for schemes in Scotland only is a matter for the Scottish Executive. Eight UK wide schemes available in Scotland have been funded by my Department, or by the former Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, over the last six years. Three other schemes have been funded by the Scottish Executive, one of them jointly with my Department. A number of the schemes were introduced more than six years ago. The schemes or single payments were:

  Small Business Service:

  Enterprise Fund—Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme—1981 to date

  Enterprise Fund—UK High Technology Fund—from 2001

  Phoenix Fund—support for Community Development Finance Institutions, Loan Guarantees—from 2000

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:

  Small Company Environmental and Energy Management Assistance Scheme (SCEEMAS)—1995 to 1999

  Regional Enterprise Grant Scheme:

  Regional Innovation Grants (Scotland)—1988 to 1995

  Regional Investment Grants (Scotland)—1988 to 1997

  UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme—2000–02

  New ISERBS—Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefit Scheme—

  2001 to date

  One off payment to Atlantic Telecom Administrators———2001

  Urban Post Office Reinvention Programme—2002 to date

  Support for redundancy payments at Scottish Coal (Deep Mine) Ltd.'s Longannet Colliery—2002 to date

  Information about section 8 schemes and payments can be found in the annual reports laid before Parliament as required by the Industrial Development Act 1982. The most recent Annual Report for the year ending 31 March 2002 was published on 30 September

  487W
  2002 and is available in the Library of the House, and on the Stationery Office's website at: http://www.officialdocuments.co.uk/documentideps/hc/hc1007/1Q07.pdf. The Report includes information on the individual section 8 schemes.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met representatives of the(a) Trading Standards Institute, (b) Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services, (c) National Consumer Council and (d) National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; how often she meets each group; if she will make it her policy to place the minutes and agendas in the Library; and if she will make a statement.[102783]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I have met with Trading Standards Institute, Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services, National Consumer Council and Citizens Advice (including Citizens Advice Scotland) within the last six months.

  Formal meetings with most of these organisations are held on a regular footing to discus; matters of mutual interest. We also meet all of them at key events throughout the year.

  Minutes and agendas of these groups are not placed in the Libraries of the House and I do not intend changing that policy.

  Nuclear Industry (Skills Council)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to create a skills council for the nuclear industry.[101997]

  Mr. Wilson
  The British Nuclear Industries Forum, the trade association for the nuclear sector, and Cogent, the Sector Skills Council for oil and gas extraction, chemicals manufacture and petroleum, are in discussion about creating Cogent Plus, a Sector Skills Council serving these four sectors plus polymers.

  Like other applications for Sector Skills Council (SSC) status, the application will be subject to approval by the Sector Skills Development Agency, but this initiative has my full support. There are strong synergies between the nuclear sector and the proposed elements of Cogent Plus, and it offers a solid base for ensuring that the skills needed by the sector will be maintained and updated over the long term.

  Assuming Cogent Plus is formally approved as an SSC it will take forward implementation of the recommendations set out in the report on nuclear skills published by the Department last year. These related in particular to the promotion of science and engineering to young people, the provision of support to teachers, the development of national occupational standards, the wider adoption of modern apprenticeship schemes within the nuclear sector and the building of alliances with universities with a view to the development of customised courses and academic centres of excellence capable of servicing the future needs and requirements of the nuclear sector.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the OFT's long term target to clear all cases over two years old. [102797]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The OFT has set internal targets for dealing with complaints about unfair terms in consumer contracts under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The National Audit Office notes in its recently published report, 'The Office of Fair Trading: Progress in Protecting Consumers' Interests', that the OFT has increased the size of the team dealing with unfair contract terms and has given senior managers more autonomy in order to speed up its investigations.

  The NAO confirm that the OFT 'is making good progress in reducing the number of cases over two years old'.

  Patent Law
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reform patent law to enhance the rights of inventors in relation to their employers.[102529]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The possibility of enhancing the provisions in the Patents Act 1977 on compensation for employee-inventors for inventions of outstanding benefit to the employer was explored in the recent consultation on our proposed Patents Act (Amendment) Bill. We will be developing our plans in the coming months in the light of responses to that consultation.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to propose legislation that will require companies to disclose financial donations in kind to political parties. [100909]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are already such requirements under sections 347A to K and paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985, as amended by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

  Public Bodies (Non-auditing Services)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the non-auditing services bought by public bodies sponsored by her Department from their auditors. [100760]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The following public bodies sponsored by DTI have bought non-auditing services from their auditors:

  Coal Authority

  Accounting policy and taxation advice.

  National Consumer Council

  Reporting to NAO on compliance with Whole of Government Accounts.

  Preparation of tax computations and returns.

  Reviewing financial information for the Council's Annual Review.

  489W
  British Hallmarking Council

  Advice on tax liability DTI Department of Trade and Industry

  Rural Pharmacists
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on representations by the Scottish Executive on her policy on rural pharmacists. [101743]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The policy on rural pharmacists in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  US Sarabaness-Oxley Act
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what study she has made of the effect of the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 on British companies operating in the USA; and what representations she has made to US authorities on this issue. [100755]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There has been dialogue with the major business representative organisations and with various individual companies on the impact of the US Act on British companies. We have made representations at Ministerial and official levels on all aspects of the Act to the US authorities, and I raised the issue with Senators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the New York Stock Exchange

  TOC

  Manufacturer

  Date of order

  Number of vehicles

  Status of order

  Anglia Railways

  Adtranz

  March 1998

  24

  Completed

  Anglia Railways

  Bombardier

  January 2002

  8

  Completed

  Arriva Trains Northern

  Siemens

  February 1998

  48

  Completed

  Arriva Trains Northern

  Siemens

  May 2000

  8

  Completed

  Arriva Trains Northern

  Siemens

  November 2001

  8

  Delivery to start from July 2003

  C2c

  Adtranz

  June 1997

  184

  Completed

  C2c

  Bombardier

  June 2000

  112

  Completed

  Central Trains

  Adtranz

  May 1998

  26

  Completed

  Central Trains

  Adtranz

  May 1998

  29

  Completed

  Central Trains

  Adtranz

  August 1998

  21

  Completed

  Chiltern Railway

  Adtranz

  August 1996

  12

  Completed

  Chiltern Railway

  Adtranz

  April 1998

  8

  Completed

  Chiltern Railway

  Adtranz

  June 1999

  10

  Completed

  Chiltern Railway

  Adtranz

  August 2000

  9

  Completed

  Chiltern Railway

  Bombardier

  September 2001

  7

  Completed

  Connex South Eastern

  Bombardier

  July 1997

  120

  Delivery begun

  Connex South Eastern

  Bombardier

  July 1998

  60

  Delivery begun

  Connex South Eastern

  Bombardier

  July 1998

  30

  Delivery begun

  Connex South Eastern

  Bombardier

  June 2002

  228

  Delivery to start From July 2003

  Connex South Eastern

  Bombardier

  July 2002

  180

  Delivery to start from July 2004

  First Great Eastern

  Siemens

  May 2001

  84

  Delivery to start from April 2003

  First Great Western

  Alstom

  April 1998

  40

  Completed

  First Great Western

  Alstom

  June 1999

  30

  Delivery begun

  First North Western

  Alstom

  April 1998

  70

  Completed

  Gatwick Express

  Alstom

  January 1998

  64

  Completed

  Midland Mainline

  Adtranz

  October 1997

  34

  Completed

  Midland Mainline

  Adtranz

  February 2001

  10

  Completed

  Midland Mainline

  Bombardier

  January 2002

  127

  Delivery to start from April 2004

  ScotRail

  Adtranz

  March 1998

  27

  Completed

  ScotRail

  Adtranz

  April 1998

  18

  Completed

  ScotRail

  Adtranz

  August 1999

  27

  Completed

  ScotRail

  Adtranz

  August 1999

  6

  Completed

  ScotRail

  Alstom

  March 1998

  120

  Completed

  South Central

  Bombardier

  August 2001

  84

  Delivery begun

  South Central

  Bombardier

  August 2001

  156

  Delivery to begin April 2003

  South Central

  Bombardier

  March 2002

  460

  Delivery to begin April 2004

  490W
  during a visit to Washington and New York last month. We have also supported the European Commission in their representations to the US on the issue.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Central Line to re-open. [102903]

  Mr. Spellar
  I understand that the first services to the eastern part of the line are due to be reintroduced today. London Underground are now working to bring services back to the western part of the line, before extending them to the line as a whole.

  Railways
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list railway vehicles ordered for the railway network and their date for delivery; [101195]

  (2) when Bombardier will deliver their Electrostar trains to South Central; [101198]

  (3) if he will list the orders Bombardier has with British train operating companies. [101181]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table lists all orders for railway vehicles since 1997, including orders from Bombardier:
  491W

  TOC

  Manufacturer

  Date of order

  Number of vehicles

  Status of order

  South West Trains

  Alstorn

  May 1997

  120

  Delivery begun

  South West Trains

  Adtranz

  October 2000

  16

  Completed

  South West Trains

  Siemens

  April 2001

  785

  Delivery to begin April 2003

  Virgin Cross Country

  Bombardier

  December 1998

  136

  Completed

  Virgin Cross Country

  Bombardier

  December 1998

  216

  Delivery begun

  Virgin West Coast

  Alstorn

  February 1999

  477

  Delivery begun

  Delivery of the Electrostars has already started and is expected to be completed in late April 2004.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the inspection regime protocols covering the inspection of motor retaining bolts and brackets on the Waterloo and City Line and the Central Line and (b) protocols covering the withdrawal of Underground trains on safety grounds for each Underground line. [102397]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These matters are currently subject to a full investigation by LUL, with a team chaired by an independent expert and to a separate investigation by the Health and Safety Executive. The investigation results will be made public.

TREASURY

  Crown Estate
  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directions he has given to the Crown Estate Commissioners in respect of application of section 4(1) of the Crown Estate Act, 1961; and if he will make a statement. [103131]

  Mr. Boateng
  None.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Luxembourg on '7 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [102511]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 7 March. In preparation for the Spring Council on 21-22 March, ECOFIN adopted a Presidency Key Issues Paper on the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and a related Economic Policy Committee report on structural reforms. Ministers also agreed joint reports by the Commission and the Council on pensions systems and on the future of healthcare and care for the elderly. These reports will also be sent to the Spring Council.

  ECOFIN also adopted a report to the Spring Council on strengthening economic policy co-ordination. The report emphasizes the importance of the economic cycle, sustainability, and the quality of public investment and of taking a country-by-country approach to the assessment of member states' compliance with the medium-term close to balance requirement. It is therefore in line with key aspects of the UK's prudent interpretation of the Stabilityand Growth Pact.
  492W
  ECOFIN agreed Council Opinions on the Stability Programmes of Portugal and Luxembourg. It also took note of a legislative text on a Recommendation on the voting modalities of the ECB's Governing Council and noted reservations by Finland and the Netherlands. The Council approved a draft statement to be entered in the minutes of the Council at the adoption of the Decision, which confirms that the reform of ECB governance arrangements should not be seen as setting a precedent for other Community institutions.

  The Presidency indicated that they would seek final agreement on the tax package at an additional ECOFIN to be held on 19 March. They also indicated that agreement on energy taxation would be postponed to the ECOFIN on 19 March.ECOFIN adopted a Recommendation on the discharge of the 2001 Community Budget and adopted conclusions on priorities for the 2004 Budget.

  Under any other business, the German delegation indicated that they had presented a proposal to their Parliament to levy VAT on all flights over German airspace. This was noted by other delegations.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  NHS Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions officials from his Department have had with officials from the Department of Health concerning the borrowing limits on NHS foundation trusts.[102584]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury and Department of Health officials have meetings on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest

  Offshore Tax Havens
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent guidelines and guidance have been given to the Inland Revenue by Ministers in respect of transactions between the Inland Revenue and entities which are operating out of offshore tax havens; and if he will make a statement. [95827]

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to prevent public assets being transferred to companies based in tax havens. [99080]

  Mr. Boateng
  A number of reforms have already been introduced relating to the project management of major procurement exercises.

  The Government are currently reviewing existing guidance on tax aspects of Government procurement to safeguard value for money for Government as a whole.

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Public Service Agreement targets will he reported on as part of the web-based reporting of targets; in what month the first data will be published; and if he will make a statement. [102882]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government plan to introduce web-based reporting from April 2003. This will cover the targets published in Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003-06 (Cm 5571).

  Sterling Valuation
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) highest and (b) lowest value of the pound has been with respect to (i) the euro and (ii) the dollar in each year that is applicable since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [102927]

  Ruth Kelly
  Data on bilateral exchange rates can be obtained from the Office for National Statistics, or from the Bank of England website.

  The Government do not comment on day-to-day movements in the foreign exchange markets. The Government's objective for the exchange rate remains a stable and competitive pound in the medium term.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of(a) disability living allowance and (b) incapacity benefit there were, broken down by (i) region, (ii) age and (iii) type of disability in each of the last 10 years. [101766]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  British Sign Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department has taken to(a) recognise British Sign Language and (b) improve access to public services for British Sign Language users; and if he will make a statement. [102900]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have held discussions with various interested organisations, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires service providers to consider making reasonable adjustments to the way they provide their services so they are accessible to disabled people. The provision of a BSL interpreter could be considered a reasonable adjustment. The DRC's Code of Practice (Rights, Goods, Facilities, Services and Premises) includes examples of situations where providing a BSL interpreter might be a reasonable adjustment.

  The Government have funded projects with the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to increase the number of BSL interpreters and to improve the infrastructure for interpreter training and assessment.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the implications of recent developments in paediatric medicine requiring intensive nursing support by parents for the start date of disability living allowance payments for children being discharged from hospital; and if he will make a statement. [101345]

  Maria Eagle
  Developments in paediatric medicine do not alter the rules for the start date of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for children being discharged from hospital. For all rates and components of DLA, the qualifying rules must have been satisfied for a period of at least three months before DLA can be paid. Where that qualifying period has been completed, the payment of DLA claimed and awarded while children are in hospital starts when they are discharged to their home address. Payments of DLA are reinstated on discharge for children who were receiving the allowance before they went into hospital for more than 12 weeks.

  Employers' Liability
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which organisations were invited to submit evidence to the Review on employers' liability; and which organisations submitted evidence. [102377]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]: The following organisations were invited to contribute to the review of employers' liability insurance:

  Association of British Insurers

  Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  British Chambers of Commerce

  British Insurance Brokers' Association

  Confederation of British Industry

  Engineering Employers Federation

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Forum of Insurance Lawyers

  Forum of Private Business

  Institute of Directors

  Institute of Insurance Brokers

  Lloyd's Non Marine Association

  Trades Union Congress

  A range of trade associations were contacted. In addition all interested stakeholders were invited through the website of the Department for Work and Pensions to submit their views to the review team.

  A list of the organisations that submitted evidence will be made available after the report of the review has been published.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which sources of statistical evidence were used in connection with the review of employers' liability; and if he will publish the statistical evidence presented to the review. [102379]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]: A list of the organisations and the statistical evidence they submitted will be made available after the report of the review has been published.

  Fairground Safety
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answers of 19 December 2002,Official Report, columns 999-1000W, on fairground safety, when the National Fairground Inspection Team was established; what its terms of reference are; how many members it has; to whom it reports; and what recommendations it has made since its establishment. [100770]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The National Fairground Inspection Team was established in April 2002.

  The terms of reference and purpose of the National Fairground Inspection Team are to provide the operational contribution to the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) strategy and workplan for fairground safety. This involves inspection, investigation and other initiatives to address significant risks. It also secures compliance with health and safety law and improves safety management in the industry. The team provides a focus for fairground inspection and ensures continuity of expertise.

  The team is made up of local inspectors from HSE's Field Operations Directorate (F01)) located at HSE offices throughout the country. There are currently 37 inspectors and 12 principal inspectors who are nominated members of the National Fairground Inspection Team. Inspectors are not dedicated full time to the team but carry out their fairgrounds work in a planned way as part of their normal range of work. In addition, the Team may call on specialised disciplines (e.g. mechanical, structural, electrical, medical etc.) within HSE, and use the services of specialist contractors should the need arise.

  The team is directed and coordinated by HSE's Food and Entertainment Sector and reports through the HSE Director Scotland to the Director of Field Operations.

  The National Fairground Inspection Team does not make direct recommendations but provides operational intelligence to inform the HSE strategy and how it can best be taken forward.

  Parliamentary Quest ions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) parliamentary questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99425]

  Maria Eagle
  331 questions for answer on a named day were received from 15 October and 24 February. 199 were given holding replies, of which 54 were given substantive replies within three days, 42 within seven days, 69 within 14 days, 19 within 28 days and eight over 28 days. Many of these named day questions sought information of a detailed nature which required further analysis and work by officials in order to provide an answer.
  496W
  With regard to monitoring performance of parliamentary questions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 13 February 2003, Official Report, column 966W.

  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the performance of Departments in replying to ministerial correspondence. The report for 2001 was published on 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 674W. The report for 2002 will be published in due course.

  Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much has been levied in fines by the Health and Safety Executive against(a) companies, (b) local authorities and (c) individuals with regard to incidences of pollution broken down by the type of pollution incidence, (i) in total, (ii) in each region and (iii) per fine in each year since 1995; [99258]

  (2) what assessment has been made or is planned of the effectiveness of fines levied by the Health and Safety Executive on polluters in preventing (a) further incidences of pollution by the polluters and (b) incidences of pollution from others who have not previously polluted; what changes are planned; and if he will make a statement. [99259]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not levy fines. When appropriate, HSE brings, or in Scotland recommends, prosecutions so that the courts may consider imposing fines following any conviction.

  Responsibility for regulating environmental pollution does not reside with HSE. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and HSE have limited statutory responsibility in respect of the environment. Where they do have environmental involvement, HSE's activity is defined by the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. These matters include legislation involving control of major accident hazards, licensing and decommissioning of nuclear reactors, carriage of dangerous goods, notification of new substances, biocidal products, non-agricultural pesticides and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

  HSE does have an enforcement role in these areas, and the boundaries between its role and those of the Environment Agency (EA) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), are set out in Memoranda of Understanding. These can be viewed on the HSE's website at www.hse.qov.uk.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice is given to employers about provision of smoke free working and rest areas for employees. [99981]
  497W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All employers have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees, and this duty includes any risks arising from passive smoking.

  More specifically, the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke in rest rooms and rest areas. This means that employers must either provide separate rest rooms/areas for smokers and non smokers or prohibit smoking in rest rooms/areas.

  Free guidance published by HSE provides advice to employers on introducing effective smoking policies in the workplace. The guidance advises that employers must ensure that there are arrangements to protect nonsmokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke in rest rooms or rest areas.

  The guidance recommends that smoking policies in the workplace should give priority to the needs of nonsmokers who do not wish to breathe tobacco smoke.
  498W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100928]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In all our businesses, smoking is banned within all public areas and also within open plan working areas.

  Arrangements are made locally on a site by site basis in consultation with staff the procedures for those who smoke. Smoking rooms are provided where space allows.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the introduction of an Approved Code of Practice for smoking in the workplace. [100947]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government are currently looking at possible options to reduce the exposure of people to tobacco smoke.

  We will announce our conclusions in due course about how best we will achieve further progress in this area.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  I am pleased to announce that I have reappointed Lord Patel as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a second three-year term. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to public bodies.

  Hayes PPP Project
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The Ministry of Defence has decided to appoint TNT Express Services with ProLogis Ltd. as the preferred bidder for the Hayes PPP Project. Subject to negotiations, TNT will be responsible for the provision of records management and archiving services to the Ministry of Defence and a number of other Government organisations for a 25-year period. ProLogis will become the owners of the Ministry site at Bourne Avenue, Hayes, Middlesex and will be responsible for its redevelopment. Within two years, TNT intends to relocate the records service to new facilities in the midlands.

  This project is a pan-government collaboration between the MOD, as project sponsor, and its 13 partners who are as follows:

  Court Service

  Public Record Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Department for International Development

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Public Guardianship Office

  Parliamentary Commissioner

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Home Office

  Metropolitan Police Service

  Food Standards Agency

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Energywatch

  When the contract takes effect, possibly in the summer of 2003, TNT will become the new employer for all transferring civil servants (perhaps more than 60).
  30WS
  All transfers to TNT will be covered by the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) 1981.

  The Hayes PPP contract will initially provide secure storage for possibly 200Kms of official paper records. The service will include a high degree of accountability for this material and will offer a range of delivery standards to suit each Government organisation's needs via a UK-wide logistics network.

TREASURY

  Air Transport
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  The 2002 pre-Budget report announced that the Government would discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring that the aviation industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming, local air and noise pollution.

  To take this process forward, the Government will shortly be issuing invitations to all key representative stakeholders to attend discussion sessions. The stakeholders will include umbrella organisations covering the following broad areas:

  Industry and business (including airlines, airport operators, manufacturers, tourism bodies and union representatives)

  National environmental groups

  Public bodies

  The expert community

  To provide background and support to these discussions, the Government are today publishing a discussion paper, Aviation and the environment: using economic instruments. This document, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House, covers:
  The Government's objectives for aviation. The Government believe that aviation should aim to maximise its significant social and economic benefits and minimise its environmental impacts.
  The Government's approach to using economic instruments in general, following the Government's environmental tax principles set out in Tax and the environment: using economic instruments, published alongside the 2002 pre-Budget report.
  The Government's estimates of aviation's environmental costs, including its impacts on climate change, local air quality and noise.

  The document also contains a list of questions which the Government would like stakeholders to consider in more detail at the discussions.

