Sitting of 28 October 2003

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

    Economy
    Mr. David Marshall: When he next intends to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the economy in Scotland. [133806]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I met representatives of the STUC on 21 August to discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Marshall: In this era of the knowledge economy, does the Secretary of State agree that the proposal by British Energy to move 150 top-quality engineering graduate jobs—and possibly another 150 indirect jobs—from Scotland to England is totally unacceptable? Does he further agree that a possible consequence of that proposal is the closure of a nuclear power station with another 500 jobs at risk? Will he assure us that he will do everything that he can, along with his Cabinet colleagues, the Scottish Executive and the STUC, to keep as many of those jobs in Scotland as possible?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that discussions between British Energy and its unions about those proposals are continuing. The headquarters will remain in Scotland; it is proposed that there will be about 85 redundancies, and following British Energy's taking responsibility for nuclear power stations both north and south of the border, it wants to bring together all the engineers and technicians who are responsible for the maintenance of those power stations. Hunterston and Torness power stations have a long time still to run, and, between them, they employ nearly 1,000 people in highly skilled jobs that are an essential part of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Obviously one of the industries that will dominate such discussions is fishing, which employs 42,000 people around Scotland's coastline. Has the Secretary of State had time to look at the scientific advice published last Friday by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea which shows North sea haddock stocks at 500,000
    142
    tonnes, the highest level since 1971? Why, in those circumstances, are fishing communities still suffering doubt and uncertainty about their prospects, instead of looking forward to a booming fishery?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to one of a number of reports about fishing stocks.
    Mr. Salmond: This is the official ICES report.
    Mr. Darling: There have been other reports. The important point is to make sure that we put in place a regime that will ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. The fisheries strategy unit, which the Government will attend, meets tomorrow. I have never yet heard the hon. Gentleman face up to the fact that we need to take steps to ensure that fishing stocks are preserved so that the industry has a long-term future. Instead, we constantly get the impression from him that there is no reason to conserve stocks at all. That cannot be right.
    Sandra Osborne: Does the Secretary of State agree that his recent announcement giving the go-ahead to the new Scottish air traffic control centre will make an excellent contribution to the Scottish economy, contributing as it will over £25 million a year to the Ayrshire economy?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right and she deserves a great deal of credit for fighting to get the UK's second air traffic control centre at Prestwick. That centre will control air traffic movements across the north Atlantic and the northern part of the UK, right down to Amsterdam. When it is completed, it will be the sixth largest air traffic control centre in Europe and will play an important part in the single skies air traffic control system. My hon. Friend is right to say that it will play a significant part in ensuring the future success of the Ayrshire economy.
    John Thurso: When the Secretary of State next meets the STUC to discuss the economy in Scotland, what will he say about the rapid growth of the Scottish consumer debt mountain, which now stands at £26.5 billion? What measures will the Government take to ensure that the economic recovery will be sustainable, rather than a consumer debt-led boom?
    Mr. Darling: The Government have put in place a range of measures to ensure a strong, stable economy. One reason that we have the highest levels of employment and the lowest levels of unemployment for a generation is that we have that stable economy. As the Chancellor has made clear, all our economic policies are geared towards ensuring that this country has sustainable long-term growth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a tribute to my right hon. Friend's stewardship that we have such a strong economy—one that is still growing when most of our major competitors have faced recession, have been in recession or, in some cases, are in recession.
    Rachel Squire: Will my right hon. Friend raise with the STUC the importance to the Scottish economy of shipbuilding, ship repair and ship refit work? Does he agree that the future aircraft carrier will, whatever its final size, be the biggest warship ever produced and holds the key to a long-term future for Rosyth dockyard? Will he work with the STUC to retain some of Scotland's top engineering skills and ensure that the aircraft carrier work begins on time?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that the order from the Ministry of Defence for the aircraft carrier is of great significance to Scotland. Indeed, it shows the benefit of Scotland being part of the United Kingdom, as defence is a crucial part of our economy. The MOD continues to work on the specification of the new aircraft carrier, but she is right to emphasise its importance. She can rest assured that all my colleagues and I will do everything that we can to make sure that the work is carried out as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Behind all the spin, is the Secretary of State proud of his Government's record since Labour came to office in 1997, under which economic growth in Scotland has been lower than in the UK? In fact, Scotland's gross domestic product, as he knows, has been lower in each successive quarter since 1998. Is he proud of that record?
    Mr. Darling: I should have thought that, today of all days, the hon. Gentleman would have confined his predictions of gloom and doom to the party to which he belongs. We all look forward to the publication of many political diaries, but I strongly urge him to publish his quickly because it may become time-expired in the not-too-distant future.
    Britain has a very strong economy, and the Scottish economy, too, has done well. There are extremely high levels of employment and unemployment is at its lowest level for a generation—something that could never have been dreamt of under the Conservative Government. We have low interest and mortgage rates, and the prospects for the Scottish economy are good. If the hon. Gentleman takes time off from scribbling in his diary and looks at what commentators say about the Scottish economy—
    Mr. Duncan: I am full-time—the right hon. Gentleman is the part-timer.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman says that he is working full-time on his diary, which speaks volumes about where the principal Opposition party is today. Its members are writing diaries about their own downfall rather than concentrating on the real issues affecting Scotland.