  The discussions with stakeholders, as well as the document being published today, will help to inform policy on the future development of air transport in the UK on which the Government are consulting through a series of documents issued last summer and, additionally, through a second edition of the South East consultation document published on 27 February. The Government will set out their views in their air transport White Paper later this year.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Microchips
11.6 a.m.
Lord Wade of Chorltonrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, Chips for Everything: Britain's opportunities in a key global market (2nd Report, HL Paper 13).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to present to noble Lords the report of the Science and Technology Select Committee, Chips for Everything, on the future of microprocessing. The world has seen the dramatic impact of this new technology, which is only some 50 years old and has now created one of the largest industries in the world. It employs many thousands of people throughout the world and has created much wealth and opportunity in recent years. We have now looked at the industry and identified some of the opportunities that it presents for the UK, particularly for our own industry and wealth creation.
I am aware that we are presenting the report before having received the Government's response to it, which is not the usual procedure. But we felt that it was important to bring before your Lordships' House the findings of the report and to open discussion on the issues before the Government presented their response. So there is no criticism of the Government for not responding to the report before we debated it. Unusually, our report made recommendations not just to the Government but to industry, particularly the finance industry. We deal not only with issues relating to the manufacture of microchips but the importance of having a financial structure that allows new ideas to come forward and be promoted, to be funded and to prosper.
I thank the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for allowing me to chair the sub-committee. We had some splendid Select Committee members, to whom I am extremely grateful for their work and effort in producing this interesting report, which I hope noble Lords will find readable. The sub-committee also comprised some co-opted members. I am particularly grateful for the time, effort and work that they contributed to support the report. A wide range of experts from all aspects of the industry assisted us by giving evidence. We are grateful to them for their time and effort. I was particularly pleased to have the help of our specialist adviser, Professor Steve Furber, of the University of Manchester Department of Computer Science, whom I am delighted to see is in the House
1570
today. Our Clerk, Roger Morgan, was of enormous assistance, and I am extremely grateful for the personal help that he gave me.
I shall outline some of the issues that occurred to me as we went through the report. I do not have a scientific background but I have now learnt more about the industry than I ever thought I needed to know. It was a great eye-opener to be introduced to something that, on the surface, was extremely complicated, but, as we took evidence, started to emerge as an interesting picture of how the technology develops, its opportunities and structure, which leads us a long way towards learning lessons for other aspects of new technologies and ideas that we develop in our country.
The process started with a presentation to the Select Committee by Professor John Enderby of the Royal Society, who presented the concept that the basis of CMOS technology—the present method of manufacturing computer chips—had doubled its capacity every 18 months for around 40 years now. He explained Moore's law. Mr Moore, a co-founder of Intel, made a speech in 1965 predicting that over the next 20 years computer speed would probably double some every 18 months because of the technology to create more transistors on one silicon chip. That has continued for much longer than Mr Moore suggested. The improvement of the ability to make smaller and smaller components to create microchips has continued at such a pace that now a piece of silicon as big as a thumbnail contains many millions of transistors, each with its own significant characteristics and ability to take part in calculations that we now learn are so enormously quick.
Professor Enderby also made the point that as things were made increasingly smaller their characteristics changed, and that scientists could now see the limits to which miniaturisation would continue. He said that once those limits were reached, CMOS technology could not continue to create greater computer speeds and capacity. Scientists estimate a time of 10 to 15 years. The reason why that barrier will be reached is that, as we make the components smaller and smaller, they come down to atoms. One of Ole presenters, Dr Cowburn, made the point to us that a twentieth of a fruitcake is still a piece of fruitcake but a thousandth of a fruitcake is a currant. As we come down to a smaller and smaller unit, its characteristics change. As those characteristics change, they no longer apply the same capacity as they do when they are a little larger.
Dr Cowburn made the point that the continuing development of Moore's law would reach a barrier, which would mean that, in order to continue the development of computer technology, we would need to develop other devices. He presented to us the fact that, in the UK, there was a certain amount of research going on throughout the research departments but that they were not sufficiently co-ordinated or focused for the UK to take advantage of new developments created in those research activities. He put it to us that it would be interesting to investigate the various activities to see how they could be better co-ordinated, so that the UK could take full advantage of any new

1571
developments in the devices that we might be working on. That was the basis of our inquiry. We were considering what are known as alternative chip technologies.
As we considered that, the first thing that struck us was the fact that, in the UK, we no longer have any major chip-manufacturing capacity. The largest manufacturer in the world is Intel, and most of its chips are made in the Far East. We were developers of chip technology 20 or 30 years ago, but we no longer have the size of industry capable of putting large investments into that area. It now costs about 2 billion dollars to develop a chip-manufacturing capacity. We were given information that, in the next 10 or 20 years, the cost could rise to hundreds of billions of dollars—a staggering figure—and that our industry was not likely to be geared up to such development.
We had strengths in nanotechnology, however. It is an important aspect of the development of new technologies, lithography and metrology. We were impressed by the National Physical Laboratory, where a great deal of excellent work is being done on metrology, which is the measurement of physical activities. It is important to have precise measurement technologies for those small particles, which are, as I said, only atoms thick. We saw incredible experiments being carried out there. We were pleased that, following our report, which suggested that it had probably not fully utilised the commercial potential of what it was doing, the laboratory opened up contacts in the United States and in Europe with other organisations to develop the work done at the laboratory.
As we considered that aspect, we concluded that, although it was important for government closely to monitor work on new devices, that was probably not the most important thing for the development of the UK economy. As noble Lords can imagine, we may manufacture the devices—the small components—but computers must be assembled, given information and told how to work and give the answers. We must decide how to put the question in and get the answer out. All that comes under the heading of design and architecture. In the UK, we have tremendous, diverse skills in that area. We are at the forefront of the design of many important microchips. The company ARM produces three-quarters of the microchips that go into mobile telephones; it does not make them, but it designs them. We identified a large number of skills that could be utilised.
That moved us away from considering how the UK could get new devices to considering how we could use our skills to play an important role in the worldwide industry and get involved in the design and architecture of new computers. We spent more and more time on that area, as our investigation developed.
I shall give the House a taste of what, we learnt, is possible with new technologies. In our report, it comes under the heading "Networking and applications". We went to California, where we were introduced to a company that had been established by bringing
1572
together the city of San Francisco, the universities in California and a large group from industry. Together, they deposited some 200 million dollars into a pot.
Subsequently the group decided to bring in a research team and gave it the challenge of producing a new and small sensor. Within two years, it developed a substance called "smart dust". A piece of smart dust is about the size of the end of my little finger. It can be scattered over a wide area—in fact, it was scattered from an aeroplane flying over San Francisco. As the smart dust lay on the ground, it pulled in energy and communicated using wireless technology. The smart dust sensed a whole range of matter in the locality. It can do only one task at a time, but the possibilities for it to do more than one is enormous. It can sense how noise changes in an area or how pollution in the atmosphere changes.
That type of system, using small microchip technologies, to create an understanding of a much wider environment resulted in the next stage of development. It identified a change in the use of computing—namely, "ambient" computing. In using a computer, a person would no longer merely sit in front of it and work. The facilities of the computer would be managed on their own. A network of information would be created. Therefore, there could be a number of ambient computers in the Chamber that could identify many different aspects about us.
A toilet bowl has been developed which will automatically test a person's health whenever it is used. Noble Lords may laugh—but, by God, we may need it one day. That creates a completely different picture of how the role of computing in our lives will change. It will come from our ability to understand design and architecture and how the tremendous technology which has evolved during the past 50 years can be utilised.
Technological advances will move us from being the manager of our computer to a situation in which the computer has a life of its own and will develop its own activities from which we shall then benefit. That will need a change in attitude, which will come from succeeding generations, and from technological development, in which we are already major leaders.
I turn to the next important stage. In order for those developments to occur, we do not need only the technological development, we need the business and financial structure that will encourage and understand the new technologies. The knowledge and involvement of the financial and industrial world with these new technological opportunities differed greatly between the UK and the US. In America, it is impressive how closely business and industry work together. There is an understanding already, within the financial, venture capital, manufacturing and industrial world, of what is taking place in new technology. Therefore, it is not a sudden shock when a new entrepreneur knocks on the door and says that he has an idea that will change the world.
We should like to see a much closer relationship between finance, industry, research and technology. We should like the Government to take initiatives to

1573
create centres of excellence where these areas can be pulled together. We would like more positive steps to be taken in understanding how nanotechnologies, the centres being created, and the role of the regional development agencies in creating regional systems, can suddenly make a big impact on how the various activities can he brought together.
My time is up. During the debate noble Lords will hear from more expert members of the committee. They will help your Lordships to understand more fundamentally the technology involved. The message with which I should like to end is that I came to the report knowing little about what was involved. Listening to experts, listening to industry and studying the whole concept of how these technologies will change our lives, we should be making an enormous mistake if, as a nation, we did not realise the importance of these developments. The microchip industry will be one of the great industries of the coming century. It will create opportunities and benefits to people in all types of fields which no one dreamt of—and which no one is dreaming about now. Most of what will happen is beyond our comprehension. But that makes it more exciting and more important.
As I have sat in this House during the years, I have been most concerned at the resistance, in many areas, against new technologies, new opportunities and new developments. The excitement of the future has not been embraced, but continually it has been said that the past must be maintained.
I do not believe that. Everything is driven by innovation, excitement, investment and the ability of people to face the future with great confidence. I am not worried. I am excited. I hope that we shall embrace it and that the Government, industry and the financial world will be able to come together and grasp these opportunities. I beg to move.
Moved. That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, chips for Everything: Britain's opportunities in a key global market (2nd Report, HL. Paper 13).—(Lord Wade of Chorlton.)
11.26 a.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who gave an excellent description of science and technology. I shall riot attempt to rival that, but will focus on some of the broader issues that emerged in this important report. The report concerns a key aspect of government policy for our whole future economy and our lives—very intimately, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Wade—as well as our science and technology.
My qualifications are that I made my own radio set when I was 15 years-old. Subsequently, I did a few other things and I set up a small company. Therefore, I know a little about running a company. I ran a government agency and I was president of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, which is an important part of this issue.
Microchips are a remarkable application of physics—quantum and classical physics. In fact, the current solid state physics community continues to
1574
quote a paper written by my grandfather in 1906 on waves propagating through inhomogeneous media. Therefore, the science is not all up to date and basic physics is part of that. The subject also involves manufacturing, technology and electrical engineering. As the noble Lord, Lord Wade, implied, there are limitless opportunities for the application of microchip technology connected to society—for measuring, information handling and applying the data to information and control processes.
The question addressed by the committee was how to ensure the future strength of UK science and technology research into chip technology and how to promote effective application by UK industry. I should like to emphasise and amplify some of the major points of the report. We were impressed by the science and technology commitment of the Government. They have invested considerably during the past few years. Any comments I make are made within that context.
The summary emphasises that the optimum route map for the future is not clear. It is therefore essential not necessarily to pick particular winners or particular strategies now, but to ensure a strong science and technology research effort to cover all the main possible avenues. Therefore, it is necessary to have a flexible and innovative approach by government and industry to the exploitation and developments as they occur.
Paragraph 7.25 of the report states that computing technology requires the close working of electrical engineering, computer science and physics. In future, medicine and many more disciplines will be involved. It was recognised that universities and institutions co-ordinate some of these aspects but not all of them. The co-ordination is not as effective as it should be and, in particular, is not as effective as it should be across the country. That is why some of the particular suggestions of institutes around the country are so important. New specialist institutes at universities may be required. They will require strong leadership and industrial involvement.
I hope that the Minister will recall his remarks in an earlier debate on his White Paper on science and technology, when it was pointed out—and he endorsed it—that practical applications stimulate fundamental research as much as vice versa. In other words, as one slightly disaffected industrialist commented, the academics need to listen to the industry just as much as the scientists need to preach about their results to industry.
Interdisciplinary working is a major feature and interdisciplinary centres will be as exciting in this field as I have seen in the past 10 years in climate change. Interestingly, climate change was such a success because it began from the top with a 45-minute speech from Mrs Thatcher at the United Nations. We do not suggest that Tony Blair should talk for 45 minutes on microchips, but Mrs Thatcher's speech had a big impact on the drive for a co-ordinated UK role. Leadership at the top is therefore essential!, recognising that this is at the heart of the future of science and technology and its application in the UK.

1575
The evidence given by the officials from the DTI and the OST indicated that they recognise that priority but are only gingerly pushing a top-down agenda in the Engineering and Physical Research Council, indicated on page 5 of the evidence.
Evidence was also given about the importance of international comparisons and collaboration. It is essential that when we establish large projects—as I hope we will in this area—they should be reviewed and co-ordinated internationally. In some areas of funding by research councils, concern has been expressed by both UK and even European colleagues as to whether there is as effective an international critiquing as is required. That is important.
Another way to ensure that policies and opportunities for developing the science and technology in this field are kept continually under review is to devolve a wide range of societies and industry; for example, industry through the Foresight initiative. I hope that the Minister will endorse the recent House of Commons Select Committee recommendation of last July that more effort should be made by research councils and government to encourage and consult scientific societies, with their extensive membership, about new policies and about the critical issues of providing training and sufficient manpower.
As regards manpower, it is clear in Chapter 9 that there is a problem about the requisite number of well-trained, top-class mathematicians and physicists. The committee heard strong evidence from Sir Robin Saxby about the problem. He almost threw up his hands during evidence, as can be seen in the report.
However, a new government report by Professor Adrian Smith focuses on mathematical education in schools. It is good news that the new Secretary of State studied mathematics at Cambridge—if only for one year—and that he realises the critical need for mathematics education for everyone. It is probably the only part of the school curriculum that requires logical thinking—now that we have dropped Latin. The key to software writing is abstract and logical thinking, an aspect of mathematics that is as important as computing numbers.
My second main theme concerns the recommendations (a) and (p) in the summary: that the Government need to use their own procurement intelligently to promote the microchip industry and develop more world-beating products. As the evidence on pages 6 to 10 of the report show, the committee had considerable difficulty in extracting a strategic view from our DTI officials about how the Government should be a major player. They mainly emphasised their role in helping UK industry with trade promotion and developing links with large overseas companies.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that with government expenditure of perhaps £100 billion a year on the NHS and £25 billion of defence, there is huge scope for innovative chip technology in communications, energy, transport systems and
1576
biotechnology. Yesterday's New York Herald Tribune, which I recommend noble Lords to read, reported that the Italian clothing company Benetton sees the advantage of putting a rice-grain size microchip in all its latest clothes. If it sees the advantage of that, for whatever its purposes, surely the NHS will find similar applications for many of its critical medical supplies that need tracking and replacing—the reason why Benetton is taking this action. Will the Minister be using the Office of Government Commerce, which guides the Government's procurement—we did not know about the office when we wrote the report—to use UK technology as effectively as possible?

In the recent issue of Science in Parliament, a professor at University College London regretted the absence of large government industrial laboratories, such as exist in the United States and Japan. They are unlikely to emerge in the near future, so the purchasing and stimulation policy by government is the main tool available to Her Majesty's Government in this field. Is the Minister aware that there are no scientific or engineering representatives on the board of the Office of Government Commerce? Surely that is an oversight.
The report in paragraphs 10.12 to 10.20 emphasises the importance of setting up small companies to exploit new technology. I have a little experience in that field with colleagues in Cambridge. Our small company of software consultants, set up 17 years ago, is still going strong. That experience has confirmed the opinion of many industrialists who approached me when I was running a government agency that the UK Government could do considerably more to help small businesses grow through contracts and trade promotion; for example, as other countries do by using government web pages to publicise approved contractors. Is the statement of the DTI on page 7 of the evidence to be implemented? It states:
"The kind of recommendations that we are likely to make in this area [small companies] say if you want to get small or new companies started up on an exploitation area, you need not only to do the research, you also need to support them while they experiment with whether or not they can build this new kind of device in reasonable quantities, quality, reliability, price and so on and get to the point where a potential user or employer or customer says, 'Okay, it looks as if you can solve my problem.""
I do not want to sound critical because I believe that the UK has a flourishing science, engineering and business culture supported by a forward-looking Government. I see that because I often visit the Continent and I think that the UK is the place to be. But given the huge, once-in-a-lifetime investments now going into the public services, it is essential that they are used to maximum effect to build up world-class UK research and industry in this vital area of technology.
11.37 a.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, and the Science and Technology Committee for a thorough and fascinating report. I cannot contribute a huge amount, but I want to comment on a couple of points from

1577
personal experience. Although I do not come from the microchip design world, for most of my life I have written software and developed software systems and database management. I often tried to persuade clients to wait for Moore's law to take effect. I tried not to offer everything they wanted tomorrow, but to produce something useful in the real world and wait for technology to catch up six months later when they could have the next 20 per cent and move their targets forward.
I have experience of developing new applications. I have therefore been involved with people who put "risk money" into producing something for the marketplace which may or may not succeed. One of the problems is attracting money to such applications, because they can be highly unattractive. It can often be more profitable to take something that has been developed, the risk therefore having been taken, pick up the business or IPR cheaply and then make money out of producing the product.
I discovered that different skills are involved in producing a marketable product which will generate money and original green-field or blue-sky development. I do not know whether the law has changed, but when I was head of development at GiroVend, working on smart cards, we were not allowed to capitalise all the software and programming work that we did. That did not help at all. I was given the job because the previous holder who had been there for two years had undertaken a great deal of research, spending a couple of million pounds, without producing a product. The board said that they could not afford that for much longer and I came along and we produced a product a year later because of a different remit. In industry, it is difficult to justify the funding of blue-sky development, particularly when someone else comes along and benefits from your work.
Many of the problems come down to money—an issue on which I wish to comment—and Chapters 7 and 8 of the report are very interesting in that regard. I also learnt a great deal from the rest of the report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, said, the initiative to bring together different disciplines is very important. Some people are very good at focusing on one area, but to produce something useful from their efforts very often necessitates bringing different disciplines together. The memorandum by British Airways made an interesting comment on that issue in the report.
There are some interesting ideas in Chapter 8. The report states that we should beware of creating new organisations. That is a relevant factor. We must be careful about creating new empires which absorb more money on administration than ends up at the sharp end.
Another difficulty is that where you have people with what might be called "conventional" wisdom reviewing new ideas—even if that wisdom is only a few years old—because the boundaries of science are always being pushed forward, you can end up in a position where some new, very innovative ideas are not funded.
1578
It is interesting to note how few new ideas are being picked up and pushed forward. The comment in Chapter 8.16 that,
"There is scepticism in some circles that microelectronic system design is a valid academic research topic",
illustrates the state of mind that can exist. These matters of opinion can inhibit further research.
Chapters 7 and 8 deal with funding. I know from personal experience in the past that this is important on an industry basis. I was talking to someone yesterday about the problems of the stock market funding projects. Companies are desperate to keep their share prices up, particularly when there is a downturn in the economy. They have to achieve quick wins and therefore investment in longer-term research may well be abandoned.
It is not in the interest of a board to be vulnerable to a take-over, where its members will probably be heaved out and a new lot come in and benefit from what they have done in the past. Vulnerability to a volatile market can inhibit investment in research.
I do not know how to get round the problem; I merely point it out as one of the challenges that we face. I hugely respect those companies which take the longer-term view and continue to fund development through a bad period. It is a view which is not fashionable at the moment in many sections of industry.
I wish to comment on the issue of applying for EU funding. I have been involved in a couple of ventures where we have spoken about such funding. In both cases we said, "Oh God, it is far too complicated. We have to join with all these other countries, it is quite costly and there is no certainty that you will get anything. Basically, big companies can fund that kind of venture, but if you are a small company forget it". I do not know whether or not that is right, but it is an image that is out there. I suspect that there is a large amount of truth in it. You have to know your way around Brussels and its bureaucracy to decide whether or not it is worth going for framework moneys.
I shall refer also to procurement. I declare an interest as a partner in a procurement consultancy. We are advising some local government people on the e-procurement targets for 2005. One of the problems of going into large-scale government procurement is that there is a danger of inhibiting the growth of SMEs and microbusinesses. Many innovative ideas come out of very small businesses, and it may be only one genius producing them. I am not talking about academics and universities. A great deal is done by people working outside that framework and we must be very careful that we do not kill them off.
My final comment takes me back to the 1960s, when my parents were discussing the brain drain. This issue relates to Chapter 9 and concerns salaries and so on. Ultimately, most of us work to have some kind of a lifestyle. We may have a family dependent on our income. We may be a two-income family, but every bit of income is desperately important these days. When taxes rise too high people are attracted to going abroad to lower-tax regimes. The danger of what is happening

1579
in the taxation area in Britain is that it could well create another 1960s brain drain situation, where foreign universities, academic establishments and industries could pick up our brightest brains extremely easily. It is very easy to move around in a global economy and to communicate with people in the rest of the world—I also have businesses abroad which I run over the Internet—and if we go to a high-tax economy we will see the brain drain starting again. We should be very careful about that.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will join the noble Earl in congratulating my noble friend Lord Wade on both his speech and his chairmanship of the committee. The energy, enthusiasm and clarity that he brought to his excellent speech is much to be commended. He reminds me very much of the David Attenborough of the microchip industry.
My contribution will concentrate specifically on Chapter 10 of the report. I am not a scientist; I am a businessman. When the Minister replies to the debate, I shall be interested to learn what is the Government's approach to the recommendations in regard to trying to improve the exploitation of innovative technological ideas in the commercial world, which is what Chapter 10 is essentially about.
Although the recommendations are specific to the microprocessing industry, they are of general relevance to the exploitation of high technology in British industry. I shall refer not only to spin-outs from universities but to start-up projects in the private sector of industry.
There is clear evidence in the report that in the field of information technology we are not doing enough in this country to exploit innovative ideas. We are not doing badly, but we could do better. I suspect that the Government share that general conclusion, which is one of the reasons for the announcement of recent initiatives, about which we shall doubtless hear more from the Minister in due course.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the conclusions reached by the Association of Technology Entrepreneurs, a body consisting of young entrepreneurs involved principally in start-ups rather than spin-outs from universities. The association's general conclusion, and the evidence it presents to the world, is that it is very difficult to raise funding and that sometimes it is difficult to get the right managerial support for initiatives. I shall come later to one or two of the report's recommendations in that regard.
In this country there is no shortage of good innovative ideas in the fields of microprocessing and high technology. We have some of the best research universities in the world. There is no shortage of capital in the United Kingdom, although there is a funding gap for the development of young companies. There is no shortage of management or entrepreneurial skills in the United Kingdom, but somehow these great skills do not come together as well as they should to exploit high technology.
1580
As my noble friend Lord Wade clearly explained, these various assets—money, ideas and management skills—come together in Silicon Valley in the United States, where the community seems to coalesce extremely well. The academics, the entrepreneurs and the financiers talk to each other; they are proximate to each other; they live in each other's houses. But this does not seem to happen as well in this country.
Incidentally, in France it happens in a way similar to the United States, although it is structurally different. At the very senior levels of government, politics, business and industry, there is a much closer communication and networking between senior people. That does not seem to happen to the same extent in this country.
We are still risk averse in this country towards new ideas and their exploitation. We are afraid of failure. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, drew our attention to the fact that, in the United States, trying an idea but genuinely failing—not because of fraud or malpractice, but simply because the idea turns out to be inapplicable—is not a cause for self-blame or blame by the community as a whole. I am pleased with the recent legislation introduced by the Government in an attempt to decriminalise in the minds of many people the problems of insolvent companies and bankrupt individuals. Very often, such events occur for genuine reasons and are merely a case of bad luck or bad judgment. They are not criminal matters.
For every 10 ideas coming out of a major university such as Oxford or Cambridge, or Imperial College, only one or two may be outstanding successes. The rest may be dogs; they may be failures. We have to employ the same approach to risk-taking in exploiting new ideas as exists in the academic world.
Three specific problems need to be addressed. The first is the cultural gap to which I have alluded—the gap between the experience, knowledge and practice in our universities and the business community. We need to take more initiatives to bring our universities and the business world closer together. The Government have announced the higher education and innovation fund, which sounds excellent in theory. It would be helpful to know a little more about how, for non-research-intensive universities, the fund can be made to encourage the exploitation of new ideas and bridge the gap between universities and the business world.
The second is the funding gap. The committee heard evidence from a number of individuals that there seems to be a gap between ideas, particularly in universities, which are financed in the early stage by university challenge funds or perhaps by the friends and families of academics, and the point when venture capitalists begin to take an interest—for example, when the project needs £10 million or £20 million. A gap exists, between a funding level of about half a million pounds and the £10 million funding level, where there does not seem to be sufficient institutional interest in backing new ideas. That is certainly the case in the microprocessing industry.
I believe that the solution is to try to bring the public sector—possibly through regional development agencies, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord

1581
Wade—together with the universities and with the venture capital industry, in order to pool their knowledge and experience, but also to pool the risk. We need some lateral thinking on how to solve the problem of how we encourage young entrepreneurs, both spinning out from universities and starting up new companies.
Finally, there is a problem that we heard repeated several times in evidence which may be termed the management advisory gap. If we are to exploit new ideas, in terms of newly formed companies, we need skills that are not usually found in universities: marketing, finance, and strategic planning; a chairman will be needed, and sometimes a chief executive. Very often, researchers coming from universities who want to follow their own ideas in a company that they have founded might not have those skills. For new start-ups outside universities, similar skills are needed, and are sometimes impossible to obtain.
Therefore, perhaps at the regional level, we need to build up a network of people who could help to develop new high-tech ideas. They may be semi-retired or retired and may have specific expertise that they are willing to contribute to new companies.
In replying, will the Minister be kind enough to indicate whether the recommendation in paragraph 10.20 of the report is to be accepted? It is a brief recommendation. It may be helpful to the Minister and to the House if I repeat it:
"we recommend that the DTI should consult Universities UK, the British Venture Capital Association, the CBI and the Institute of Directors to ascertain: the nature and extent of the funding gap identified by a number of our witnesses; the lack of suitable managerial skills available to new high-technology companies; and such companies' other support needs".
I believe that the report contains correct conclusions and recommendations. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for introducing the debate. It was a privilege to be part of the sub-committee investigating the micro-processing industry, an experience made even better by the sometimes deft, sometimes forceful way in which our chairman steered us to completing this excellent report.
There were many distinguished scientists on the sub-committee. We visited many eminent people operating in this specialist field. Your Lordships will understand that there were many times when the scientists were drawn into esoteric debates which they relished; but it was always the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who dragged us back to reality. His focus was always on the taxpayer and the customer: if you cannot sell it, then what is the point?
I also extend my thanks to fellow noble Lords on the sub-committee. We got to know each other well and worked hard together. I certainly learnt a lot and enjoyed working with talented and experienced colleagues.
1582
My friends say of me that, if you cut my veins, I will bleed zeros and ones. There is some truth in that. I started work in what was then called the data processing industry in 1967. In those days we had hard-wired accounting machines, used punch cards and were amazed when the first 32k computer was produced for the commercial market. Those machines were fitted into air-conditioned machine rooms and were permanently attended by computer technicians.
Yesterday, in a Select Committee meeting, I sat next to my noble friend Lord Winston, who is the proud owner of the latest and very beautiful Apple laptop. This machine contains a hard disk with a 60 gigabyte capacity. On such memories, users can store music, film clips, computer aided design and research documents—a far cry from the 1960s when every byte of memory was precious. We have come a long way.
I wish to address two areas of the Chips for Everything report that particularly interest me: the skills need and the financing need. I drive a pretty fancy car. It will surprise no one who knows me that it is full of every kind of gadget known to mankind. GPS navigation not only talks to me but ensures that I never get lost. I can dial a telephone number by speaking to the car. Any fault is instantly notified. Tyre pressures are automatically monitored. The vehicle has CD, television and a telephone. I pay my congestion charge from my car's console and I receive SMS texts from my children. All this, noble Lords will be relieved to hear, is before I move even an inch.
I tell this anecdote because it is just one example of where technology is going and its implications for the workforce of tomorrow. The car engineer will no longer be a mechanic in dirty overalls with a spanner. In future, he will have to understand how the electronics system of the car works. That provides huge challenges.
In our investigations we were constantly struck by the worries that the UK has at every level, and by the scarcity of talent, particularly in our universities. Universities have found it hard to match the high salaries that industry pays to IT professionals. although I suspect that after the dotcom boom the problem has somewhat eased. Nevertheless, we need to address certain defects. We need to understand why there has been a decline in maths, physics and engineering in schools and universities. We also need to address the question of why girls are not attracted into this sector.
In our schools we are beginning to make great progress in familiarising children with IT. I declare an interest as a trustee of the eLearning Foundation whose remit it is to ensure that all schoolchildren have a laptop computer on a 24/7 basis. We believe that this will contribute to making our children computer literate and hope that it will kindle interest in computing itself.
As regards higher education, there was particular concern at the difficulties universities are having in recruiting and retaining researchers. We recommend that the Government consult universities and industry about ways of making an exchange of staff between

1583
sectors more straightforward and commonplace. Salary differentials also need to be addressed. We feel that much could be done to encourage engineers to have a greater understanding of business. Even a basic understanding of accounting, marketing and law would be very useful in helping engineers to get a feel for the wider world.
Finally, we ask the Government to continue to make it easier for talented foreigners with key skills to be able to bring their families to the UK. One can only be awestruck, in Silicon Valley, by the number of people of Asian background who work in the IT industry or who are students in the Californian universities. Recruiting from abroad is not quite the talent rape often portrayed in the media. In these difficult days, for example, Indian IT specialists in Silicon Valley have been returning to their own country, using the skills acquired in the US to set up businesses in the exploding Indian IT industry. The UK could easily replicate this. We need these talented people. We should continue to remove the barriers to their coming here and contributing to our IT industry.
Britain has made great strides in its desire to become a leader in the IT field. I express my thanks to the Minister for his passionate commitment to science and technology and, most of all, for upping the science budget. At last the tide is turning. I thank also the Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt. It is hugely reassuring to have the DTI led by someone who understands IT and understands what our business needs.
Forty per cent of the European market for electronic systems and semi-conductor design is based in the UK. The situation in our country is not gloomy, but it could be much better. IT requires innovative talents and entrepreneurial skills, and we are pretty good at that. In 2000, for example, our universities provided 200 business spin-offs in the IT sector, up from 70 the previous year. Research funding does not necessarily have spin-offs as an objective; it is nevertheless a fact that we produce one spin-off for every 8 million dollars of research funding. The figure in the US is 50 million dollars. So we are pretty efficient at that.
The Economist Intelligence Unit has the UK right at the top of countries which are the choice of entrepreneurs. It is important to make the UK even more attractive by reducing red tape and, if I can beat an old hobby horse, making planning permissions much simpler. My noble friend the Minister said something to our sub-committee that truly struck home. Quoting from a comment he had heard in Silicon Valley, he said that we in this country talk about success and failure; in Silicon Valley, they talk about success and learning experience.
I am delighted that the Enterprise Act 2002 has gone some way to redressing the stigma of failure. Like the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I think that bankruptcy, though not to be encouraged, is on course to no longer being classified as the mark of Cain. But I must make a special and heartfelt plea: can we please improve the treatment of share options?
1584
Venture capital growth in the UK has been impressive by any standards. We are clearly the leaders in Europe. To the layman, venture capital is the provision of seed capital, but the reality is that VCs tend to avoid this area. They like bigger investments, they prefer to minimise their risk and they prefer management buy-outs. That is the way they do things at present.
One issue that keeps coming to the forefront is intellectual property and how our universities handle it. I have one personal recommendation to make. We could do with a central body of highly skilled lawyers and IT professionals to advise our universities and prevent all the existing inconsistencies.
I wish to talk about two British success stories not referred to in the paper. The first is the British games industry. True, it is not about microprocessor development and it is seldom talked about, but its growth has been truly amazing. The UK is the third largest producer of IT games in the world, which, as any parent will know, are compulsive for any child. The games industry has a turnover of £1.1 billion and employs 6,000 people. It earns half a billion pounds in exports, exceeding TV and film and soon projected to go higher than the music business. The industry has developed without the benefits of any House of Lords inquiry and with little government investment. It does not require geographic clusters or any form of government intervention. It has just grown. But it now faces considerable problems. This is still a cottage industry which multinationals are entering; it needs to develop its own management skills.
The second success story is Symbian. Symbian is a spin-out of Psion, which noble Lords will know as one of the British pioneers of the PDA market. Psion was successful in this highly competitive market but lost ground to Palm, Blackberry, Sony, Compaq and the rest. But instead of folding its tent. Psion set up Symbian as a provider of software to the third generation of mobile telephony.
Symbian is a wonderful British example. Today it is owned by many of its customers—Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, Sony and Siemens, as well as by Psion itself. Symbian licenses its software at 5 dollars a share. Its royalty revenue doubled last year. As 3G takes off, Symbian's revenue is posed for astronomic growth. Symbian. like ARM, is a pointer as to how the UK IT industry can develop.
I conclude with an observation. We are making great progress in the UK. IT is out of fashion and, for me, that is a good thing. The hype of two years ago led to unrealistic expectations and then to great disappointment. But this industry is inexorable. The technology in front of us will continue to change all our lives. The industry is now the biggest in the world, and it is still in its infancy.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, and thank him for his brilliant chairmanship that motivated all of us who were privileged to be members of the inquiry. He

1585
conducted the inquiry with not only great efficiency but a great deal of humour and bonhomie. I would also like to thank most sincerely our specialist adviser, Professor Steve Furber, a scientist at the leading edge of the developments which are the subject of today's debate. He is a truly international authority, and was very patient when it came to dealing with the likes of me, with virtually no understanding of the complexities of the technologies involved. I also thank our Clerk, Mr. Roger Morgan, who worked very hard. The result shows in the quality of the report. But I have another message for him: I am expecting more and better from him, but more of that on another occasion.
When we started the inquiry, the assumption was that CMOS technology will soon run its course—that Moore's law would not continue beyond the next decade. Even Gordon Moore, the creator of Moore's law, agreed in a recent speech in San Francisco that his guiding principle will probably only hold true for another decade. But he also threw down a gauntlet. He said that no exponential is for ever, adding, "Your job is to delay for ever".
Innovations have reduced the size of chips and added more capabilities in a smaller area for less money. The one dollar it cost to buy a single transistor in 1968 could now buy 50 million. In 1971, a microprocessor had 2,300 transistors. By 2005, Intel intends to produce chips with 1 billion transistors. The challenge, Gordon Moore says, is to solve the problem of power leakage and the need to reduce heat levels. It may be that these problems will be solved and Moore's law will last beyond the next decade.
At the beginning of our inquiry we were given evidence that developments in nanotechnology, molecular electronics, autonomic computing and quantum computing will be the next big thing in microprocessors—the next grand challenge. But it became clear, as the inquiry progressed, that the technologies are not yet ready to replace the conventional silicon.
CMOS technology still has a lot to offer, particularly, as the report states, in exploiting the technology for system on chip design. I believe that it is in this area, particularly in its potential in medical diagnostics, disease and treatment monitoring devices, that its promise is greatest.
Despite our initial lead in the micro-electronics industry, the UK has lost out because we did not invest enough over the long term in large-scale research facilities, as did Belgium with IMEC, let alone the United States of America. We have a good record on investing in big science, but not in big technology. We need to learn from the past, for we must not fail in microsystems or nanotechnology.
The report's recommendations focus on the creation of a national institute for system on chip design, the establishment of a national programme for design and architecture, sustained long-term investment, recognition of the multi-disciplinary nature of the technologies and the need for funding and research councils to take positive steps to recognise that, particularly in the assessment of grants.
1586
We need to be aware of existing facilities for system level integration and how they could contribute to the overall national strategy. The proposed national task force to take that forward would be an important initiative.
Some of the areas of potential development excite me greatly as a doctor. The report mentions that reaching the practical limits of CMOS miniaturisation does not mean that the technology reaches the end of its useful life. It will remain the mainstay of supporting many new and improved applications and advances in chip design and architecture. As an example, the report mentions the remote-sensing wirelessly networked smart dust that CITRIS in California has developed, which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, so graphically described.
I shall concentrate on future applications for biomedical systems, which is one of the most exciting and profitable areas for the future. This country is a leader in bioscience and biotechnology. We clearly have strengths in micro-electronics and system on chip design. Both areas need to be harnessed further with long-term sustained investment. Today I refer only to areas of possible benefit in biomedical systems.
Pages 40 and 41 of the report refer to some of the possible developments. I shall enlarge further. Biochips have rich potential for micro-electronic chips in medical healthcare and even in environmental monitoring and diagnostics. Professor Kevin Warwick's famous experiments on implanting chips into his nervous system show how technology can be used directly. We recently heard about the work at Washington University on brain implants, with a chip interpreting neural signals and mimicking the behaviour of the hippocampus. Ingestible diagnostics is another example of the use of microtechnology, as we heard on a recent visit to the Institute for System Level Integration at the Alba Centre in Livingston. Miniature ingestible cameras that take images of the inside of the gut as they travel through the digestive tract allow for more extensive investigation of diseases of the gut than is possible with conventional endoscopy. Data are compressed and communicated through wireless data links. Such technology is at the first stage of trial now.
Combining physical and chemical sensors is an even more exciting possibility. Devices could monitor pH, oxygen and temperature as they pass through the body. The potential of such applications for medicine appears endless: tissue-embedded chips that monitor levels of metabolism; embedded chips that monitor levels of substances such as glucose and adjust levels of insulin accordingly; chips that constantly monitor blood pressure to provide information that allows for better control of blood pressure, reducing the risk of heart attacks or cerebral haemorrhage.
The prospect of combining gene chips and micro-electronics is even more exciting. A previous report on genetic databases, following an inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh., highlighted the great potential of the developing sciences of pharmacogenetics and proteonics. Biochips that

1587
monitor the action of drugs would lead to better individualised drug treatment. Chips that monitor the changes in levels of proteins, as expressed by genes, would be able to identify early the likelihood of developing diseases and monitor the action of designer drugs to control the disease developing further. There are huge implications for most degenerative diseases. That territory is not unfamiliar to your Lordships.
There are other applications in the area of cancers and chronic mental illness. DNA diagnostics is another area that could produce quicker diagnosis, having great impact on the management of conditions such as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection—better known as MRSA—and meningitis. The potential of this technology for supporting developments in telemedicine is another exciting area. I could go on. The list is endless.
The United Kingdom has a number of centres of excellence in small-scale microfabrication. We also have strengths in micro-electronic design, bioscience and biotechnology. We have the potential to achieve technological breakthroughs. We now need firm, long-term and sustained investment in research in these highly interdisciplinary technologies. That is the grand challenge. For once, the United Kingdom could be the leader. We must not fail.
12.16 p.m
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on his truly splendid speech. I pay tribute to his dextrous and forthright leadership of our committee. He steered the inquiry most skilfully. His knack of rapidly striking to the heart of the matter saved us much labour. We had many opportunities to observe and learn from his savoir faire and aplomb and his ability to deal with any eventuality, nowhere better than in California, when, most properly introducing himself as a Member of your Lordships' House, he elicited the reply from an incredulous lady, "And I'm Princess Di".
I also place on record my gratitude and appreciation to Professor Steve Furber, our outstanding special adviser and to him and our Clerk, Roger Morgan, for an exceptionally readable report.
There will be many contenders for the title of most influential invention of the 20th century, but undoubtedly one of the most serious claims will be that of the transistor etched on a silicon microchip. In essence, the purpose of the inquiry was to see whether there are future opportunities in the microchip industry that the UK could exploit if strategic action is taken today.
The chip industry is certainly here to stay. Besides revolutionising practically every device of everyday life, it has transformed the computer industry and affected every industrial and commercial process. The effect on research has been one of massive empowerment. For example, without the microchip, the advances that astound us in modern medicine, and which we are beginning to take for granted, would not have happened.
1588
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has clearly outlined why the astonishing achievements of the chip industry in improving performance and reducing cost cannot continue indefinitely. They probably cannot continue more than another eight years or a decade at the most. It is not only a problem of the building bricks of chips—atoms—not allowing us to go to finer size. As anyone who has owned a laptop knows, the machine gets hot. As more and more transistors are packed into a smaller volume, which is the main point of miniaturisation, the local heating effect is proportionally greater, hot transistors perform less well, and may even burn out. All that tells us that the story of the last quarter of a century—declining unit costs and size, coupled with improved performance—has come to an end.
That raises the intriguing question of what, if anything, comes next. There are several intriguing possibilities that might allow future devices to be still smaller and faster. For the present, however, they are no more than demonstrations of principle. Excellent work is being done on that in universities and in other institutions. In universities, that work is largely supported by research councils, and it is right that that situation should continue, but it needs to be carefully watched. The councils are well placed to spot early breakthroughs and decide whether additional funding or co- ordination should be provided. That will definitely require the research councils to be more proactive than in the past.
There are two other important considerations for the future. The first is the overwhelming market hold of existing microchip technology—the so-called CMOS, or complementary metal oxide semiconductor technology. That technology has been outstandingly successful, and the massive investment in facilities to produce CMOS-based chips means that it would be extraordinarily difficult for any new technology to displace CMOS. Any successor technology would have to offer significant improvements in performance or cost. Given that low cost is generally driven by volume, it seems that a new technology would first make its appearance, at best, in specialised applications in which performance was paramount and cost was the secondary consideration. It would spread beyond that if, and only if, it truly offered new opportunities at a reasonable cost.
The second consideration, as the report points out, is that there is still immense scope for incremental improvement of the importance of CMOS-based chips. The limitations, of which the noble Lord. Lord Wade, and other noble Lords, have spoken earlier, relate only to the physics of miniaturisation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, also said, there is still scope to improve the way in which devices are arranged and interconnected on chips and how they distribute and manage the various tasks that they are given. That is the so-called chip architecture, which is a discipline in which the UK has a strong international position from both a commercial and academic point of view. It is here that our committee saw a strength on which it was well worth building.

1589
In other words, although the density of transistors on chips may not increase much, their performance will get much better through improved architecture. As the noble Lord. Lord Wade, said, that in turn opens new possibilities and new possible uses. These will be of broadly two kinds. First, we shall almost certainly see progressively more user-friendly electronic devices, which will themselves take on and manage some of the problems that today we find so irritating and tiresome. They will be in wireless communication with each other, and they will themselves manage problems of mutual compatibility. We will be able to decide on how we want to communicate with them—by word of mouth, by keyboard, or by other gestures, such as writing. Whether the machines are laptops, printers, telephones, cameras, organisers or other bits of technology that we may have round us, they will manage the complexity of their interrelations and their interface with the user. That simplification means that the so-called "digital divide"—the real concern that some of the population may be disenfranchised because they are not computer literate—will almost certainly be solved by the technology.
The second way in which chip technology will pervade our lives is embraced by the unhelpful term "ambient computing". As several noble Lords have pointed Out, it will be possible for small chip-based devices, to be cheaply incorporated into manufactured goods. As so-called "smart dust", they may be distributed around the home or the wider environment and they will be designed to record and transmit particular kinds of information. The scope for clever and imaginative new applications that require sophisticated and economical chip architecture is almost unlimited. For example, it should be possible to build sensors into the mechanical components of aircraft or other safety-critical structures, which would automatically warn of fatigue or risk of failure. Equally, it should be possible to monitor the external environment, cheaply and reliably, for a wide range of purposes, which might range from domestic security to sensing pollutants in the atmosphere or water.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, drew attention to the development at Livingston of the "smart pill", which has no therapeutic properties but may carry a small camera or chemical sensors that can transmit information continuously during its possibly unhappy passage through the body. People are already working on chip-based artificial eyes to bring sight to the blind. The only limits are those set by our imagination.
So what is standing in our way? The answer, surprisingly, might be not all that much—at least, not all that much that is very expensive. When our committee visited California, the venture capitalists said that, from the point of view of taxation, general economics and the availability of new ideas, they viewed the UK as an attractive country in which to invest. They seemed to perceive this country as more attractive than did our own venture capital industry. However, we should do certain things, which are spelled out in the report.
1590
I endorse and support the point made by my noble friend the Earl of Erroll, in connection with EU funding. There seemed to be a strong indication that the chip industry and related industries in the UK were benefiting much less from EU funding than their competitors in other countries. My own experience of working on EU funding for nearly 15 years was that the initial threshold that one had to cross in order to gain entry was high; one had to establish personal contacts. After that, however, it became very easy. Once, for example, when I was having difficulty with a submission that I was making, I spoke to the manager of the programme in Brussels. I explained that my application was ready but that I had not had time to translate it into the second community language, which was required at that time. He said, "Oh, don't bother, just let us have it and say that the second language is to follow". It is still waiting to follow.
Many exciting ideas that may lead to important new products are likely to emerge from universities, if we can tap them. In the report, we spell out some of the things that need to be done. I wish to make an additional point, based on my own experience at Imperial College, although it is not a new idea. We should make more use of technology scouts—trusted people who have a broad-based understanding of technology and its potential applications, who work in universities, and whose job is to keep abreast of what is happening in the labs. They are in a position to spot likely prospects and either to steer the inventor in the direction of help that may be needed in starting a business or, alternatively, they might, with the inventor's permission, bring the discovery to the attention of those who might take over the initiative, develop it further, license it or exploit it in other ways.
At Imperial, we had a dozen or so people acting as technology scouts, although some of them did other things as well. In at least one case, simply in the process of building a nucleus of complex experimental equipment, a research group unwittingly solved an engineering problem that had been bothering one section of industry for some time. That was spotted and exploited by the scouts. It was something that the scientists could not possibly have known. Clearly, for it to be worthwhile for a university to have its own team of scouts, it has to be reasonably large and have a fair amount of research going on. In that case. the scouting can pay for itself. For smaller institutions or those with a more limited range of research, the research councils might employ people on a regional basis to do the job. It is essential, however, that they enjoy the confidence of the researchers.
In conclusion, there is a great deal of mileage left in CMOS technology. It is unlikely to be overtaken by a pervasive successor technology in the near future and it might well continue for decades. However, the UK has real strengths in chip architecture and there are major opportunities for us. How well we exploit those will depend on maintaining a favourable business environment in the UK, ensuring that we have an effective means of capturing the benefits of university research and ensuring that new enterprises can flourish.
12.31 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, from these Benches it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, on introducing this debate on his report on the future of microprocessing. He was a very able chairman contending with a highly technical subject which initially was well above our heads. I, too, thank Professor Steve Furber for keeping us on track, and our Clerk, Roger Morgan, for all the help and assistance he gave us. I found it an especially interesting inquiry on which to serve, having been involved with the computer industry since 1967. We had a most interesting series of visits to Silicon Valley, IMEC in Flanders, and to the NPL. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that the NPL is being more proactive in promoting its skills.
I should like to give some historical perspective to the debate from my 40 years in industry. I first came into contact with the semiconductor industry when I was a graduate apprentice with GEC in Coventry in the mid-1950s. GEC had a pilot semiconductor plant producing germanium transistors, and I believe that the reject rate was 95 per cent. If you compare that with the latest chips with more than 40 million transistors, every one of which must work, you get an idea of how things have moved on. If the same reject rate applied to those chips, there would not be many good ones.
I subsequently joined the Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company in 1957 at a time when it was bringing into production what was, I think, the first transistorised remote control system for railways. It was designed to use the minimum number of transistors because they were so expensive, each costing about £7.50, in 1957—perhaps £100 each in today's money. The whole piece of equipment, which occupied a six-foot high by 30-inch wide cabinet, would now occupy only a fraction of the space and facilities available on a current system-on-a-chip microchip.
As a last example, in 1968 IBM had a process control computer system called the 1800. One could buy a 128 kilobyte (core) memory upgrade for this machine. The cost? It was £64,000—perhaps over half a million pounds in today's money. Compare that with the 64 megabyte memory chips now available which cost a few tens of pence. That is what Moore's Law has given us in practical terms, with chips in every conceivable piece of equipment—domestic, industrial, aerospace, medical and so on.
That was yesterday. Today we are at a crossroads. We do not know in which direction the new embryonic nano-technologies will take the microchip industry. As other speakers have said, there is no clear indication yet of which technologies will become the future leaders. We had glimpses during our visit to Silicon Valley of quantum computing and spintronics, among other contenders, both of which are still in their infancy. Quantum computing will certainly lead to a complete revolution in the style of computing.
The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors shows a number of potential blocks to the further propagation of Moore's Law. Hence we
1592
shall have to make better use of the semiconductor chip technology that we already have. That involves solving the design and transmission problems associated with increased parallelism in complex systems, and the provision of better software enabling the user more easily to benefit from such systems.
However, that is not the end of the story. The existing CMOS technology is quite sufficient for many humdrum applications where plenty of power is available and computational speed is not the be all and end all of the application. It is the extremes which are driving the research and development. At one extreme are very large computers for weather forecasting, simulation, nuclear physics, geophysics and the like; at the other are the handheld systems such as mobile phones and other portable equipment where low power consumption and specialised computational capability are critical. However, CMOS technology will continue to be the mainstay of the electronics industry for many years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to "smart dust", and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, to his car. The point here is that microprocessor systems will become so integrated into our lives that we are not even aware that we are using computers. In the past, computer use involved punching cards and typing. When I first entered the industry we had to have experts and everything had to be in the right column on the card. The change in user interfaces and the switch to Windows, for example, have been major factors in increasing computer literacy. Children today are much more capable than the average adult of using equipment such as video recorders. That demonstrates the need to produce better interfaces, one of the major areas of development. The latest microchips are making it much easier to produce those interfaces.
What will be the UK's role in the new technologies? It would cost about £300 billion or more to build a fabrication facility to make the next generation chips employing 10 to 20 nanometre linear structures, and it is dubious whether those facilities could be financially viable. Certainly it seems that the UK would not be a contender for such a facility. Our strengths lie in the architectural and system design of the chips where we have a significant presence with world-leading firms such as ARM. The design of the new chips with 40 million or more transistors requires immense effort in design simulation and validation and the devising of test strategies for the production processes. In view of the large numbers of transistors on the chip, and to achieve an acceptable yield, the chips need to be configurable on test to minimise rejection due to faulty transistors. The strategies to achieve that place even more onerous demands on the designers as the dimensions decrease.
The UK should support a single national research institute similar to IMEC in Flanders. Recently, many members of the committee visited the Institute for System Level Integration at the Alba Centre, Livingston, in Scotland. That institute, which teaches graduates system-on-a-chip design, goes some way to meeting the criteria for a national institute. However, it was disappointing to note that the majority of its