    Fireworks Act
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive with regard to the use of powers granted by the Fireworks Act 2003. [133807]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): May I echo the Prime Minister's congratulations last week to my hon. Friend on his excellent work in piloting that important measure through Parliament? I recently met the Minister for Finance and Public Services in the Scottish Executive to discuss a range of issues, including the Fireworks Act 2003.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Is she aware of the excellent educational drama "Toast", which South Lanarkshire community safety partnership is piloting in schools throughout Lanarkshire? Margaret Brunton, the council's home safety officer, said:
    "This play is hard hitting and will hopefully make pupils think carefully before becoming involved in dangerous behaviour involving fireworks".
    Will the Minister, in discussions with the Scottish Executive, make sure that funding is available so that pupils throughout Scotland can see the play so that misbehaviour involving fireworks is recognised as dangerous?
    Mrs. McGuire: The issue of funding projects in Scotland is very much one for the Scottish Executive, and it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to tell them what to do. However, I am delighted to echo my hon. Friend's comments about that production's dramatic approach to firework safety, which I think is the ethic that underpins it. Not only have I heard of the company and its productions but I can tell hon. Members that it is going to Cathkin high school on 31 October, John Ogilvie high school in Hamilton on 3 and 4 November and Earnock high school in Hamilton on 5 November.
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Fireworks Act has been passed, but one of the biggest problems is controlling legislation and making sure that offenders are pursued. In today's papers there is a report of someone who launched a gerbil on the end of a rocket, which shows the mentality of some people in this country. Will the Minister assure the House that, whether they are members of the public or manufacturers, people who break the code will be pursued to the full extent of the law?
    Mrs. McGuire: The Government are very much aware of the importance of making sure that firework legislation operates effectively. Like many hon. Members, I read reports of that sickening incident in today's newspapers. Legislation has been in place for a long time to deal with issues relating to the protection of animals. Indeed, as far back as 1912 it was an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to domestic or captive animals through the use of fireworks. I certainly hope that in this and other instances the authorities use the legal protection that is in place to ensure that people are not disadvantaged or discomfited and do not suffer fear or terror because of the abuse of fireworks.
    Mrs. Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are proposals for the opening of a fireworks factory in my constituency. Yesterday that was the subject of some disturbing allegations in The Herald. Will she raise with the

    145
    Scottish Executive the concern of my constituents, which predates yesterday's newspaper report? They fear for public safety and public order, and I ask my hon. Friend to take such action as is available to her so that my constituents can rest easy in their beds at night.
    Mrs. McGuire: I read the article in yesterday's newspaper, and I understand my right hon. Friend's concerns. Planning and health and safety issues are involved. I assure her that I will raise the matters that she highlighted with the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland.

    Student Finance
    Annabelle Ewing: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister concerning student funding in Scotland. [133808]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have frequent discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues, including that one.
    Annabelle Ewing: The Secretary of State is presumably aware that there is cross-party consensus in Scotland against top-up fees. Does he intend to lead his Scottish troops into the Division Lobby at Westminster to vote to impose top-up fees south of the border, notwithstanding their damaging impact on the university sector in Scotland, or does he intend, unusually, to vote in favour of Scotland's interests and against top-up fees?
    Mr. Darling: I am surprised, first, that the hon. Lady raised the question, because if she had her way, England would be a foreign country and she would have no influence whatsoever on the education system, and secondly, that she does not recognise the logic of what she is saying. Of course, Scotland's education system and the education system of the rest of the United Kingdom are inextricably linked. Both those facts make nonsense of her basic philosophy of independence.
    In relation to student support and tuition fees, it has long been the case that the regimes have been different north and south of the border. The argument that we should have is about how we can best fund student support in the long term. The objective of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to increase the number of students in higher education must be paid for. The suggestions currently being debated will mean that we can put higher education in the whole of the United Kingdom on a proper footing. Yes, the regimes may be different north and south of the border, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
    Mr. Iain Luke: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerns of many university principals in Scotland about the financial disadvantage that their universities, higher education institutes and research programmes will face with the selective introduction of top-up fees south of the border? Will he undertake to convey those fears, which were expressed to him at a
    146
    recent meeting in Dundee, to the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Darling: Indeed, we had that discussion. I remember it well and my hon. Friend was present, which is why he recalls it so vividly. The First Minister has made it clear that, depending on the final shape and form of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the Scottish Executive will have to consider the implications. They are reviewing the matter at present. On higher education and university education in Scotland, I point out that funding per head in Scotland is significantly higher than it is in England. Moreover, the Scottish Executive have made additional funds available to Scottish universities, so the issue is not as simple as some people make out. Of course, we must ensure that, whatever the funding regime north and south of the border, we take account of the implications. Our overall objective must be, first, to make sure that more young people get into higher education—the Tories' policy would mean that fewer went to university—and secondly, we should put funding on a sustainable basis for the long term. None of the Opposition parties has any coherent plan for doing that.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) have had a meeting to discuss this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman give us his assessment of the effect on Scottish universities and their students of the introduction of tuition fees in England?
    Mr. Darling: As I have indicated, the system of support for universities and higher education in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. The First Minister has said that he will want to consider the implications of the proposals once they are finally published. The point that I was making is that, in considering these matters, we must look at every aspect of funding. At the moment, Scottish universities are better funded than their counterparts south of the border—something on which principals will no doubt want to reflect. Of course, legitimate points will need to be raised and discussed, and the First Minister has already said that that is precisely what he intends to do.
    Mrs. Lait: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's assessment is that Scottish university funding will be cut because it is greater than in England? What discussions has he had or does he plan to have with his Scottish colleagues in this House who signed early-day motion 799 in opposition to the introduction of tuition fees?
    Mr. Darling: The only proposal to cut funding for universities comes from the party for which the hon. Lady speaks. It proposes that fewer students will go to university. That is how it intends to pay for higher education in this country. Under the Conservatives,