1593
students were from overseas. We need to increase the uptake of such courses by UK students if we are to gain benefit from such a national centre of excellence.
One of the UK's basic weaknesses is in the exploitation of our strengths. As others have said, that is not helped by the reluctance of our venture capitalists to fund high-tech enterprises where they do not or are unwilling to understand the technology. That is compounded by the unwillingness to take a long-term view on research and development. It was an eye-opener to visit the IBM Almaden Laboratory in California where they were looking for a return on basic research in 10 to 15 years. That should be compared with UK industry's general reluctance to invest in research.
I urge the Government to take note of our recommendations in the report. We need to take a co-ordinated and integrated approach to our research and development, avoiding wasteful duplication. This is where the RDAs can play a large part in enabling and facilitating university and industry co-operation.
Finally. I urge the Government to accept the necessity for long-term funding implicit with keeping the UK at the forefront of microprocessor developments. The UK has huge talents in this field; do not let us waste them.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, this has been a truly fascinating debate on a truly fascinating subject. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Wade not just on his chairmanship but also on the witty and able way in which he introduced the debate. Above all, I was encouraged by his peroration about enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is a virtue which we need more of in this country—enthusiasm for new ideas and new approaches. An American friend of mine, when asked to summarise the difference between the US and the UK towards innovation, said, "The trouble with you is that in Britain new ideas are guilty until proved innocent. In the US we regard new ideas as innocent until proved guilty". What the noble Lord had to say on that point was absolutely critical as a background to our debate.
I also congratulate all noble Lords who sat on the committee on producing a report which is informative, readable and commendably to the point. It has been a pleasure to listen to their contributions.
The significance of this policy area is that it brings together three strands that are hugely exciting and important to the future prosperity of this country: first, the likely direction of future developments in the information and communication technology market—particularly post-CMOS, and before the end of CMOS—from improved design and architecture; secondly, and absolutely critically, how strategically a middle-ranking economic power such as the United Kingdom, with an economy one-tenth of the size of that of the United States, can maximise the economic benefits from these developments; and, thirdly, what practical steps can be taken, or, equally importantly, avoided by the Government to enhance the achievement of that strategy.
1594
I must declare an interest. My career has been spent in the City where I focused on what is now known as the private equity industry. It was previously known as the venture and development capital industry. I have sat on management committees of both high and low-tech investment funds and I remain an investor in several private equity funds focused on the technology sector.
Fundamental to success in this policy area is an acceptance of a realistic analysis of this country's economic position. We surely cannot hope to advance on all fronts. To do so would be to risk spreading ourselves too thinly and achieving nothing. The figures in the report on comparative research and development spending in the United States as compared with Europe as a whole, let alone the UK on its own, make sobering reading. Sir Robin Saxby's remarks in paragraph 8.31 on the dangers of searching for what he calls another "Great White Hope" have a terrible ring of truth about them. The report's recommendations as regards the need for focus must, therefore, deserve serious attention.
It is important to take a hard look at what we, the British, are good at. We are good inventors. We are good entrepreneurs at every level, from the toolmaker in Birmingham who sets up on his own to the research scientist pursuing his ideas in a university science park. What we are perhaps less good at, or perhaps less interested in, are the techniques and processes of developing and redeveloping and particularly mass producing. This is evidenced by the fact that although UK patent applications continue to run at a high level, British productivity increases remain below what we should be achieving. Successive governments of both political persuasions have found that to be a very difficult nut to crack.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who wrote some years ago:
"Economic performance and cultural values are linked …an effective economic strategy for Britain will probably have to begin in the cultural sphere".
The economic reforms introduced particularly by my noble friend Lady Thatcher, but also generally during 18 years of Conservative government, did much to remove rigidities in the British economy. Equally importantly, they began to change attitudes towards entrepreneurship and wealth creation, but there is still much to do. I am afraid that recent attitudes towards and remarks about that critical issue by senior government Ministers give cause for concern. I understand that they have a Left Wing of their party to placate, but no one can wish to see the country return to the stagnation and decline of the 1970s.
The Minister and I have exchanged views in the past about the difference in concept between companies which are world class and companies which are national champions. I believe that we need to encourage world-class British companies in as many sectors as possible, but I see no role for national champions. The political framework is a poor one in which to make and follow through the tough but delicate decisions such a concept demands. So it is encouraging to see that the report recommends that

1595
research funding should continue to be made available primarily through independent but accountable bodies such as the research councils.
It was, however, interesting to see the difference the report draws in paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 between responsive mode programmes and managed programmes. Although it is obvious that not all research can or should go through a managed programme, it surely is important that even at the front end of innovation the available resources are not spread too thinly. Equally important must be the need to avoid overlap and duplication and to encourage collaboration, including collaboration at a transnational level, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, pointed out, wherever possible. Parochialism can play no part in the world of design and information technology. As the report points out, research councils must have an important role to play here.
An industry where the United Kingdom has done particularly well in the world is the pharmaceutical industry which has some of the characteristics of the design and information technology industry. One wonders if there are any read-across lessons to be learnt, particularly as regards the role of broad and focused research, but also more generally as regards the linkage between the research laboratory and the market-place.
In IT, as in all industry and commerce, the key to our future success is the recruiting and retaining of high-quality staff. The report's remarks on that at paragraphs 9.9 and 9.15 are extremely pertinent, especially in relation to the UK's established strengths in design and architecture. In that connection there are other actions which the Government should be considering very carefully. The first of these is the draft EU directive on temporary agency workers. This industry is one in which subcontractors, who are entrepreneurs in the most direct sense of that word, are a permanent part of the scene. The directive, if implemented in its present form, may well have the effect of fossilising the structure to the very great competitive disadvantage of the United Kingdom. At the very least, member states must have the option of exempting higher skilled technical and professional agency workers from the provisions of the directive.
The second is the IR35 tax regime which affects as many as 100,000 consultants, many of whom work in the IT industry. It is a sly measure which is having a bad effect on the industry generally. Contracting out of functions is now a legitimate and growing practice in all industries. This backhanded approach will undoubtedly continue to drive people abroad—people whose skills are vitally needed in this country—and no industry is more mobile than the IT industry.
Those of your Lordships who took part in the proceedings last year on the Enterprise Bill will recall the balance that was sought to be struck between unavoidable bankruptcy as a learning experience and deliberate bankruptcy as a fraud on creditors,
1596
themselves often small businessmen. It is good to see that the committee feels in paragraph 10.9 that the right balance was in the end achieved.
The provisions of the new Enterprise Act take me back to the issue of world-class companies. To succeed in the IT field, companies have to be world class. To be world class, they need scale so they have the depth of Financial and managerial resources to expand beyond the narrow confines of their domestic markets. It will be important that the competition provisions of the new Enterprise Act do not inhibit the emergence of such companies by preventing them achieving a substantial market share within the United Kingdom. In this field in particular, there are no national boundaries—competition is worldwide. If the competition authorities here choose to measure on the narrow basis of the UK market alone, it will be a huge inhibition to potentially successful firms in this field.
I turn briefly to the issue of funding, which was dealt with most ably by my noble friend Lord Freeman and referred to by a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. The report refers in paragraph 10.20 to the role of the venture capital industry in providing funding and other support. There is a difficult issue of timescales in that regard. In order to continue to fundraise, investment management companies must show a track record of successful realisations of their investments. A typical fund will have a seven-year life with realisations beginning after about three or four years. Such a timescale does not sit happily with the needs of a start-up company. It is true that during the late 1990s the technology boom saw a number of the early stage funds perform extremely well, but those were exceptional times. Now that a grimmer reality has returned and pension fund trustees, for example, contemplate funding gaps, the appetite for risk will have diminished but the readiness to fund a company through the several rounds of financing required will also have been reduced.
One solution for the early rounds of funding is to be provided by groups of private individuals, many of whom will be experienced and successful entrepreneurs in the IT field. That has the added advantage of giving the investee company access to practical managerial support, of the type referred to by my noble friend Lord Freeman, and pure funding. In that connection, the enterprise investment scheme (EIS) tax reliefs are critical. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Inland Revenue continues to take a positive and open-minded approach to applying the scheme rules, which has not always been the case in the past.
The report points out at 10.21 that there is much, as a major purchaser, that the Government can do on their own in terms of helping the development of the sector. Last Friday, I took the opportunity of a long train journey to read the report and its accompanying appendices. Before leaving Euston, I opened my Financial Times and saw on the front page the headline:
"Computer groups fire opening shot in battle for share of £5bn NHS upgrade".

1597
The article contained evidence that with proper encouragement from the Government, there are opportunities for smaller and more innovative British companies to become involved. The report also hints at the agonies that new small vulnerable companies go through in trying to link with the Government. I have seen that at first hand as a trustee of funds. Finding a way through the bureaucratic maze, decisions on commercial matters that are promised for a certain date but are repeatedly postponed for no obvious reason and delays in payments leading to fresh encounters with the bureaucratic maze represent a nightmare for the smaller vulnerable start-up company. If the new taskforce recommended in paragraph 7.8 can help, its establishment will be a worthwhile step.
I conclude as I began by saying that this is a worthwhile and interesting report. I hope that the Government will study its recommendations carefully. In my view, the Government's primary role is as an enabler: to encourage a proper balance between wide-ranging and focused research; to avoid duplication, overlap and reinvention of the wheel; to provide a financial framework that encourages collaboration and investment, especially by those with hands-on experience in the industry; to ensure a flexible, well-trained domestic labour market; and to use government purchasing power wherever possible to foster British entrepreneurialism and commercial drive.
The right approach and the right answers will surely reap rich rewards for the United Kingdom. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reaction to this excellent report on an industry which, despite its huge size, is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, pointed out, still only in its infancy.
12.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the report of the Science and Technology Select Committee on microprocessing and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on an outstanding report. It is already proving to be extremely useful and is stimulating some valuable thinking in the DTI and the OST. I cannot honestly give detailed answers to the report at this stage because we have not yet finalised our response but perhaps I can give some indications of our thinking. I add, as the Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, that it is a pleasure to speak in a debate on science—this is one of the few occasions on which I have had an opportunity to do so. It was a pleasure to hear from the noble Lords, Lord Wade, Lord Patel, Lord Methuen and Lord Oxburgh, who gave brilliant surveys of technological developments in the field.
The Government support many of the findings and recommendations in the Select Committee's report. We recognise the importance of this global industry and the key role that the UK plays in it. In particular, we agree that initiatives in the ICT arena are needed if the UK is to capitalise on future opportunities.
1598
However, before addressing the need for new initiatives, it is important to understand the basis of the Government's current strategy. The key elements of this strategy are, first, to exploit the existing skills and investment in silicon technology and to explore how that may benefit other sectors and generate new markets through microtechnology and nanotechnology. A second element is to support the future needs of our existing design strengths through basic and applied research; and the third is to cover the wide range of possible materials and design issues through a widespread network of university facilities and national research laboratories. That involves researching what comes after silicon.
The UK has considerable expertise in silicon design and we must ensure that that skills base is maintained, embracing all of the possible ways in which that technology might develop. We should bear in mind that silicon will not stop working when Moore's law does. For example, at the moment there is considerable commercial exploitation of microtechnology in silicon, not as integrated circuits but as micro-scale or nano-scale sensors and instruments. That in turn is driving experimentation using the techniques pioneered in silicon for other materials, such as glass and ceramics, for applications as far removed as miniature chemical processing plants called micro-reactors.
A successful strategy also needs to take into account the characteristics of our "new style computer industry". That is an industry in which there is far closer integration between hardware design, software and manufacturing than ever before. Government interaction with the industry needs to reflect that. That has influenced initiatives such as the information Age Partnership, which meets regularly under the chair of the Secretary of State and has a wide-ranging membership which encompasses telecommunications and content and service companies as well as design and hardware interests.
Within that work discussions are ongoing, led by Intellect—the ICT trade association—to agree the future requirements of the entire ICT arena. There is considerable interest in areas such as modelling and complexity, which would cover many of the needs of future design work in integrated circuits, regardless of the underlying materials, and be of wider application to modelling future complex IT systems.
Microprocessor design and architecture is an area where government spending on basic research can have a big impact. EPSRC, in particular, has a broad research portfolio underpinning the sector, totalling some £120 million, of which £40 million is in collaboration with industry. However, we, too, note that in recent years that area has become less well represented in EPSRC's overall portfolio. Steps are being taken to address that by raising the overall skills level in the area through initiatives such as Faraday Partnerships and an engineering doctorate programme for "system on a chip" technologies.

It is clear that if the UK is to remain at the forefront of research in innovative systems, it will need a significant and sustained investment in order to

1599
maintain a critical mass of activity. The exact form that that should take will require much thought—whether it should be a virtual or a single centre or a major programme and what exactly it should cover. The report's reference to the e-science programme is particularly relevant. Faced with a similar situation, it was recognised that the research councils would be unable to fund the required level of activity from existing baselines and therefore additional resources were sought during the spending reviews of 2000 and 2002. Consequently, discussions are currently taking place regarding how best to address the issue of innovative microprocessing in future spending reviews.
At the same time, materials research offers the prospect of taking integrated circuits into materials other than silicon with radically different design constraints. Technologies such as printing with conducting plastics—the so-called "plastronics"—and many developments in nanotechnology are examples of that.
We are carrying out basic research across a broad range of new materials applicable to this field. The EPSRC International Review of Materials, which reported in March 2002, recognised the international competitiveness of the work at places such as the Semiconductor Facility at Sheffield University and the centres of excellence at Birmingham and Cambridge Universities.
The £9 million research programme launched last year on quantum information processing is another example of the exciting research into unconventional post-silicon processing. In that context, we believe that it is right to support a broad research portfolio in materials because now is not the moment to place all our bets on a single emerging technology. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, supported that point. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, that if one technology begins to emerge as the winner, then research councils need to be quick to respond.
We are currently considering what other initiatives are needed to support industry across the board as part of the DTI's Innovation Review. I am looking at further support in the area of nanotechnology to help industry in work relating to both awareness of what this field can offer and the applied research that will help to realise its potential.
An evaluation is currently being made of a centre, working in collaboration with other centres of expertise around the country, which would give industry a world-class focus for this important work, as well as avoiding the fragmentation of the science base. That would facilitate the exploitation of equivalent centres overseas on an equitable basis and improve access to European funds by industry.
We fully endorse the need to encourage radical approaches, and a number of schemes operated by EPSRC are intended to do just that. For example, EPSRC platform grants are allowing key research groups to take a more strategic view of their research
1600
and engage in more adventurous "high risk, high return" activities. EPSRC is also developing the concept of portfolio partnerships with our world-leading teams to provide a five-year funding envelope which they can deploy flexibly across a programme of research. Having said all that, it must be noted that the current downturn in the electronics sector has inhibited many companies from engaging with the science base. Many government-funded activities are therefore geared towards underpinning the move out of recession.
The shortage of skilled people is a particularly acute problem in this industry, and a number of initiatives are now underway to address that, starting in schools with the Science and Engineering Ambassadors scheme. In response to the Roberts review recommendations, the Government have committed themselves to creating 1,000 new academic fellowships to facilitate the progress of contract research staff into academic posts. We have already announced the funding of a post-doctoral salary increase of £4,0000 per annum by 2005–06.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised the question of salaries. I do not believe that we are now seeing a brain drain; in fact, there is some evidence of a brain gain. I agree that salaries are a key issue here, but I believe that it is a matter of salary levels rather than tax. It is our belief that salaries should reflect labour market pressures, although the mechanism for identifying areas to be targeted for an increase is still under consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, raised the question of exploitation. I believe that today the climate on knowledge transfer, in particular, is very different from that of 10 or even five years ago. A number of schemes, such as University Challenge, science enterprise centres and HEIF, the Higher Education Innovation Fund, have done much to bring about changes in the culture in this area. I believe that the culture was probably changing 10 or 15 years ago, but in the past five years those schemes have provided a major boost.
The figures that we now have from HEFCE's Higher Education Business Interaction Survey suggests that that is right. The figures for the second year of the survey in 2002 show that there were a total of 248 spin-out companies in 2001–02 compared with 204 from 1998 to 2000 and 70 per year on average in the previous five years. Therefore, there has been a major cultural change. The total number of patents filed increased from 594 in 1996–97 to 1,515 in 2000–01. As my noble friend Lord Mitchell said, UK universities are now identifying one spin-out for every £12 million of research expenditure, and that compares very favourably with the US figure of £53 million. However, I agree that we can still do more and we shall continue to support that trend with extra money under SR2002.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the role of the non-research-intensive universities, which I regard as extremely important. The new money that we are receiving under SR2002 will maintain what we

1601
put into research-intensive universities. But the additional money will be focused on non-research-intensive universities because we believe that there is another agenda for them, working particularly with SMEs on a regional basis, which is extremely important.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, raised the question of European funding. The Government accept that UK industry's participation in EU programmes has been at a relatively low level. However, in terms of our overall performance in framework programmes, we are probably the major beneficiary and we certainly get far more out of it than we put in. But we are considering seriously the question of the industrial dimension, and I believe that we need to review programmes such as EUREKA to see whether we should put more resources into them.
I turn to one or two specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord. Lord Wade, raised a number of questions about the conditions for the industry in this country. It should be said that we have the best venture capital industry in Europe and that today we have far closer contact with hi-tech businesses than we have had in the past.
The Government have also done much work in supporting clusters and encouraging regional networks. I believe that the setting up of regional science and industry councils, where the way was led by the North West, is an important initiative in that respect. I hope that the innovation report on which we are now working will give a further thrust to those efforts. But I believe it is extremely important to get right the regional networks between universities and industry on a regional basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the question of government procurement. I prefer to think of that in terms of the intelligent customer function and getting government departments to do what commercial companies do naturally. That involves supporting their suppliers in terms of innovation on the basis that if their suppliers are more innovative, that will help their own competitive advantage. We also have SMART awards and the SBRI scheme, modelled on the US SBRI scheme, which support small hi-tech businesses in their early days when they are trying to carry out more R&D.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, also raised the question of financing R&D in companies. We introduced the R&D tax credit, first, for small companies and then for large companies. I believe the noble Earl will find that at present the R&D tax credit, which gives cash payments to small businesses when they are not paying tax, is proving extremely popular again, as a way of supporting small hi-tech companies in their early days.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, raised the question of networks and clusters. I believe it should be said that we do not live in a country where there is only one cluster — Cambridge. I say that as a Cambridge man. Equally, Oxford now has a very dynamic cluster of hi-tech businesses. In the ICT field, Bristol is very strong. London is now proving to have quite a strong biotech
1602
industry with more than 90 companies in England and that number is growing rapidly. But other parts of the country, such as Manchester and York, are also very dynamic. Recently I was in Plymouth where there is a new science park that has enormously interesting hi-tech businesses.
Clusters of hi-tech businesses are rapidly changing the situation in this country. We should not consider that we are doing badly. A recent Deloitte and Touche survey of the top 500 fastest growing hi-tech businesses in Europe found that 150 were in the UK.
The noble Lord also asked about the recommendation in paragraph 10.20. We in the DTI and in the Treasury have had a series of consultations with industry, with the venture capital industry, with hi-tech businesses and with the equity industry on the subject. In order to help we have made a series of major tax changes. We are looking at this point again as part of the innovation report. I hope that something will follow from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, raised the issue of attracting talent from abroad. We have made it easier, but if there are further things that we should do I would like to hear about them. I believe that the battle for talent across the world will be one of the most important battles that we shall fight on the economic front. It constantly has to be made clear that a number of countries, such as Canada, are now openly targeting the best scientists from other parts of the world. 'We need to ensure that our scientists and engineers are paid enough so that they are not tempted to take up such offers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, about the success of the British computer games industry. It is a great success. It is now under pressure and there may be something to be learned from the support, for example, that the South Korean Government provide to their industry in terms of a centre of expertise.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised the issue of multidisciplinarity. We have taken many steps in that direction; in particular we have brought together the research councils under Research Councils UK. in order to encourage multidisciplinary work. In SR2000 the three major projects that we supported, which were in genomics, e-science and basic technology, were all cross-research council programmes to encourage multidisciplinarity. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that bio-engineering and biochips are enormously important areas that we support.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, raised the issue of technology scouts in universities. I think that HEIF has enabled many more universities to do that kind of work and it is one of the exciting developments in this country.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the need to avoid the next great white hope. In the past a mistake that we in this country have made is to hope that one technological thrust in one area will be the saviour of all. Such a matter has always involved large sums of money that means that politicians become involved in commercial decisions, which absolutely is not the right way to proceed. I am sure that we would

1603
agree on that point. However, I do not believe that that should stop one making certain that in a wide range of technologies there is a clear strategy for moving forward.
I also agree that one of the important science policy decisions is to get the balance right between responsive mode funding and directive research funding. I think that in the past, perhaps in the ICT area, we have erred in going too much towards the responsive mode funding which means that we have not built the centres of excellence because everything has been accomplished on small grants. We are putting that right.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, spoke of IR35. I am not sure that it is totally relevant to this debate, but I point out once again that IR35 is simply a matter of how the rules are applied for determining whether people are self-employed or employed by a company. All that IR35 says is that the fact that one sets up a company does not in any way detract from the normal application of the rules. That is a sensible and fair tax decision and one that we stand by.
Finally, I make an important point about the work of the Government. We believe that the Institute for System Level Integration, based on the Alba campus at Livingstone in Scotland, has been a great success and has much expertise relevant to the committee's recommendations. In preparing the Government's response to the report we shall take into account the Institute for System Level Integration experience and build that into our plans.
The Select Committee's report is a very useful and stimulating contribution to an important debate. I hope that our response will show how much agreement there is between the Government and the committee. The Government are grateful to all those who took part in the preparation of the report and to those who have taken part in the debate. I believe that there are many opportunities for UK industry and the computer chip business. The Government recognise the importance of the sector and are determined to provide the best possible conditions for it to grow and to flourish. This area is one of competitive advantage and we need to build on our strengths.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the encouraging comments about our report. We look forward to receiving the Government's response. All the members of the Select Committee are willing, and most of us are able, to work with the Government if they desire to bring about some of the ideas.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his support for our report and for his helpful comments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for taking part in the debate. It is pleasant to see someone who is not a member of the Select Committee, and who had no need to speak, showing enthusiasm for it. We are grateful to him. I also thank all members of the Select Committee who made such excellent speeches. They
1604
covered different parts of the report which brought together a comprehensive review of its contents. I thank you all very much indeed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Regulation and Agriculture
1.17 p.m.
The Earl of Selbornerose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Environmental Regulation and Agriculture (36th Report, HL Paper 186, Session 2001–02).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject of environmental regulation and agriculture is one on which some clear thinking is required. It is an area that in the past has often proved contentious and difficult to implement. A clear idea of the objectives that regulations seek to achieve is needed. There needs to be an understanding of the practicalities and there needs to be a determination of the most likely route to reconcile the two issues.
I hope that the report before the House today makes a contribution towards emphasising the need for long-term planning on how we can best achieve implementation of EU regulations in the UK so far as they impact on agriculture. I should declare an interest as a farmer. I thank our specialist adviser, Professor Bill Day and our Clerk, Mr Tom Radice who gave great assistance to Sub-Committee D.
Environmental regulation must apply to all industries and to agriculture, which manages 70 per cent or more of the land in the United Kingdom. They cannot and should not be exempt. The report recognises the need for agriculture to conform. It seeks to advise on how best the objectives of EU environmental regulation can he achieved, recognising some of the realities of the farming industry and how it differs from other industries. Farmers are not what are described as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); they are often one-man bands with the office work carried out in the evenings or through part-time help from the wife.
It goes without saying—in no way is this relevant to whether it should conform to regulations—that the agricultural industry is under severe financial pressure. One should take that point into account because it will be more effective to implement regulations where they do not adversely or unnecessarily impact on the commercial viability of the business that is already under pressure.
There is an extensive list of EU environmental legislation both in existence and in the pipeline. I refer your Lordships to pages 110 to 118 of our report, containing the memorandum from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—nine pages of regulation, which is quite a lot. Our record of implementation of EU environmental legislation is not impressive. The Better Regulation Task Force, when chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, drew attention to that two or three years ago. He

1605
characterised our response as often being too late for early discussion of regulations as they are developed, a reluctance to anticipate outcomes, and invariably having to catch up later on missed opportunities with little input from commercial operators whose job it is to reconcile their business with the regulations.
An example is the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. The United Kingdom was initially opposed to the inclusion of intensive animal units in the IPPC directive. Animal units are clearly very different from usual industrial plant. We nevertheless later accepted that the rest of Europe was right and that they should be included. The result was that we came to the matter late. Undoubtedly, the fact that we had to implement the directive in a bit of hurry meant that we did so in a way totally unsuited to the nature of the industry. Even large intensive units do not have large personnel departments. They are unaccustomed to the complexity of information required for IPPC designed for large factory units.
I have no doubt that had the operators of intensive animal units—which, after all, must be regulated and have special characteristics in their impact on the environment and must be regulated—become involved early on, we would have reached a different solution that achieved precisely the same objectives more effectively and in a more user-friendly way. The lesson from the IPPC is: anticipate two, three or four years before the regulation comes into force and involve the stakeholder—in this, case intensive agricultural units—sooner rather than later, preferably in the earliest stages. I repeat that the objectives of the IPPC are perfectly laudable in reducing environmental impact; it is simply that the model for its delivery has been totally inappropriate.
I have given an example from the agricultural sector. I could cite other instances, both inside and outside the sector, of inappropriate delivery mechanisms. The classification of farm wastes has now caught up with us. On the disposal of ozone-depleting substances, your Lordships will remember the fiasco over decommissioning refrigerators. We had not anticipated the need to have commercial plant in place, and the directive had been around for a long time before we ultimately put the commercial infrastructure in place. The same is true of tyres, a matter still unresolved, where we have failed to match commercial realities with environmental imperatives.
Returning to farms, we have ineffectively tried to address the matter of plastic sheeting for 10 or 15 years. Farmers are still totally puzzled as to what they are supposed to with plastic sheeting if they cannot burn it, bury it or dispose of it in any other way.
So we must anticipate such issues five to 10 years ahead of enforcement, if possible, and must understand that government and regulatory authorities must have working links with the relevant industry to align good commercial sense and practice.
The example of countries such as Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands in respect of the nitrates directive is salutary. It dates back some time but, recognising the impact of nitrate leaching, those
1606
three countries introduced a concept of nutrient budgeting that meant that when the directive was eventually imposed their farmers appeared to find the legislation less burdensome because they were already reconciled to the concept. That is an example of an excellent initiative leading the way to effective implementation and to alignment of commercial and environmental signals.
Our report suggests a new approach to implementing environmental regulations, not just in the sense of aligning commercial and environmental priorities but because of the nature of pollution and the regulations on the horizon or already with us. For example, the framework directive on water deals with diffuse pollution, which is different from end-of-pipe pollution where it is easy to determine who is the polluter and put in place appropriate enforcement measures. Diffuse pollution impacts on wildlife, water aquafers and the atmosphere and by its nature is impossible to trace. The framework directive will have to deal with leakages to soil, air and water. Ammonia is one such source. The incidence of micro-bacteria in water leading to pollution of bathing or drinking water is one issue that must be thought through in the context of best agricultural practice.
Under pillar II of the common agricultural policy, we can operate transitional arrangements to help to promote an infrastructure that produces commercial opportunities. I hasten to add that I do not suggest that we use subsidies to reward people for obeying the law, but simply that in such cases as those of refrigerators or plastics on farms, transitional pump-priming to align the market with environmental imperatives makes good sense and allows enforcement of the regulation to be more effective. That will be the case with diffuse pollution, where design of buildings or agricultural systems may well help water companies or catchment areas more effectively to hit their targets.
We must promote the partnership approach. In the report, we give credit to both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency for promoting just such a concept. They now recognise the need to involve stakeholders. That did not happen sufficiently early in the days of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and negotiations did not involve the agencies as much as they should have—certainly not the farmers. There is talk of developing a risk-based approach to regulation, setting appropriate targets and promoting self-regulation where appropriate—ultimately, of course, backed up by enforcement. We welcome that approach and seek to give it greater momentum.
We were especially impressed by the evidence of Mr Ross Finnie, the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The Scottish Executive set up an agricultural and environmental working group to examine the impact of environmental issues on farming and food processors over the next five to 10 years—precisely the right timescale, we felt. The aim of the group, which reported last June, was to identify the priority issues and consider ways to address them that, would he good for the environment and good for business. The report

1607
addressed considerations such as how to interface with farmers, with some practical suggestions on delivery of advice and guidance, training, hill farm planning, commercial initiatives and the like.
The evidence section of our report, pages 91 to 93, summarises current and future legislation that impacts on Scotland and Scottish farmers. It is a clear and user-friendly analysis of the issues that Scottish farmers and other land managers will need to address over the next 10 years or so. We commend that approach and recognise that DEFRA does also. It has a greater problem simply because we have a much wider divergence of farming practices, habitats and environmental issues.
In a sense, that demonstrates the need to think in regional terms. I hope that the Scottish Executive will not mind my saying that it is effectively dealing with the issue on a regional level. While commending the DEFRA farm focus division, we would like to see its national approach pushed out to the regions. Each of the five or six DEFRA regions should have its own farm focus division and group of stakeholders from farming and food processing who could meet water catchment managers, nature conservation agencies and the Environment Agency regional branch to discuss the agenda and proposals that might be appropriate for the region. Transitional support will sometimes be needed to build up capacity and to encourage new approaches to old problems. There should be opportunities from the second pillar, although the funding of that in proportion to the whole is not as high as the sub-committee would like.
We discussed with DEFRA how the data that it and agencies hold could be assembled most effectively and offered to farmers to support whole-farm or whole-parish planning, which is the key to delivering successful environmental management. We heard of difficulties from the agencies in accessing data held by the Government. We urgently need a common platform and a user-friendly system so that farmers could, subject to confidentiality constraints, when putting together their own farm and business plans, make full use of the welter of data generated by the Water Catchment Authority, the Environment Agency, local authorities, nature conservation agencies and local bio-diversity action plans. All those bodies, appropriately, advise land managers. Farmers suffer from a surfeit of advice. It would help if they could access advice in a user-friendly way through one portal.
The committee was alarmed by DEFRA's forecast that it might take up to 10 years to achieve—a timescale that we thought unrealistic, to say the least. But I was encouraged by Annex A of the Government's response. It talks of a provisional timetable stretching to 2005, which is more realistic. If that means that by 2005 we shall have a common platform we will be greatly encouraged.
1608
I conclude with a quotation from the Institute for European Environmental Policy, which is found on page 156 of the written evidence of our report:
"In our view there are strong arguments for a programme of advance planning over a five to 10 year period, to prepare for meeting EU environmental standards effectively and with minimum burden on the farming sector. Within such a framework, farmers would receive a clear message about the requirements that they will need to meet in future, to guide them in their short and medium term planning and investment decisions. Individual farm plans assessing and interpreting environmental impacts could be prepared to assist in this process".
That is precisely the message that the report seeks to spell out. I am pleased that the Government, in their response, have warmly welcomed the report. I hope that DEFRA will be able to lead the way in Europe in reconciling environmental requirements with commercial realities on the farm. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Environmental Regulation and Agriculture (36th Report, HL Paper 186, Session 2001–02).—(The Earl of Selborne. )
1.34 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I congratulate the Select Committee on producing a thoughtful and well argued report. The importance of the subject was put succinctly by the chairman of the committee, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who, in the first oral evidence session, quoted from an article in Environment Action published in February 2002:
"Laws introduced over the next few years alone, which include agricultural waste regulations, could cost farms £25–40 million and involve 200,000 Agency inspections".
As the noble Earl said, at a time when farming is under the most severe economic pressure that any of us can remember, the importance of lifting the burden of cumbersome, impractical and ill-thought-out regulations cannot be over-estimated. The report makes some important practical recommendations in that respect.
As someone who spent some 40 years advising farmers before joining the Government in 1997, I agree thoroughly with the idea of whole-farm planning. The report points out correctly that environmental and management systems require the linking together of business and environmental advice. That was music to my ears, as it echoes a theme that I have argued for many years. However, I admit to a wry smile when I read in the report about the pressing need to recreate the best features of the former National Agricultural Advisory Service (NAAS) and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS). It was exactly the loss of those features that many of us feared when ADAS was privatised.
With reference to accessible and local advice, I was delighted to see in the Government's response to the report, at paragraph 27, that,
"the Environment Agency is currently considering the feasibility of setting up a network of agricultural inspectors to work with farmers. The vast majority of a farmer's contact would be with his local inspector, with specialists only brought in when their expertise was required".

1609
If the proposed agricultural inspectors could be called district officers we would neatly be back to the days of the old NAAS. In agricultural policy what goes around certainly comes around.
There is a strong public-interest argument in support of the view expressed in the report that environmental advice should be free. Of course a polluter should pay for acts of pollution. But how much better it would be to provide accessible, local free advice to prevent the pollution in the first place. The NFU in its briefing for the debate makes some cogent points. It particularly emphasises the need for agricultural proofing of the proposed regulations. It also stresses the importance of ensuring that farmers and growers have a sense of ownership of the environmental agenda. Such a sense of ownership is riot likely to be forthcoming when farmers are thinking of signing up to the new entry-level agri-environmental scheme without knowing whether long-term funding has been secured for the duration of the five-year agreement. I understand that the Government have committed funds of £150 million for the first year, 2005–06. But there is no clear indication of the funding after the first year. Can the Minister explain what is intended to happen after the first year of the scheme?
With the proposed move to cross-compliance resulting from the mid-term review of the CAP, it is essential that the regulatory burden associated with cross-compliance is not further increased. It is alarming that apparently the European Commission could add regulations to the existing 38 in four categories if it so wished. That does not sit easily with the Government's declared, welcome theme throughout their response to the report of transparency and proportionality and their declared objective of achieving the desired outcome in the least burdensome way.
The OECD environmental performance review published in November 2002 pointed out that welcome progress had been made in the UK since its previous review in 1994. But, not surprisingly, it emphasises that there is still much to do. It makes the valuable recommendation that environmental concerns should be integrated with economic and social decision-making. Such a holistic approach sits well with the recommendations in the Select Committee report regarding whole-farm business and environmental advice. It would read across to the whole rural economy, in the context of social decision making.
It is clear from the report and the OECD review that, although a good start has been made, there is still a long way to go to get the right balance between ensuring proper protection and enhancement of the environment and avoiding overloading farmers with burdensome and impractical regulation. It might be worth pointing out that, in their spare time after dealing with cross-compliance, environmental and animal welfare regulations, country stewardship and all the rest, farmers still have the job of producing 75 per cent of the nation's temperate food. That fact is sometimes overlooked by the most enthusiastic proponents of environmental protection. The farmer's main job is to produce food, which is why the
1610
practicality of environmental regulation is so important. The recommendations in the report underline that importance.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the Chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne; our Clerk, Tom Radice; and our adviser, Professor Bill Day, for the report. I also thank our secretary, Marilyn Byatt, for kindly keeping us supplied with papers—up to the last minute yesterday, in my case.
I also declare an interest as a retired farmer who, for the last 20 years of farming, farmed with a management plan devised under a Manpower Services Commission scheme in 1980. It had a mission statement of environmental objectives and encouraged those who worked on the estate, including outside contractors, to understand and follow those objectives. I know that, at the beginning, my farm manager and several neighbours were sceptical, but soon they were enthusiastic, and so were our barn owls. We started with a single pair, and we now know, through our involvement with the British Trust for Ornithology, of seven nesting sites within five miles of the original nesting site. I am also a supporter of LEAF, Linking Environment And Farming.
Today, I shall examine the report from a farmer's point of view and ask whether the Government can persuade farmers to be more environmentally friendly. That will be even more important when the proposed changes in the EU common agricultural policy come in and farmers' income is largely dependent on environmental considerations.
No doubt farmers will receive monitoring visits from various organisations. It is essential that those visits are co-ordinated, otherwise far too much time will be spent going over the same points again and again. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out, many farms are one-man bands. If he is sitting in an office being asked things time and time again by someone from the Ministry or even the "Department of Whatever", the farmer is not working. The Government should give us back the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the best service that the Ministry of Agriculture ever gave. It was free.
In most cases, the Environment Agency will need to be the lead monitor, and it is imperative that it has access to all the information that it needs, such as the integrated administration and control system, which, at the moment, it does not. I understand from the Government's response that that is on the way. The Environment Agency's booklet Best Farming Practices: Profiting from a good environment is well illustrated, succinct, readable and helpful, whereas we were told firmly in the Committee that the information put out by DEFRA was not read by many farmers, and, if it was read, it was not fully understood. That was a quotation; it was not I who said it. We were disappointed to hear that it might take DEFRA 10 years to reach the stage at which all the systems that we sought would be up and running.

1611
Some landlords, especially the National Trust, take the forthcoming legislation seriously and are organising meetings for their tenants and appointing staff with special responsibility for helping tenants with environmental problems at no cost to the tenants. That is highly laudable, and I urge more institutional and private landlords to do the same.
The Committee visited Mr Andy Drake's two neighbouring farms at East Knoyle in Wiltshire. There had been a considerable amount of rain in the previous few days, which accentuated the problems of that 300-acre dairy farm with 250 milking cows and 100 followers. The soils are silty clay and lie wet for long periods of the year. They drain directly into the River Stour, a tributary of the Hampshire Avon, which is a good reason for not polluting it in any way. The farm buildings on the higher farm included the milking parlour and stood on the top of the hill overlooking the Stour Valley.
The main risks were spillage from the slurry lagoon, seepage from the silage clamp and spillage of fuel oil. Cures were suggested by Mr Drake's advisers. The fuel problem was cured by bunding the tanks and taking extra care. The spillage from the slurry lagoon was dramatically reduced by taking the rainwater out of the slurry stream and diverting it down a renovated and improved ditch. The silage seepage was alleviated by adding a further barrier on the downhill side of the clamp. The costs of carrying out the work were small, but the improvement was dramatic.
On the lower farm, a demonstration had been set up by, among others, the Maize Growers Association to raise awareness of the environmental risks of dairy farming. Farmers were shown areas where environmental damage had occurred and some alternative husbandry practices that could be adopted. The use of earlier varieties of maize allows earlier harvest, which should reduce soil compaction. Subsoiling and ploughing were therefore possible after the maize harvest to improve soil structure. The introduction of winter wheat to be used as silage into the rotation produced another forage crop and helped the farmer to do cultivations at a more sensible time. The conclusion is that, when planning for the future, farmers must put environmental priorities far higher up the list. The solutions may be the best from a financial point of view as well.
Another topical problem that we met at the farm was that of old tyres. Traditionally, farmers have used them to hold down silage clamps. Andy Drake was no exception; he had hundreds of them. However, there comes a time when even old tyres used on silage clamps become too old and damaged for further use. How can he get rid of them? I am open to suggestions from the Minister.
In spite of the overcast weather and rain the day before, our visit was worthwhile. It is important for committees of the House to see these things at first hand and to get their boots dirty.
1612
There are a few other environmental problems to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. Global warming is now an accepted fact. The sea will rise and cause coastal flooding; winters will become wetter and warmer; and summers will become dryer and hotter. We must take that into account, when considering the long-term environmental problems in agriculture. We must consider different varieties of crop, and we will have to create environmental corridors, for instance, for the cold-loving flora and fauna to move northwards. Such corridors on a small scale are essential, when fields are large, for joining together areas of woodland and meadow. That is why roadside verges are vital to our wildlife. There are serious problems on our smaller rural roads. Verges are being destroyed by large vehicles passing each other, articulated lorries cutting corners and tractors and similar vehicles with double or over-sized tyres driving down lanes that were designed for a horse and cart.
Will the Minister discuss that with his colleagues in the Department for Transport?
Finally, I welcome the response of the Government to the report, especially paragraph 35 about the Environment Agency and IACS, and their remarks in paragraph 42 about joined-up government. I, too, suspect, as did the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that Annex A means that DEFRA hopes to achieve in five years what it told the committee would take 10. I, too, feel that that is a little slow.
Finally, will fridge mountains and tyre mountains be followed by farmer mountains?
1.50 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. He said that we should get out and about and look at farms. I do not have to go far from my home in Wales to see my neighbour's farm. It is one in which the occupant thinks that the way to get rid of plastic scrap is to spread it over his hedges and that it is a suitable occupation for a Welsh farmer to collect a large number of old motor cars and leave them on his fields.
Noble Lords need to be reminded of the point made by my noble friend Lord Selborne. We are dealing with small businesses and some which simply do not have a modern approach to management. Therefore, we must measure our response to take account of that.
Once again, it is an enormous pleasure to thank my noble friend Lord Selborne for introducing a Sub-Committee D report and for his masterly chairing of our committee. I also want to thank our special adviser, Professor Bill Day, and our clerk, Tom Radice, who made our task easy and a pleasure.
I shall concentrate on very few points in the report—in particular, points listed on page 9, Box 1. The first point is the early involvement of all stakeholders during the development of legislation. In that connection, my noble friend spoke about IPPC and intensive animal units. I was reminded of a visit that I paid as chairman of the National Rivers Authority to my opposite number in the Po Valley,

1613
which was illustrative of the point that he made about different national approaches; namely, how, if these matters are approached early in a comprehensive way, an effective system can be produced.
In the Po Valley there are a large number of pigs. We visited one pig unit which had a sewage treatment works which could have dealt with the sewage from a town with a population of 80,000 people. The next-door village had no sewage treatment works at all. Indeed, I was informed that the city of Milan depended on a sewage treatment works which was largely installed by the monks in the Middle Ages. However, in the Po Valley it was appreciated that by far the greatest pollution hazard was the output of piggeries and intensive milk units. The problem was tackled extremely effectively. No one argued that it was uneconomic or impossible for farmers to do.
Therefore, early involvement of the stakeholders is needed. Box 1 also refers to the importance of the collaborative process of potential regulators interacting with the would-be regulated and non-governmental organisations. The report says that the regulatory agencies—the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and English Nature and its counterparts—have a crucial role in developing more flexible and user-friendly approaches.
I emphasise the need for flexible and user-friendly approaches. One of the first jobs carried out by the National Rivers Authority was the serious problem of point-source pollution from agricultural units. A tough line was taken and, when necessary, prosecutions were made. Above all, we realised that to be effective it was important to gain the co-operation of farmers. The way to do that was to work closely with them and to gain their confidence.
By the combination of being prepared to be tough when people failed and polluted and, at the same time, helping them in a friendly and flexible way, considerable success was achieved. The Environment Agency has been developing similar approaches since.
I want to press the point made in paragraph 19 of the report about the need for joined-up action by government departments and agencies. There were certainly suggestions from a number of witnesses that the different interests within DEFRA and the principal agencies were not operating in a joined-up fashion and promoting environmentally-friendly agricultural practices. Mr Taylor, the DEFRA witness, said,
"I think it is probably right that we are not yet operating in a joined-up way as we would like to".
I welcome the indications in the response of the Government that they recognise the problem and seek to do something about it.
My noble friend Lord Selborne said that we had been impressed by the approach adopted in Scotland. He said that it is easier in Scotland, partly for geographic reasons—they may object to his suggestion that it is a regional approach. During my time as Secretary of State for Wales, I found that we had real advantages over England. That was partly because I
1614
was the Minister responsible for all aspects of policy and the officials all answered to me, but it was also due to the scale of the operation. We all knew each other and met each other frequently. There was a degree of co-operation which is possible in Scotland and Wales but far more difficult in England, and far more difficult for DEFRA. Therefore, I understand the problems.
Certainly, we were impressed by the Scots, as we were impressed by the activities of the National Trust. There is no doubt that the National Trust has made enormous efforts to inform, educate and help the farmers for whom it has responsibility. It showed what could be done by a sensible approach to these matters.
I turn to page 11, paragraph 28 of the report and the question of whole-farm environmental management and regulation. The chief executive of the Environment Agency stated:
"Overall what we would like to see is an environmental farm management system which would encourage farmers to take a systematic approach to their environmental management and could form a platform on which they could demonstrate environmental performance, which would allow them to have a much more systematic approach to each of the regimes which they did have to comply with and minimise duplication of paperwork, duplication of systems and duplication of basic requirements across the farm".
That is central to everything in the report. To have that kind of approach, as stated in paragraph 35, we must have access to information, and efficient ways of handling and managing it are crucial to an integrated approach to environmental regulation. I therefore turn to the point referred to by a number of noble Lords who have spoken, the question of the IT policies of the department. In particular, I refer to the evidence section on page 125, where the exchange that I had with the DEFRA witness is set out and the now notorious admission that it might take 10 years before we have the parts of the policy coming together.
I am afraid that I challenged the unfortunate witness with a challenge I once heard made in a Cabinet Committee by my noble friend Lady Thatcher when she was Prime Minister: "You mean it's going to take longer than the two world wars combined. We achieved quite a lot in the way of scientific and technical progress in each of those world wars. I don't think that is acceptable". I do not think it is acceptable in this context either. I am chairman of a company in IT management. We see a Government energetically implementing and financing change in central and local government across the field and I welcome that. Changes are taking place on a timescale which makes such an approach nonsensical.
Yes, of course I understand that one should not attempt to put everything in place at once in an all-embracing package. That is a way to disaster, as has been proved on so many occasions. However, one must be prepared to put the bits and pieces together pretty fast. I read the Government's response. I welcome their acceptance of our recommendation, but I did not read their conclusion in the same way as some of my noble friends. I believe they say that an important part of the package will be together by 2005, but I do not believe they are saying that the kind of

1615
comprehensive working arrangements that we believe ought to exist will exist by 2005. I believe that that is left up in the air.
I conclude by re-emphasising that this is a fundamental point if we are to have the kind of arrangements working in the way that they ought to work. A 10-year programme, even an accelerated one as set out in the Government's response, is still not acceptable. I hope that those who are responsible in the wider context—in the Cabinet Office and elsewhere—for the development of the Government's IT policy will be examining this matter and helping and assisting DETR to develop a programme that meets the needs of the environment and agriculture and that we finally get some sensible and acceptable arrangements.
2.2 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, this interesting and thorough report is most welcome from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the Select Committee. I was delighted to see that the Government have accepted all its recommendations. I am speaking in the debate because I am married to a farmer. During the mid-1970s and early 1980s, I also wrote software mainly for the agricultural market. I know about that theoretically, even if some of it went to France. Recently, I have been trying to help my wife overcome her technophobic attitude and adopt a technophillic attitude. She has taken to it like a duck to water. She finds e-mail brilliant because she can track where things are. She often looks for information on the website to help her with the business and she gets most annoyed by what is not available. I shall return to that matter later.
When reading the report, I was most struck by regulations and regulators, which are causing many problems in business life. The Government accepted recommendation (a), that formal regulation should be avoided wherever possible. On the other hand, how does one know where one stands if there is no formal regulation? I agree that one should not have formal regulation, but I think back to January when a health and safety inspector wandered on to the farm uninvited. He spotted a gamekeeper riding a quad-bike, walked up to him and said, "Where's your helmet?". He slapped an enforcement notice on him for that. He then asked, "Where's your certificate of training on the quad-bike?", and the gamekeeper said, "I've been riding it for ages". He slapped another enforcement notice on him for that and gave him two weeks to produce it. The gamekeeper said, "Hang on, I'm in the middle of the shooting season and I can't go off just now and leave the pheasants to die of natural causes", so he was given a month's extension to the end of February.
I have no idea whether that was within the inspector's powers and nor does my wife or anyone else. You dare not question it because if you get a bad reputation you will be blacklisted and they will be down on you like a ton of bricks—and you know it. There is a terrible moral blackmail. So where do you
1616
go to find out whether the person is acting ultra vires or not? In a few instances, government inspectors have developed a reputation for acting a little arbitrarily, which I have seen in other areas too.
I turn to communication and the question of where one stands. The other day I looked around the kitchen and at the many 2ft high piles of bumf which needed reading—2ft high because they fall over after that. On the top of one I noticed various pieces of paper such as the Water Code; the Green Code; Part 3 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; Health and Safety at Work etc. Act; the Soil Code; the Air Code; Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 3966; and an environmental impact assessment and guidelines on new regulations from 1st February 2002. And that was just what my wife happened to have lying around ready to hand.
I am not sure that my wife has had time to read those documents. People forget that when farmers are busy complying with EU environmental regulations and so forth, as there is not enough income in doing that, they are out there doing other things as well. Some people are also putting something back into the community, working for charities and so forth.
On farming, my wife must be au fait with all the rules of the countryside stewardship scheme; and she also has couple of cottages so must know about property and tenancy rules and the environmental health issues involved. An inspector marched in the other day to check them—again we had no idea whether he was acting ultra vires. She has to know about planning rules because land registration is currently a big issue. There is a squabble about a bit of land on the edge of our farm and the issue is complicated and must be dealt with quickly.
As regards footpaths, we had someone wandering around the place, drawing lines on maps and disagreeing with earlier maps we have. She has to know about employment rules and the health and safety at work regulations. If noble Lords have a VDU, I hope they have made sure that their farm secretaries who occasionally come in are complying with the regulations. As regards equipment, she must have all the correct certificates and insurance cover, which may no longer be valid. You therefore have to ensure that all the insurances are correct and that you are covered against all the various issues and that correct inspections are carried out. I shall not go into the rest of the requirements because I do not want to talk for too long.
Farmers are probably trying to make an additional income, so they may have another business to run on the side and they must know about all the issues relating to that, too. My wife is also a trustee of a couple of organisations, so she has to know about trustee rules, regulations and laws. We had something from the Charity Commission about that the other day.
In addition, you have to check the figures supplied by all your expensive advisers who may have been filling in your IACS forms, charging you and giving you agronomy advice, because sometimes they get it

1617
wrong. Last year, my wife was accidentally advised to spray twice, which was unnecessary, and she spotted it, not the agronomist.
The IACS forms that I have been helping her with—sometimes up until two and three o'clock in the morning—are a nightmare. This kind of burden should not be placed on small farmers, big farmers or anyone else until there are proper systems in place. We should not expect them to fill in these forms. If they get things wrong, they will be penalised. My wife believes that if she gets one of her IACS areas wrong, she will lose all of her area subsidy or whatever it is that she gets. I do not know whether that is true, but it seems to be a totally penal system, which is quite wrong.
How do you communicate these requirements to people? Some people are dyslexic. My eldest son is very dyslexic—he has a scribe to help him with his exams—and my wife is not a particularly fast reader. It is difficult for people who do not absorb information easily to wade through these documents. If you have a short-term visual memory problem, which some people have, you will not absorb all the information properly and quickly.
Perhaps you should look at other ways of doing it. This is where IT comes in, because you can communicate in various ways simultaneously. You can use sound, you can use the written word and you can link matters properly in a consistent way. You can follow threads of thought without being constrained to the thoughts that a person puts on paper.
I am concerned about the way in which information is communicated. I was intrigued by the excellent aims of the Head of Farm Focus Division. In paragraph 171 he states that there is,
"scope for making better use of the information we have, reducing the number of contacts, liberating farmers' energy and creativity for business and social purposes rather than for compliance with bureaucratic processes".
Later in the report, both the Head of Farm Focus Division and the Director of the Environmental Protection Strategy avoid questions on the water framework directive. Why? Because they are not experts on it. At paragraph 185, the chairman of the committee sensibly said,
"The trouble is that farmers are expected to be experts, you see".
That is very significant.
On the next page, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, he states:
"It would be nice to think that we could give clear, unambiguous guidance to farmers in particular cases, but I think that this is actually quite risky".
If the experts bring out these things we shall be sending in enforcement people—who, potentially, could bankrupt small businesses—who cannot give proper advice because they know it is impossible to meet the requirements. How on earth will a farmer—whose educational standards may be very high, too high or too low—understand the communication? How on earth will he get it right?
1618
I come from the IT world. I have written a great deal of software and developed many systems. There is a great deal of potential for communicating this information electronically using the Internet. Many people now have access to the Internet and communicating in this way will become more and more common. The concern about exclusion will become a nonsense because technology will have by-passed it in the next year or so.
All websites will have to comply with the new EU directive by April this year and will have to be accessible by the disabled. I am sure that the Government will comply with that directive, just as they will comply with the e-government 2005 directive from Europe that government services must be delivered electronically by 2005. But what is this 10-year period everyone is talking about? The Government have a duty to that extent.
Certainly local government must comply by 2005. I declare an interest in that I am a part of consultancies which are trying to help local government to hit its e-procurement 2005 targets, which are posing many problems. You cannot set unrealistic targets for other people and not adhere to them yourself.
My general feeling is that something should be done about the situation. When I was writing programs, if I had taken 10 years to sort them out I would have been out on my ear. I had to deliver something that was useable within six months to a year or people would get fed up. I would not have kept any of my clients.
The Government should not penalise small business people trying to have a life. Many of these regulations and directives and other requirements are doing that. You should not regulate until the regulations cart be easily understood and the information is easily accessible and communicable. The information should be available electronically, because that is the way the world is moving and it would be delivered in more easily understandable form.
We must make sure that the unintended consequences are handled in a sensible way. Reference has been made to the polythene problems and so on, and I know that the disposal of pesticide containers will pose problems. There have to be sensible and practical solutions to such problems at zero cost to the farmer.
I have a general worry about the way that business life is going. We seem to have about 17 people in various organisations, agencies and government telling one poor person at the coal face who is trying to get a business going, trying to run a business or trying to pay taxes, what to do. That will be unsustainable in the long run.
2.13 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to comment on this timely report by the Select Committee. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. He echoed the views of many hundreds of farmers throughout the country. In that connection, I remember the occasion when my IACS form came into the office. As I was abroad, I was unable to sign it so

1619
my wife did so. There was some trouble; my wife's signature was not accepted and eventually I had to provide my own—but when the cheque came, it was made out to my wife. Had I had the courage, I would have sent it back, but I was not in the position to do so.
I declare an interest as an environmentally friendly farmer. I hope to return to that activity this evening if the Minister replies adequately and quickly at the end of the debate. I am, therefore, committed to farming under the rules of the countryside stewardship scheme. Contrary to the views of one or two speakers, I welcome the support that I have received from DEFRA, and that from FWAG, which first considered the scheme that we are now operating—I hope successfully.
In welcoming the report, I congratulate its chairman, my noble friend Lord Selborne. He has done an excellent job in terms of presentation and in keeping together his committee—backed by a good team and loyal staff. As we know only too well, farmers are critical of yet more regulations. My noble friend's report makes the claim—a point picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—that laws introduced over the next few years alone, which will include agricultural waste regulations, could cost farmers between £25 million and £40 million. The point is made that this could involve 200,000 agency inspections. The mind boggles. The cost of fallen stock, animal disposal, the nitrate directive and many other factors mean huge costs.
To apply the regulations right across the rural areas of the European Union—where there is such a variety of landscapes, villages, forests and farmland—and at the same time bring about adequate reform in the common agricultural policy, with which we all agree, to support a more environmentally friendly approach and implement environmentally measures that fit into the CAP, amounts to a formidable task. This will succeed only if agriculture remains the major interface between people and environmental issues, and if agriculture is sufficiently profitable to enable investment or reinvestment. Farmers also have a duty as stewards of many of our natural resources. It is therefore a question of balancing all those interests.
The report recognises that farming is a business, which can succeed only if it is competitive as regards our colleagues in the rest of the EU. It cannot do that given the gap in currency values that we have experienced in the past few years. It makes life extremely difficult in terms of competing, particularly in the field of exports. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of harmonisation if the measures set out in the report are accredited in each of the member states.
There is, as the report fully recognises, a wind of change blowing across rural landscapes. I believe that most farmers have become resigned to accepting that change from the subsidies that they have known over a period of years to environmental support is coming. But if it leads to more expensive bureaucracy, it will fail. That point is referred to in paragraph 41 of the Government's response to the report, which states:
1620
"Defra will ensure that it is developing something that will be of benefit to industry and not cause additional unnecessary bureaucracy. It will test each phase carefully with farmers and others who are affected".
I hope that, in replying, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will give absolute confirmation that that is the real intention.
There is nothing new in what we are doing. We have been involved in this for some time. Bodies such as FWAG, Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF), the AONBs which operate throughout the country—I often say that areas of outstanding natural beauty are also areas of man-made beauty—and many other farming organisations are preparing the way for change.
In 1996, Commissioner Fischler asked me to chair a conference in Cork where over 500 representatives from different organisations from the whole of the European Union, local authorities, and so on, came together to look at future rural development. We produced a 10-point plan, and as I read the report of the committee, I reread my report of the Cork declaration. They fit together extremely well; they are fully compatible on matters related to sustainable rural development, diversification, subsidiarity, simplification and finance, as well as management, research and programming for rural development for each region.
I believe that Britain is setting the rest of Europe a fine example, particularly through bodies such as LEAF. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, support LEAF earlier. Some 15 per cent of cultivated land is represented by LEAF members. There are 44 demonstration farms right across the country. Some of them have been going for 12 years, so the lead has been set in that direction. The focus is to develop a system of farming, realistic and achievable for the majority of farmers to reconnect with the end customer. LEAF is also involved in other countries in Europe. It can demonstrate its environmental credentials in the quality assurance scheme it is working on at present, linking in with the little red tractor on quality standards.
Much of this report was written before the most recent proposals on CAP reform were published by the European Commission. Of particular importance are, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, proposals on cross-compliance and the introduction of decoupled payments.
Environmental regulations are one of the four categories with which compliance will be compulsory. In their current form, the regulations allow the Commission to add significant environmental burdens to agriculture and horticulture. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give us an assurance that the Government will remain vigilant and ensure that any cross-compliance regime is compatible with the need to retain a competitive and sustainable agricultural industry in the United Kingdom. The potential for the regulations to create unfair competition for UK producers is significant and must be resisted in order to become energy-efficient and environmentally acceptable.

1621
I repeat that agricultural and rural development can succeed only if they remain the main interface between the people and an environment which, overall, is viable and profitable.
2.23 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who has had such a distinguished career in the farming industry and, indeed, the European Parliament. I remember the Cork declaration very clearly and agree it was an excellent document, which paved the way for the future.
I congratulate the chair of our committee, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, as well as members of the committee, the Clerk, Tom Radice, and his staff. I was not a member of the committee when the environmental regulations and agriculture report was produced, so I can look at it fairly objectively, from the outside looking in.
On the inside flyleaf of the report are 45 acronyms. One of them is EMS. To me that means the monetary system of the European Community—but no, it means environmental management standards in this case. GAP is an unfortunate acronym, as it describes something praiseworthy. There is also GIS and MAGIC, which is apparently multi-agency geographic information for the countryside. The flyleaf of the document encapsulates the problem. Each of those acronyms needs to be explained.
Like other noble Lords, I greatly appreciate the whole-farm approach espoused by the report and its recommendations. The core recommendations are on risk-based approaches, partnerships between regulators and regulated, whole-farm planning, which goes with the whole-farm approach, and government support for transition into new regulations, together with matters concerning barriers to information exchange.
The report says that of the 50 environmental legislative items coming in, 20—two fifths—will impact on agriculture. How can the environmental goals in farming he achieved without some enforcement? Yet that causes the problems that have already been mentioned.
The environmental issues within EU legislation address air quality, chemicals, land quality, water quality and waste and packaging. We already have four EU directives that impact on agriculture—the Water Framework Directive, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Waste Framework Directive. The increasing burdens on farmers were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Plumb. The chief executive of the Environment Agency—the noble Baroness, Lady Young—has stated that smarter, less cumbersome regulations need to be brought in. I agree. The noble Baroness has called for the adoption of environmental management as standard, with a single framework to help farmers manage environmental input.
1622
The problem is the approach that is needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, the changes for environmental controls are statutory. There are two possible approaches. We can use a carrot to encourage compliance or we can use a stick approach. Many aspects of that approach have been mentioned in the debate, so I shall not go into it.
Diffuse pollution has been highlighted as a major problem, as I know from my experience as a former farm manager and smallholder. Engaging stakeholders early in formulating EU environmental legislation is particularly important. We might get practical results from that. The integrated framework for farm planning in that respect becomes more and more crucial.
A number of organisations have got in touch with the committee about the report. Page 7 of the report refers to the scope for implementing regulations in a user-friendly manner. That is extremely important. Indeed, opportunities for mitigating regulatory burdens through measures such as pollution prevention are, again, extremely important. The case for greater self-regulation in return for more targeted external regulation, while still complying with environmental obligations prescribed in EU legislation, is also extremely important.
The Environment Agency advocated expansion of funding for agricultural environmental schemes, which is extremely important and endorses the whole-farm approach. The NFU has said that it wants a competitive and sustainable agricultural industry; indeed, it is that organisation's duty to aim for that, but it is extremely difficult to achieve at present. The DEFRA report, Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future, also underlined some of the important points, calling,
"for subsidies to be redirected from producing crops to protecting the environment".
What kind of delivery system will be put in place for that?
The Curry report states:
"We believe that farming and the food industry is on an unsustainable course in economic terms, and it is also unsustainable environmentally".
That is a real crisis statement of the first order. The situation must be overcome, and it represents an enormous challenge. The major challenge will be to discover how we go about it. I am pleased that the government response accepts all the committee's recommendations.
In conclusion, the European Union Committee report maps out a sound environmental and farming future. It is good that the Government accept the recommendations, but I believe that they have a challenge. No lead has been given on economic incentives for farmers who carry out what is required in the rural environment. The Government are strong in aspirations but weak on the delivery and support system networks, which do not exist as they once did. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to NAS and ADAS and to the fact that they were free at the time of delivery. The challenge then was to produce enough

1623
food for the country; now it is to produce it in an environmentally friendly way. Surely, that is a challenge equal to the one we had in the past.
We need whole-farm plans and environmental and economic targets that produce sustainable outcomes for farming families and the environment, with a value placed on the goods. That can be produced only through an integrated system of universities and colleges, staff and students and an advice network with advisers in the field. A headmaster told me recently not to worry, because 98 per cent of his students were environmentally conscious. The next generation will be in a position to deliver those objectives.
2.34 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Selborne and his committee for producing an excellent, thoughtful and detailed report.
The committee proposed a clear set of principles, recognising the importance of the relationship between environmental and agricultural policy in the context of current negotiations on the enlargement of the European Union and the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. We are grateful to the committee for its excellent work. The eight recommendations in the executive summary speak for themselves. The first recommendation was on the need for a new risk-based approach to farming regulation which makes full use of self-regulation and avoids formal regulation wherever possible. Noble Lords have already touched on that issue.
In its briefing report, the NFU also recognised the need for a new approach to regulation. Such an approach must include an assessment of whether the environmental objectives sought really have to be pursued within a regulatory framework at all. The NFU endorses the recommendation that, as noble Lords have said, stakeholders must be engaged at the earliest possible stage in the development of EU legislation. In addition, the NFU recommends that the process of "agricultural proofing" must be engaged from the outset to ensure relevance and proportionality.
Many noble Lords said that agriculture's problems with environmental regulation arise not only from the regulation design process but more often from interpretation and implementation at member-state level. As noble Lords said, codes of good agricultural practice to help farmers deliver environmental objectives should be user friendly. Advice and encouragement should be the first step to ensuring a successful outcome.
In turning to some of the specific evidence given to the committee, I draw noble Lords' attention to the cost of regulation. The fact that I am the fourth speaker to mention the issue should demonstrate to the Minister how important it is. The chairman has referred to the Environment Action publication of February 2002. The leading article stated:
"Laws introduced in the next few years alone, which include agricultural waste regulations, could cost farms between £25–40 million and involve 200,000 Agency inspections".
1624
That is a huge burden, and one must again ask whether it is really necessary.
The cost of the IPPC regulations was raised with me again just two days ago in an informal meeting with egg and poultry producers. The regulations will add significant costs to the industry at the very time when cheaper chicken meat is flooding into UK markets, and that includes imports from countries that do not bear many of our regulatory burdens. As the Minister will be aware, infected substandard chicken meat has been arriving in the UK and is a great concern. I therefore have a few questions for him. Who decides on the scale of costs placed on UK business? Is it DEFRA or the Environment Agency? If it is neither of those, who is it? Are the costs checked?
One or two noble Lords mentioned the issue of regulation for which our country is not prepared. Noble Lords have also cited the dumping of fridges, electrical goods, tyres and plastic sheeting. Decommissioned cars are becoming a huge problem in our countryside. In less than four weeks, on 1st April, I think, we will also be hit by the fallen stock directive. In a debate last week, I asked the Minister to say a little about proposals for coping with the fallen stock directive. He was unable to address the issue then, but I hope that he can do so today.
In the Better Regulation Task Force publication of November 2002 entitled Environmental Regulations and Farmers, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, recognised that farmers have been subject in recent years to a considerable increase in regulatory obligations. The report highlighted the number of regulations governing environmental and food safety and those dealing with animal welfare. He also acknowledged that the public expect British farmers to produce food to high standards, but he found no evidence that the consumer was prepared to pay a premium for food produced to meet those higher standards.
The balance of which noble Lords have spoken is hugely important as regards regulation. It is against that background that we must continue to ensure that new regulations do not put UK farmers at a financial disadvantage. If we fail to do so, we shall end up by exporting not only our farming industry but also our food industry and will become totally dependent on imports, thus wrecking our balance of payments and failing to look after our countryside.
In the 2000 report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the committee found a lack of co-operation between officials involved in developing environmental and agricultural policies, a failure by government and farming representatives to engage sufficiently early in European policy development and poor communication between policy makers and those who regulate. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, pointed that out in 2000 and here we are over two years later still saying the same thing. I hope that the Minister will give some encouraging messages as regards progress that has been made on that matter.
In their response to the Select Committee report, the Government stated—as, indeed, my noble friend Lord Plumb said—that DEFRA would develop something

1625
which would be of benefit to the industry and not cause additional unnecessary bureaucracy. On reading through the Government's response, I was glad to see that they were supportive of many of the committee's recommendations. However, I have one or two reservations. What disappoints me most is that some changes are to be implemented some time in the future. Some will be implemented this year but some will be implemented next year, some the year after and, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, said, some are to be implemented nearly 10 years hence. That is simply not good enough. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, pointed out back in 2000 the need for urgency. I wonder how far we have moved forward on those issues. I understand that it takes time to put procedures in place. But with farming in its present crisis, the one thing that we do not have is a great deal of time. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell expressed his dismay at the delay in the system, particularly on the IT side. I share that dismay. I believe that all noble Lords find that unacceptable in this day and age when IT systems are developing so quickly.
Finally, I urge the Government to remain vigilant and to ensure that any cross-compliance regime that is introduced is compatible with the need to retain competitive and sustainable agriculture. A balance has to be struck between the farming industry and those who have to work the land and between NGOs and those who want to conserve and preserve our countryside, as we all do. A balance obviously has to be struck between what the Government have to do formally and what they can do on a voluntary basis.
As my noble friend Lord Selborne said very specifically in his clear opening speech, clear thinking is needed now. The objectives that we are trying to achieve must be established and practical measures must he adopted. As I say, we need a partnership between farming, industry and all of us as individuals, but we also need to press forward with great urgency. I again thank my noble friend Lord Selborne and all those who worked so hard and contributed to this excellent report.
2.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the other members of the committee and those who contributed to the debate. As has been said, the Government's general response to the report is very much in favour of the objectives that it recommends. In that sense I believe that we all look to the same outcome.
There has been a fair degree of consensus in the debate. Underlying some of the comments—I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in particular—is an emphasis on something that we cannot perhaps avoid. The fact is that we are changing the nature of support for farming across Europe as a whole. There are negotiating arguments about how far and how fast that should be done, but it is changing, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, to environmental outcomes rather than
1626
production outcomes. Either way, that involves large sums of taxpayers' money and regulations about the application of that money. To that extent, agriculture will always have slightly more regulation in one sense than other industries. It also cannot escape society's general concern, which applies to so many other industries, about the environment, safety and the welfare of workers and consumers, which has already hit many industries.
The issue is not whether one can avoid regulation, because we cannot. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, we will look at alternatives to regulation, such as economic instruments and so on. Much of the regulation is already in the pipeline. Our discussion is about how we deliver that regulation. Nor—this is perhaps even more controversial—can we entirely avoid the costs to the agriculture sector of that regulation. Many other industries already absorb their externalities in terms of pollution costs, for example, which agriculture does not as yet do to a large extent. We want to do so in a way that is compatible with production and the environment. A cost is nevertheless involved. The question is: how can we ensure that the industry absorbs that cost in a way that does not make it uncompetitive? It would be foolish to suggest that we could avoid it.
The noble Baroness has previously challenged me to explain the position with regard to fallen stock. That is not quite central to the report but it is symptomatic. There is a new regulation: it may be unwelcome but it is based on good environmental, safety and disease considerations. Anyway, we have it. It involves a system to which the industry will have to adapt. The Government have proposed that we put our existing resources at the disposal of a national collection scheme. Those resources largely relate to OTMS. The scheme is already in place. We may be prepared to put in a little more in terms of directing a new scheme; the devolved Administrations have also said so.
At the end of the day, some of that cost will fall on farming. The reason why we have not, so close to the deadline, got a proper disposal system up and running is because farming—or its representatives—has resisted the view that it should contribute towards that cost. Frankly, in other sectors, the industry would have to bear all of that cost. The industry does not have a sensible approach in that regard or others. If we all do strongly what the report suggests—that we should engage stakeholders early in the processes of drawing up the regulation and of sorting out how to implement it—some of the problems can be avoided. Some of the proposals could become much more user-friendly in that process. We accept that recommendation. At the end of the day, if we have a complete stand-off between the industry and the Government, we will not achieve the best way of dealing with the regulations.
The background to this issue involves the difficulties of the farming industry and of making adjustments to the new requirements. The Curry commission and the Government's response to it set out clearly that we must make substantial changes. The Curry commission and the Government fully endorsed the

1627
overall recommendations of the report from the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, and the Better Regulation Task Force, which contained some of the report's recommendations.
In particular, we consider that the multiplicity of directorates, inspections, different agencies and different sets of regulations with which farmers have to deal, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is one of the problems. Sometimes they are contradictory, and sometimes regulation in one area will cause a problem of failure to meet the regulatory outcome in another. Therefore, the whole-farm approach—taking the totality of the farm and regulating that—will not only make life easier for the farmer in having to deal with far fewer sets of regulators, it will also maximise the environmental, safety and other outputs.
However, it is difficult to get from here to there. There is a great deal of inherited regulation and a great many inherited relationships and inherited attitudes. Our farmers need advice in order to get through the labyrinth. I take the point that in the earlier era of ADAS and so on there may have been more structured advice. But, ultimately, through negotiation and discussion with farmers, the system must change. We believe that if we can move to a whole-farm approach, both in planning production and in regulating that production, then that is where we should all be aiming.
Clearly, the fact that farmers are largely small businesses aggravates the situation of multiplicity of contacts. However, it does not alter the fact that farmers must do many different things with the land. That can have different impacts on other parts of the countryside and on society as a whole. Therefore, we need to bring together those different aspects in a compatible way and we need to assess where the greatest risks lie.
The first and second recommendations of the committee relate to that. They concern risk-based regulation in terms of both the regulation itself and the way that the regulation is enforced. A risk-based approach is an important ingredient of that, but it requires a mutual trust between the regulator and the regulated which is often absent. There are problems on both sides in that respect. However, if we are to have an overall farmers' environmental management procedure and if the EMSF—to add another set of letters to the acronyms of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey—which the NFU and the Environment Agency are currently engaged in delivering, is to work, then there must be a system of mutual trust so that we can understand how the matter can best be approached.
If we establish that, then voluntary activities and other approaches will help to deliver the outcome that the regulation seeks to achieve. The Government also strongly support the concept of working together, which, in effect, is the basis of the third recommendation.
1628
The fourth recommendation is that we build a new approach to environmental regulation around whole-farm plans and whole-farm management systems. As I said, that is our overall objective. The EMSF will provide farmers with a straightforward tool so that they can demonstrate compliance with various aspects of the various forms of regulation to the satisfaction of the different regulators.
The Environment Agency can also use those data in order to take a more holistic approach. It can simplify the bureaucracy and the administration by putting in place standard procedures, standard registration and standard application structures. As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, IT greatly helps that possibility. We certainly want to meet the deadline of 2005 in all our services. Of course, take-up is not necessarily the same as offering the service. Nevertheless, the more farmers who are engaged in that and the more robust our systems by that time, the more effective it will be. Therefore, we shall build the EMSF. That part of the regulation is already being pulled together and forms a substantial part of the environmental regulation of farmers.
I turn to the Health and Safety Executive side of the issue. The self-assessment system that it is introducing for farmers and elements of the new agri-environment scheme, to which my noble friend Lord Carter referred, will also help to provide the building blocks for whole-farm self-assessment and therefore whole-farm regulation.
To my noble friend Lord Carter I say that from this year the new agri-environment scheme will be piloted and should be introduced in full, subject to the pilots, in 2005–06. An allocation of European-matched funds has been made to ensure that that happens.
My noble friend tempts me to commit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensuring that the same or higher level of finance is there in the future. I fear that I am not in a position to do that. However, farmers who enter the scheme are in a contractual arrangement and the Government abide by their contractual arrangements. Following Curry and following our sustainable food and farming strategy, I hope that it is clear that the strategy that we have adopted has a central theme relating to the agri-environment schemes so that one can make certain presumptions. Beyond that I shall not commit the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The fifth recommendation of the Select Committee is about farmers' skills. That relates to new skills that they have to acquire over and above the traditional and more modern farming skills that most of them have already. That includes business skills and IT skills. It is important not only that we help them to develop such skills, but also to adapt the systems so that it is easier to use the technology that we are bringing on stream.
It is important that the agencies use the same approach. If a farmer provides to any government agency certain information, subject to the normal data protection laws, that should be available to other

1629
agencies. Therefore, we accept the report's sixth recommendation that the barriers to information exchange should largely be removed.
We are already taking steps to enable effective data sharing, while working with farmers and with the farming unions to determine to what extent information is acceptable to them and how they can best use it. We are also drafting a regulatory reform order for the release of agricultural census and survey data to the Health and Safety Executive, to the Food Standards Agency and to some of the DEFRA agencies where under current legislation there are legal barriers to exchanging information. That is being dealt with in a cautious way but as rapidly as possible. We are being cautious because the issue of commercial confidence needs to be incorporated.
It will take time to put all those regulatory changes in place. However, we accept the seventh and eighth recommendations that timescales for development should be reduced as much as possible. I have referred to the activity under the general auspices of the Environment Agency. The other big element which is subsidy related, relates to the RPA—the Rural Payments Agency—which deals with all the IACS arrangements. There again we are rationalising the information required for the whole range of IACS payments and we are helping farmers by providing them with a digital up-to-date map of their holdings and a basic form and map that they can fill in so that they do not have to re-invent the wheel every year, or in some cases every quarter. That is an important step forward. The Rural Development Programme IT strategy should be completed by 2005 and the electronic files will be immediately accessible on line.
Underlying many comments not only about information but also about policy and enforcement is the fact that there should be more joined-up government between the various government agencies. That is a clear aim for the Government. We have established a DEFRA-chaired steering group for the regulation of agriculture which started last year and we are bringing together a common strategy with consistently better policy and enforcement practice. On the basis of the Better Regulation Task Force, on the basis of the Curry commission recommendations and on the basis of what has been tackled by the Select Committee in its report, the Government are implementing a more efficient, a more user-friendly system of regulation of agriculture to help farmers to cope with that and to manage their production systems in line with that. We also have a strategy to introduce risk-based environmental regulation across all sectors, but particularly focused on agriculture. We also have a strategy for joined-up government to tackle that.

Several points were made by noble Lords, but most of them fall within those broad areas. I concur that problems with the regulation of tyres, plastics and refrigerators—and all the other problems that have emerged—largely reflect a lack of engagement with stakeholders at an early stage and a lack of consideration of the particular problems of farm
1630
businesses in complying with general regulation. As part of our reform of the system, we are attempting to tackle such problems.
Finally, the noble Earl, and others, challenged us about the 10-year period, to which reference was made during the course of the inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was especially ferocious on the matter both in the committee and in the Chamber. Let me make clear that if we were dealing sequentially with all those matters, it would take 10 years. If we can deal with many of them in parallel, bring them together, engage stakeholders and succeed in achieving joined-up government, it could take a lot less time than that. The timescale for the big chunks of rationalisation, such as those of the Rural Payments Agency and the Environment Agency, is indeed 2005—two years.
Ten years is an unacceptable timescale to me and my ministerial colleagues. If we are to transform not only the system of regulation but the relationship between farmers and government agencies, we need a much shorter timescale. I shall not provide an alternative date today, but I sympathise and agree with the view that 10 years is far too long and that, after the delivery of those two big chunks in 2005, we should get much closer to delivering the totality.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have just reread the evidence and see that I apologised to the Minister's officials for being quite so ferocious and said that the ferocity was of course directed at Ministers. I am deeply grateful for the fact that that ferocity has produced a much more encouraging and optimistic response from the Minister and we look forward to real progress being made.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for that. It is not that my officials are incapable of absorbing such ferocity, but it is not always their fault. Ministers must take responsibility, and we made clear to the officials and agencies concerned that the timescale that we are considering is considerably shorter than may have been implied in that evidence session.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, the committee and all noble Lords who participated in the debate. There is much work for us to do, but we are determined to deliver the objectives sought by the Select Committee.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may respond. I think that he earlier inferred that I suggested that we should avoid regulation. If I have misunderstood what he said, or if he misunderstood what I said, I clarify that I do not think that we should avoid regulation. I was trying to say in that context that regulation should apply across all member states and that some member states interpret it differently. I should hate the record to be incorrect.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise if I gave the impression that the noble Baroness was a complete opponent of regulation. I occasionally receive the impression that some regulations irritate her a little.
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I should not want for a moment to detain my noble friend Lord Plumb from his environmentally friendly farming—or, indeed any other Member of the House—for a moment more than necessary, but I thank the Minister for his positive and helpful response. Even my rather dubious noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lady Byford have been persuaded that the 10-year timescale is as unacceptable to the Minister as it was to the committee. I must say that we shall carefully monitor how quickly the impressive proposals are implemented. I thank all those who participated in the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Equality Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Protected areas of activity]:
Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 14, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8, with which Amendment No. 1 is appropriately grouped. Both amendments stand in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. When I first studied the provisions of the Bill concerning members' clubs, I noticed the exemption for single-sex clubs. It is welcome. As a matter of principle, I believe it wrong for the law to intervene in how people choose to associate with others in their social lives.
I notice that the wording used to define single-sex clubs is similar to that used in the Race Relations Act 1976 to define clubs for single-ethnic or single-national groups. They are allowable as an exemption to the main rules prohibiting race discrimination so long as the exclusivity is not based on colour. The Bill repeats the exemption allowed in 1976 for single-ethnic or single-national clubs exclusively open to people of one such group. It also adds an exemption for clubs catering for single-religious groups in respect of the new provisions in this Bill prohibiting discrimination on religious grounds.
My concerns about those provisions and the reasons why my amendments seek to delete them are threefold. First, if it is thought appropriate to exempt single-sex, single-ethnic or single-religious group clubs from anti-discrimination laws, why not clubs confined to particular age groups or people of particular sexual
1632
orientation; for example, pensioners' lunch clubs, youth clubs or gay clubs? Does not the logic of the Bill suggest that those clubs, too, should be exempt from the anti-discrimination provisions, which cover much broader areas than they have done heretofore?
My second concern is that, because the wording used to define single-sex clubs is borrowed from Section 26 of the Race Relations Act on single-ethnic group clubs, we have a complicated set of words that is difficult to interpret. Instead of just referring to, "an organisation which restricts membership to persons of one sex", it refers to,
"the principle purpose of which is to enable the benefits of membership to be enjoyed by persons of one sex".
It states that to determine the principal purpose, regard is to be paid to the essential character of the association, all relevant circumstances and whether the affairs of the association are so conducted that persons enjoying membership benefits are of one sex.
During the Committee stage of the Sex Discrimination Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I pointed out the problem of the Garrick Club, of which I was a member and still am. Its objects or purposes, which were stated when it was founded in 1831, are concerned with drama and literature, but, as is well known, membership is limited to men only. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, accepted the difficulty that I had pointed out—his words are reported at col. 1252 of Hansard for 8th May last year—and produced a clearer form of words in an amendment that was tabled on Report. Now he has gone back to the more problematic wording that appears in the present Bill.
I have a third and final concern about the provisions dealing with private members' clubs. Although single-sex clubs are, as the noble Lord said at Second Reading, intended to be and, subject to what I have just said, are exempt from sex discrimination laws, a male club that allows women into any form of membership—for example, associate membership—must grant them the same rights to facilities or services in the club as men. Paragraph 41(1)(c) of the relevant schedule makes it clear that that general right to facilities or services applies even to non-members—that is, guests.
Last year, during the passage of his Bill, my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester gave us the facts about working men's clubs that belonged to the Club and Institute Union. He pointed out that the largest proportion of such clubs—60 per cent or 1,612 clubs—allow women to join but with a different class of membership and a lower subscription. Members of those clubs, as distinct from the national executive of the CIU, appear not to want women to have full and equal rights with the men. That might be because they want to preserve one of the bars in the club for men-only drinking. Is that so terrible that we legislators must introduce a law against it?
I apologise to those who were here for the discussions on my noble friend's Bill last year for repeating myself, but I must ask again what moral or other right we have, as legislators, to impose equality

1633
by law, contrary to the wishes of the members of a free society or club. As we all know, clubs of all kinds have, over the years, changed their attitudes, especially to membership for women, although not all have done so, including the college in Oxford that apparently wishes to remain women-only. Over the years, clubs of most kinds throughout the country have changed their attitudes and are multi-sex. That position should be allowed to evolve in accordance with the wishes of the members of the clubs concerned. The freedom for people to associate or not to associate as they choose should not be subverted by an over-eager attempt to involve the law in enforcing so-called correct attitudes to our fellow human beings.
I recognise that there may be a case for bringing within the scope of anti-discrimination law clubs that have such a huge membership that they virtually provide a public facility. I think, for example, of a golf club that may be the only such facility in an extensive area. The Bill will apply to all clubs of every kind, including those with a membership as small as 25. I have not, however, tabled an amendment to fix a higher membership number. As I have several objections to the provisions relating to clubs, I prefer to seek to leave out of the Bill all coverage of members' clubs. That is what the amendments do. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I support the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in moving Amendment No. 1. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest because as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, explained, the Bill does not affect single-sex clubs. I am a member of a number of single-sex clubs. However, the Bill affects other clubs. As the noble Lord made clear, he was speaking not only for single-sex clubs, but also pensioners' clubs, gay clubs and a whole host of others, all of which might be affected.
I do not believe that there is anything that I can add to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I rise merely because during Second Reading of the Licensing Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, pursued the line that he pursued with his Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill. He tried to imply that there were relatively few noble Lords of the same mind as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and that there was general support around the Chamber for his own ideas about enforcing equality in clubs.
As the noble Lord will remember, a number of noble Lords—not only myself and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—opposed what he was trying to do in the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill and what the noble Lord. Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is doing now. For that reason, I felt it appropriate to add my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and to give the amendment my support. I shall continue to do so as he and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, make this and further attempts to bring what they consider to be equality to
1634
an area in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, puts it, it is not really appropriate for Parliament to intervene.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I shall speak briefly. We have been over this ground a number of times. As both noble Lords who have just spoken said, this issue was covered at great length during the passage of my Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill in the last Session. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, had a debate on equality in the last Session also. Indeed, there were a number of debates during the passage of the Licensing Bill, in so far as that Bill applies to the governance of private members' clubs.
I shall make three points. The first is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. For him to give the impression that there is somehow a well of support among Members of the Committee for the continuation of discrimination in private members' clubs is extraordinary, given that the official Opposition in the shape of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lady Scotland speaking for the Government, all indicated that they want to see a change in the law and that it applied—
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. From my experience both on the Front Bench and the Back Benches over 25 years in this House, l have found that when all three Front Benches agree they are normally completely and utterly wrong.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: On this occasion it is hard to say that they were wrong. I think that the number of Members of the Committee who have spoken in the same manner as he and my noble friend Lord Borrie can be counted on the fingers of one hand. All I would say about this amendment and the issue in general is that since I raised the issue in my Private Member's Bill and it has continued to be in front of your Lordships, I have continued to receive letters and e-mails from men and women who regard the continuation of discriminatory practices in private members' clubs as quite unacceptable. I continue to receive examples of outrageous behaviour in which women are discriminated against in the governance of clubs, in the access to facilities and so forth.
I shall not go into those now because it is late and it is Friday afternoon. Those examples are well-known to your Lordships. I can put them on the record again if that is required.
I should like to pose a question to my noble friend Lord Borrie—presumably he will be replying to this debate. What is there that is different about his argument relating to sex discrimination in private members' clubs that does not apply with equal force to race discrimination in private members' clubs? Is he proposing that there should be a repeal of the race relations legislation as far as it affects private members' clubs with 25 or more members, in the same way as he is proposing in the case of sex discrimination? Taking on board the argument that

1635
private members' clubs are, in some way, an extension of one's home and that one should have the right to associate, surely, the logic of that is that you should, if you want to, exclude from membership of clubs people who are perhaps Jewish or black or of Asian origin.
I would be astonished if my noble friend took that view, but the logic of what he says about the way in which people pick and choose who can take part in clubs applies in equal measure. I am sure that the Committee will not want to accept the amendment. However, it is important that we debate it and that the Committee shows itself in favour of the principle contained in the admirable Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise briefly on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition to respond to the amendment. I repeat what I have already said in this House with regard to the issue. We believe that where individuals of both sexes are invited to be members of a private club, they should enjoy that membership on equal terms.
I want to ask a question that is perhaps best put to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I have no doubt that he will want to speak briefly in relation to the amendment. It relates to associate membership. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, stated that the Bill would allow women, if they are accepted into membership of a club even as associates, to be entitled to the same facilities as men. It is important that we are clear about that.
There is probably a question over what constitutes an associate. Normally one thinks of associate membership as entitling an individual to a reduced membership fee, with reduced rights or access to facilities. My initial response would be that the right to associate membership should be offered to both men and women on equal terms. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will clarify that.
Finally, I entirely concur with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, in relation to other types of discrimination. We are focusing on single-sex clubs and single-ethnic or religious-group clubs being exempted from the Bill. The issue is important and I am pleased that we have another opportunity to debate it, but we cannot support the amendments.
Lord Addington: I want to register the view that I find most offensive the idea of having a bastardised membership of these groups.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps it would be helpful if I dealt with some of the questions that have been raised. I begin by pointing out that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to remove the management of all clubs from the scope of the Bill. That would have a surprising consequence, which I doubt he intends: that colour bars, which have been forbidden since 1976 in all clubs of more than 25 members, would suddenly become lawful. That was a real vice in the early 1970s when working men's clubs,
1636
of which there were more than 1 million members throughout the country, maintained colour bars against members and associate members. For that reason, the Race Relations Act 1976 dealt with the matter. Although that is the effect of the amendment, I am sure that it cannot be the noble Lord's intention to repeal that important remedial provision.
Secondly, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who knows that I would much rather refer to her as Senator Buscombe, in Schedule 2, paragraph 41(1)(a), and the definition of "associate" in paragraph 41(4) on page 89, it is the intention to include a prohibited discrimination against associates as well as members.
Thirdly, before dealing with the specific points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley, I should like to address the issue of principle they have raised—that is, whether it is right for legislation to enter the private sphere.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was a distinguished member of the Equal Opportunities Commission in its early glory days from 1977 onwards. He therefore will know, in particular, that both the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act did and do rightly interfere in the private sphere. I remind the noble Lord that those statutes deal with race and gender discrimination in the sale or letting of private houses and flats, with the exception of small dwellings with shared accommodation. They deal with access to private partnerships—for example, to a partnership of a GP's surgery. They deal with trade union branches, which are really private clubs in legal form. They deal with private schools of any size. They deal with barristers' chambers, I am glad to say, of any size. And they deal with members' clubs of more than 25 members in relation to colour bars.
Speaking as one of the midwives of the legislation, I see no objection in principle for legislation to command equal treatment without discrimination on a forbidden ground. That is mainly because—although these bodies are private, some of them are as powerful as any public authority—it is unconscionable and unfair to treat any individual human being less favourably than another human being on arbitrary grounds. That is why this country, the United States and the democracies of the Commonwealth have found it necessary to interfere through legislation in this way, provided that there are exemptions for personal privacy and freedom of choice where necessary.
We have tried in the Bill to balance correctly the command of equal treatment without discrimination with concern for other rights and freedoms. We have sought to do that, first, with the Garrick Club exception. Like other noble Lords I declare an interest—or, in this case, lack of interest— as a former member of the Garrick Club. I resigned when 80 per cent of the members made it quite clear that they would never see a woman member in their lifetime. I felt that it was a fine club but not one that I could any longer feel comfortable staying in. So I have now a former interest and a present lack of interest.

1637
In paragraph 43 of Schedule 2 we seek to exclude single-sex members' clubs. The way in which we have set about doing that would not harm the Garrick Club in any way provided that its members, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, indicated, have rules that refer to drama, the law and literature as principal objects of the club. Provided they make clear in their rules—which would require nothing more than a simple rules amendment—that it is a club the principal purpose of which is to give benefits to men, which is clearly the case, the fact that the men are thought to come from the law, literature, the theatre, advertising or commerce. as they tend now to be, will not in any way bring it within the scope of the Bill. If the principal purpose is single sex, then, just as in the case of a single-sex school. it will be entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
Similarly, we have included in paragraph 42 exceptions for racial and religious groups, other than in respect of colour bars. We believe that we have excluded—but we may have got it wrong and I shall think about it—for example, a gay or lesbian club under the positive action provisions in paragraph 46. I shall look at that issue again. We certainly did not intend, of course, to forbid, for example, an old-age pensioners' club from excluding young people. All those are areas of sensible personal choice about which no one could possibly worry—any more than one would about a mothers' union, a parents' union or a group of that kind. That is the intention. I should like to consider the detailed criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to make quite sure that we have not intruded into those areas in that way.
But, so far as principle is concerned, I cannot for the life of me see—provided we exclude single-sex clubs—any way in which, these days, the provisions on the management of members' clubs ought to be excluded from the Bill in their totality. I very much hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will not press his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): First, perhaps I may apologise for not having taken part in the debate at Second Reading. I agree with the remark made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh at Second Reading that this is not a run-of-the-mill Private Member's Bill. I agree with him that it will make a continuing, valued and worthwhile contribution to the debate on the issues covered by it.
The Government share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords for greater equality of opportunity for all. Our difference lies in the approach, as we do not believe that the time has come for comprehensive reform of the law as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Therefore, we cannot support the Bill generally. However, perhaps I may make a few comments on the matters currently under discussion.
We agree with the inclusion of the provision on clubs in the Bill in so far as it relates to protection against discrimination on grounds of race, sex or
1638
disability. It accords in principle with the Government's announced intention to include provisions in the draft disability Bill to be published later this year to cover membership of larger private clubs in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Racial discrimination has been prohibited, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made clear, in such private clubs since the coming into force of the Race Relations Act 1976. I understand that another Bill dealing with sex discrimination in private clubs has been introduced in another place and is due to receive its Second Reading today. It has the full support of the Government and I wish it well. While I cannot give any assurance about future legislative plans, if that Bill does not make progress we shall he keeping the situation of private clubs and sex discrimination under review.
Perhaps I may say at this point—because I do not intend to interfere further in Committee—that we are taking a different, but measured, approach to achieving our joint aims in this field. In due course, the terms and conditions that we shall explore will come before the House.
Lord Borrie: A number of most interesting points have been raised. I gladly welcome all the contributions that have been made. I particularly welcome the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to look further at provisions in the Bill to see whether old people's clubs, youth clubs and the like would be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
In that respect, I noted that my noble friend the Minister said that the Government were in favour of anti-discrimination laws in relation to race, religious affiliation and sex as applied to clubs. However, she did not refer to—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Will the noble Lord give way? The Minister referred to race, sex and disability.
Lord Borrie: I thank the noble Lord for assisting on that point. I note that she did not refer to the other matters of age, sexual orientation and so forth referred to in the Bill. Subject to that, I welcome the noble Lord's remarks about looking again at the comprehensive logic of his Bill, as to where the anti-discrimination laws should apply in relation to clubs, and where there should be exemptions—as he has provided for in relation to single-sex clubs, single ethnic or national group clubs and single religious group clubs. Beyond that, I say to both the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester that it is important to make a distinction between what one considers to be unfair as well as morally and ethically wrong and where the law should intervene. I say, as anybody would in this House—and, one hopes, in most places elsewhere—that one dislikes and is against the application, in private members' clubs or elsewhere, of discrimination on grounds of sex or race and, most obviously, colour, as indicated in the Race Relations Act 1976. Subject to that, it is important to know where to draw the line.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to several areas of private activity which are already covered by the law, and I do not want to alter that. He gave the

1639
examples of private partnerships, private lettings, trade union branches and educational provision by private schools. These are all facilities available to the public, so far as they can afford private schools. Trade union branches can never be regarded as merely private clubs because they have such an important impact on employment opportunities.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. It is not right to say that a barrister's set of chambers, which might have only 10 barristers, is included in the Bill because they provide facilities for the public. The Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts quite rightly forbid my chambers from discriminating against pupils, would-be pupils, tenants or members of staff. We are a tiny organisation; we are private in every sense of the word—we are like an extended family—but we are covered by the law.
Lord Borrie: The noble Lord's chambers are not purely a social club. Their function is most important to the public, and they deal with pupils and clients. Such organisations are quite different from social clubs, on which I have concentrated in talking about my desire for them to be excluded from discrimination laws. I said that as a matter of principle, because I believe that in their social lives, people should be free to associate, or not, with other people on whatever grounds they choose. Even there—and I say this especially to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—I am not sure where the line should be drawn. If we were to take a political consensus in the country now, it would be clearer than in the 1970s; a colour bar would be regarded as so objectionable that I see no particular reason why the law should not apply even in relation to private clubs, whether they have more or fewer than 25 members. That is my answer to my noble friend. One does not need to put the clock back.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Is not the point about the application of the Race Relations Act to private members' clubs in the 1970s that it anticipated and assisted a change in mood? As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the practice, particularly in working men's clubs, of applying a colour bar was so outrageous that the law needed changing. With this Bill and this issue, we are saying that it is the duty of legislators to anticipate enlightened changes in approach. In a few years' time people will see sex discrimination as being as outrageous as the application of a colour bar was in the 1970s.
Lord Borrie: Quite simply, whereas I see every objection to a colour bar or racial discrimination in a private member's club or in a more public place, I do not see the same objection—and I should be surprised if my noble friend did—to the desire of certain men in working men's clubs to drink with other men and to exclude women from that bar. We should not legislate to change people's behaviour in that regard. As legislators, we must have high regard for legislation.
1640
To introduce it simply because we want people's behaviour to change is not necessarily justified. It might have been justified in 1976 for the reasons that have been mentioned. However, it would not be justified today to extend that further. That is why I have tabled the amendment for discussion.
However, I want to read what has been said in Hansard and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [The Equality Commission]
Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
"(10) Any order made by virtue of subsection (8) shall provide for the functions specified in subsection (8)(b) to be exercisable by the Commission through a disability rights committee of the Equality Commission."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is coupled with Amendment No. 9. I am proposing these amendments together with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who regrets that he is unable to be here today, and with the support of the Disability Rights Commission. I intend to speak briefly, because there are many amendments to be dealt with and this is not the occasion for long speeches.
The structure that I am proposing is vital to the future of any single body that the Government may create. Although my noble friend the Minister has kindly come along to explain the Government's point of view rather than to participate actively in the debate, I should like her and the rest of the Government to know that our comments on this Bill are markers for the Government. We are confident that they will be taken into account and carefully considered. We would like to see them in legislative form. There has been a great deal of discussion about the possible creation of a single body—not necessarily a single equality body, but something similar. The Government are not yet committed to that, but if it comes about, we are anxious that the structure should be right, so that there is no obfuscation, no confusion and no diminution of the rights of the various organisations that currently represent various people, including disabled people.
I appreciate the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to do all he can to assist disabled people and to help those of us who take a particular interest in the subject. The Committee may recall that on Second Reading I mentioned the need for a federal structure as the best and most efficient method of organisation for any new equality body. The Disability Rights Commission has consulted 1,000 disability groups and individuals and held seminars. They wanted a federal structure. The commission also said that research on foreign single equality bodies showed that in some cases disability was not taken centrally into account and that the strand-specific structures are best.
Such a federal structure would consist of an umbrella body focusing on the cross-cutting issues of shared concern with, crucially, specialist units

1641
linked to appointed committees that would have responsibility for individual strands. My amendments would provide for a disability rights committee with executive powers and a disability commissioner, who would be chair of the committee. Ideally, the chairman would be disabled.
The representatives of each group to be covered by the new body would be able to determine the policies that affected them, while contributing to wider cross-strand and general equality policies. These arrangements should help all the strands but have particular importance for disabled people who for many years have fought to ensure that their experience feeds directly into policymaking, resulting in their greater representation in all aspects of public life and the structure of the Disability Rights Commission.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will look favourably on these amendments, which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: I strongly support the amendments, which would ensure that the expertise of commissioners with specific knowledge of disabilities would not be jeopardised or lost in a future equality commission. They would ensure that disabled people continued to have the ability to create and take forward policies specific to the needs of disabled people.
Lord Addington: I would hope that my noble friend could incorporate this approach into the Bill, for the simple reason that disabled people tend to be better than others at empathising with other types of disability and knowing about the changes that need to he made. Unfortunately, experience tells me that we need people in those positions who know what it is like to be unable to do something regarded as normal. The Bill would be improved, if not by these particular measures, then by something very like them.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Ever since Gladstone's time, Liberals have been in favour of federalism, as I am myself. I am also sympathetic to the amendments. for special reasons, but I want to begin on a cautionary note.
The Government are wise and sensible in seeking to move towards a single equality commission. The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights of which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and I are both members, will publish a report next week that gives our views on a human rights and an equality commission. That will have some relevance to the issues we are discussing.
The danger of an approach that labels a series of commissioners with particular responsibility and a committee structure of a rigid kind is that one loses the benefits of cohesion in having a single commission. At the same time, one needs a single commission that combines the expertise, special skills and insights of the different strands with which it seeks to deal. The institutional architecture of any equality commission requires the benefits of cohesion combined with the benefits of specialist expertise.
1642
I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who referred to the desirability of the chairman of the DRC being disabled. One must be careful about that notion, for several reasons. First, as Mr Bert Massey, who chairs the DRC, once pointed out to me, the mere fact that one is blind does riot mean that one is any better than someone with normal vision at understanding other forms of disability. In other words, unless all the mental and physical disabilities were embraced in one person. that person would not necessarily comprehend all the problems. A race commissioner, a gay or lesbian commissioner, a commissioner dealing with age discrimination and a commissioner dealing with religious discrimination would all have to be separately designated a rigid committee structure, which would weaken the cohesion.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The noble Lord makes a legitimate point. However, will he bear in mind that a person with a specific disability necessarily moves along with other disabled people because of a common general interest? It is almost as if there were a federal type of communication between disabled people. It is far more likely that a blind person, for example, will know about deafness, paralysis and so on than a person with no disability because that person will tend to congregate with other disabled people in various social or economic circumstances. Consequently, a blind person is not necessarily isolated from other disabilities. In fact, he or she will be very much in touch with those disabilities.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I fully agree and did not mean to suggest to the contrary. What I was seeking to do was simply to explain that there are limits to giving labels to different parts of an equality commission in a very rigid way. That would tend to lose the whole point of having an equality commission. However. I also recognise that, in the case of disability discrimination, there are compelling reasons for accepting these amendments. The Disability Rights Commission has only recently been established and has not yet been able to use its powers as the other commissions have. There are also special problems associated with disability that require special treatment.
The most important reason of all is that it is very important that all groups which are vulnerable under the different strands of discrimination should unite together and make common cause, if I may say so, to persuade the Government to raise their game by having a single equality commission and a single equality Act. That seems to me a very small price to pay for a federal link of the type proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and others who have spoken. That seems to me a perfectly sensible way forward. If it can unite everyone, then it seems highly desirable.
We made special provision in the Bill by providing that the Disability Rights Commission could not in any event become part of an equality commission within less than three years after the Bill comes into force, which would effectively mean five years from now. That is a different approach, and I see no reason why one could not have those arrangements.

1643
The Bill deliberately does not give a lot of detail about the internal structure of the commission. That is because it is very important, as I have tried to explain, that there should be a unified principle of a single commission rather than complex arguments about the detail. I am anxious that the Bill, if it were accepted by the Government, should not unnecessarily fetter any future commission in its freedom to establish itself in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time. In other words, I would not wish it to be supposed that I was favouring a strand-specific approach that could—to mix my metaphor—balkanise the entire commission into a series of disjointed, separate and compartmentalised commissioners, committees and so on. That would lose the entire thrust of what we are seeking to do. I am comforted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is nodding affirmatively. She has much more experience than I do, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Having said all of that, I certainly accept these amendments.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I assure my noble friend Lord Ashley that the Government are represented in the Bill's passage purely so that we can listen very carefully to everything that is said. We will take it into consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Matters referred to a tribunal]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 36, line 7, leave out "if" and insert "except where"
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment to correct a mistake. As currently drafted, Clause 48(1) states:
"Where a provision of this Act provides for any matter to be referred to a tribunal, the matter is to be referred to an employment tribunal if the matter falls within sections 49, 50 or 51".
The very opposite should be the case. It should state,
"except where the matter falls within sections 49, 50 or 51",
in which case it is not dealt with by an employment tribunal at all. As I say, this is a technical amendment to rectify that mistake. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 67, line 4, leave out "25 or 28" and insert "4(5)(a), 25, 28 or 93(2)(a)"
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in its ninth report of 2002–03. The change means that the delegated powers of the Secretary of State to make further provisions concerning the definition of disability would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Secretary of State already has similar delegated powers under the Disability
1644
Discrimination Act. Further, where the Secretary of State makes any other adaptations, amendments or repeals in consequence of the Equality Act, that would also be subject to the affirmative procedure. The amendment seeks to meet the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee as expressed in its recent report on Henry VIII powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Definitions relating to meaning of disability]:
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 68, line 5, leave out from first "illness" to end of line.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 with which it is grouped and which stand in my name.
These amendments seek to widen the definition of disability in the Bill to give greater protection to people with mental illness. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, replicates the definition of disability laid down in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which has been found to face people with mental health problems with extra hurdles in meeting the definition of disability. MIND has found that in particular the conditions of depression, eating disorders and schizophrenia are inadequately or inappropriately covered by the Disability Discrimination Act definition.
Amendments addressing MIND's concerns were passed with the full support of your Lordships' House during the debate on the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, last year (Hansard, 6th March, 2002, cols. 346–354). Since then these changes to the definition have been officially accepted by the Disability Rights Commission in its first review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to remove an unnecessary qualification from the definition of disability that any mental impairment must be clinically well recognised in order to meet the definition. Problems of mental health run on a spectrum of behaviour from mere "character traits" to a range of disorders from depression, manic depression, personality disorders through to schizophrenia. In practice, the boundaries may be blurred. There is also controversy about what constitutes clinical illness. In tribunal cases, medical reports can disagree, with different psychiatrists making different diagnoses of the same person or making a diagnosis that blurs the distinction between different disorders. The extra requirement that the illness be clinically well recognised imposes an extra legal hurdle for people with mental health problems which is not applied to people with physical impairments, thereby giving less protection from discrimination on grounds of disability.
The purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to give people with short-term but severe depression protection from discrimination. To qualify as disabled for the purposes of the DDA, the claimant must have an "impairment" which has a,
"long term adverse effect on normal day to day activities".
"Long term" is defined to be a past period of at least 12 months or the likelihood that the period will he 12 months. Recurrent conditions are also covered by the DDA.
Those provisions cause real problems for people with depression. First, for many people, depression may be severe but relatively short lived. Secondly, it can be very difficult to diagnose whether it is likely to be an underlying recurrent condition. Thirdly, discrimination against people who have had a period of short-term depression is commonplace.
Reports from the employment tribunals show that to be a consistent problem. In one case, the applicant took five months' sick leave for depression and was on medication for more than a year. The tribunal recognised the depression as an impairment but was still not satisfied that the effect of the applicant's impairment had a long-term effect as it had not lasted for at least 12 months, and the case was dismissed.
The purpose of Amendment No. 7, the last amendment in this group, is to improve the coverage of mental health conditions within the definition of disability by including activities that are most likely to be severely affected for people with eating disorders, depression, anxiety disorders and schizophrenia. In order to come within the definition of "disability" under the DDA and consequently under the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, a person must be adversely affected in carrying out one of a list of,
"normal day to day activities".
That list was framed with physical impairments in mind and contains six physical activities but only two mental ones. The effects of mental health problems do not fit readily into those categories and some do not fit at all.
A person's perceptions may be distorted such that they misinterpret colleagues' behaviour, for example by understanding what is said but perceiving hostility, criticism or mistrust where there is none. A person who is severely depressed and/or suicidal may be able to carry out any of the specified activities but still not be able to function in a workplace at that time. A person may be experiencing withdrawal, paranoia, anxiety or depression to the extent that they cannot communicate effectively. If the definition of disability is better to protect people with mental health problems from discrimination, the list of day-to-day activities needs to include the ability to care for oneself, the ability to communicate and interact with other people and the ability to perceive reality.
Discrimination on mental health grounds is a serious problem in the UK and discrimination in employment is one of the biggest problems facing people with a history of mental ill-health. They have the highest rate of unemployment among people with long-term health problems, with only around 19 per cent in employment, compared with 47 per cent of people with all long-term health problems. In a survey by MIND. more than one-third of respondents reported that they had lost their jobs as a result of their psychiatric history, while 38 per cent had been harassed, intimidated or teased at work, 69 per cent
1646
had been put off from applying for jobs because of their psychiatric history and around half concealed their psychiatric history for fear of losing their jobs.
There is strong evidence that the current definition of disability in the DDA, which has been replicated in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, provides inadequate protection for people with mental health problems. In a survey of 210 cases in which employment tribunals decided that the applicant did not meet the definition of disability the DRC legal team found that people with mental illness formed the largest category to be excluded by the definition.
I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be able to accept the amendments and provide people with mental health problems with the same protection from discrimination as presently exist for people who are physically impaired. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support the amendments for the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I do so also because in all kinds of legislation the problem of definition bedevils people with mental illness. There is no clear definition, and those people are neglected and ignored time and time again. The issue of definition is crucial.
I believe that if any one group of people requires legislation, it is those with mental illness. They are the most misunderstood people in the world. It is a most complex issue. Therefore, I briefly and warmly endorse the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will accept them.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, for the very clear and comprehensive way that she explained the object and purpose of the amendments.
One further point was raised in the very helpful briefing provided by MIND, to which I am also grateful. A comparative survey of 11 countries with disability discrimination laws showed that the United Kingdom Disability Discrimination Act is the most disadvantageous for people with mental health problems. It appears that the Irish and Australian federal laws, for example, specify a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought process, perception or reality, emotions or judgment, or which results in disturbed behaviour. The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, upon which the UK Act was based, has apparently been amplified in regulations and guidance to ensure that mental health problems are fully covered.
On careful reflection and on listening to the speeches that have been made today, I have no doubt that the definitions in the Bill are too narrow. Therefore, from our perspective, the amendments are most welcome.
Baroness Wilkins: I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 68, line 17, at end insert "; or
(d) it is a mental impairment consisting of, or resulting from, depression and it has lasted, or is likely to last, at least 3 months."
Page 69, line 8, at end insert—
"(i) ability to care for oneself;
(j) ability to communicate and interact with other people;
(k) ability to perceive reality."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Protected areas of activity]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Equality Commission]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 103, line 27, at end insert—
"(4) One of the commissioners is to be appointed as disability rights commissioner, and that person is to be chairman of the Commission's disability rights committee."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 104, line 10, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
"(d) that he suffers from incapacity or has engaged in misbehaviour."
The noble Lord said: Last year the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, having pleaded guilty to a charge of threatening behaviour, resigned his post and was given a £120,000 pay-off. That caused some controversy, but he could not have been dismissed from his post because, unusually for legislation providing for public appointments, there was no provision in the Race Relations Act 1976 for dismissal for misbehaviour.
Paragraph 2(7) in Schedule 4 to the Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, provides for any member of the equality commission to be removed from office if he has been convicted of a criminal offence or is,
"unable or unfit to carry out his functions".
My amendment is a probing amendment to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lester, why he has chosen that form of words, instead of the words "incapacity or misbehaviour" which for years have been used, as he will know, for circuit judges in the Courts Act 1971, and appears again and again in more recent legislation; for example, the Utilities Act 2000 and the Enterprise Act 2002.
In July 1994 the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said that in this context misbehaviour could include a conviction for drink/driving, any offence involving violence, dishonesty or moral turpitude, behaviour likely to cause offence on religious or racial grounds or that amounts to sexual
1648
harassment. "Incapacity or misbehaviour" is a well tried, well used legislative basis for dismissal. Is the choice of words of the noble Lord better? I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for raising this issue. Perhaps I may explain the position. There is nothing between us in terms of what we seek to achieve. It is purely a choice of language. As the noble Lord has said, as it stands the Schedule 4 power to remove commissioners includes a number of justifications for removing a commissioner that one hopes will not arise in reality. One is that,
"the commissioner has without reasonable excuse failed to discharge his functions for a continuous period of three months",

secondly, that,
"he has been convicted of a criminal offence",
thirdly, that he has been made bankrupt and, fourthly, that,
"he is unable or unfit to carry out his functions".
The relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 allow the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment of a commissioner if he is satisfied that the commissioner,
"is by reason of physical or mental illness, or for any other reason, incapable of carrying out his duties".
The provision in the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 is wider than that. It allows the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment of a commissioner if satisfied that,
"he is otherwise unable or unfit to carry out his functions as a commissioner".
We have decided to mirror the wider power of removal from the disability rights legislation rather than the narrower powers in the race and sex discrimination legislation. The amendment of the noble Lord would substitute the words,
"suffers from incapacity or has engaged in misbehaviour".
We say that the amendment is unnecessary because the word "unfit" would plainly encompass misbehaviour. Incapacity has a specific legal meaning that is narrower than "unable or unfit". We therefore believe that the matters with which the amendment is intended to deal are already covered and that there is a precedent for that in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which we have followed.
There is no difference of policy or principle between us, it is purely a matter of semantics and how we go about it, so I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedules 5 to 8 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past four o'clock.

  UK Citizens Resident in the Republic of Ireland
  UK Citizens Resident in the Republic of Ireland
  Domestic Market Capitalisation of Manufacturing Companies and IT Services
  Domestic Market Capitalisation of Manufacturing Companies and IT Services
  Full-time Equivalent Jobs
  Full-time Equivalent Jobs
  Goods Made in Labour Camps in China
  Goods Made in Labour Camps in China
  Tibet
  Tibet
  European Convention
  European Convention
  EU: Protection of Minorities
  EU: Protection of Minorities
  EU: Accession
  EU: Accession
  Moldovan Exports to the EU
  Moldovan Exports to the EU
  Furniture Products Registered as Medical Devices
  Furniture Products Registered as Medical Devices
  Viscoelastic Foam
  Viscoelastic Foam
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Hayes PPP Project
  Hayes PPP Project
  Lord Patel: Re-appointment to Armed Forces' Pay Review Body
  Lord Patel: Re-appointment to Armed Forces' Pay Review Body
  Iraq: Aid
  Iraq: Aid
  UNRWA
  UNRWA
  Israeli Incursions: UNRWA Representations
  Israeli Incursions: UNRWA Representations
  Family Law Reforms
  Family Law Reforms
  SEN
  SEN
  Listed Buildings: Access
  Listed Buildings: Access
  Gifts to Ministers of the Crown
  Gifts to Ministers of the Crown