    147
    there would be fewer students, so there would be less money for all universities. That may be her policy, but it is not ours.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is enormously important that we encourage more young working-class Scots to take part in higher education?
    Mr. Darling: Yes. One reason why the Scottish Executive looked at the funding of university students was to ensure that more young people came forward— especially those without a family tradition of going to university and those from disadvantaged families. It is very important that everyone who can possibly benefit from higher education does so. That is why I find the Conservative policy of paying for student finance by cutting the number of students going to university so difficult to understand.

    Ferry Services
    Mr. Alan Reid: What discussions he has had with (a) the Scottish Executive and (b) the European Commission regarding the implications for subsidised ferry services sailing from ports in Scotland of the recent European Court ruling in the Altmark case; and if he will make a statement. [133809]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): In line with normal practice on European Commission issues, there have been discussions between officials of the Scottish Executive and the Department for Transport. However, the subsidy for ferry services in Scotland is devolved and tendering is a decision for the Scottish Executive.
    Mr. Reid: Negotiations with Europe are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The European Court ruling made it perfectly clear that subsidised bus services no longer need to go out to tender, so it would be an anomaly if subsidised ferry services such as CalMac still had to do so. If the legal advice given to the Secretary of State is that the current rules mean that CalMac services would still have to go out to tender, will he go to Brussels and renegotiate the maritime regulations so that the tendering process can be abandoned? The process is expensive, time-wasting and diverts resources from the real job of improving ferry services in Scotland.
    Mrs. McGuire: I reiterate that Scottish Ministers are responsible for all aspects of tendering of CalMac services. May I also alert the hon. Gentleman to the fact that his Liberal Democrat colleague Nicol Stephen, Minister for Transport in the Scottish Executive, is at odds with his interpretation of the judgment? Yesterday, in a parliamentary answer, he said:
    "The consequences of the Altmark case for ferry services are far from clear."
    However, he also stated:
    "As a matter of urgency, we will seek clarification of the legal position and raise the issue with the European Commission".
    Mr. George Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sterling work done by her predecessor and his predecessor in trying to get the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry up and running again? Will she discuss with Nicol Stephen whether there is now a prospect of getting that ferry going at least for the summer season? If she is successful, will she invite all her predecessors to the first sailing?
    Mrs. McGuire: My mother used to say that self-praise is no praise, but in the case of my right hon. Friend, such praise is truly justified, as he fought a doughty battle to ensure that the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry came on line. As he and the House are aware, there have been some difficulties in ensuring that a tender is allocated for the service. The matter has been totally devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but we keep a close interest in developments. I assure him that when the new line is open, I shall ensure that his name is at the top of the list for any invitation.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on prospects for inward manufacturing investment in Scotland. [133810]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): Inward investment continues to make an important contribution to the Scottish economy. The Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry, provide support for the Scottish Executive's economic strategy and for the work of its inward investment agency, Scottish Development International.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Like all hon. Members, he will be aware that the Scottish work force has very high skill levels and a fine reputation for its work ethic. Is he concerned about the most recent quarterly trends survey by CBI Scotland, which reports that manufacturing orders are falling and that declining output is putting pressure on prices and jobs? I would not want the Scottish work force to suffer as a result of regulation and a lack of flexibility in the work force.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that Scotland has very high skill levels. Although many industries have gone through a transitional period in which they faced difficulties, many people are buoyant about the prospects for Scotland's economy, not only because of its high skill levels, but because of the support that is provided in terms of the economy by the Government at Westminster and the Scottish Executive. For example, I noticed yesterday that Edinburgh university has set up a new £40 million science facility that could in time lead to many new jobs in an extremely skilled area where people are optimistic about the future. Of course we will take into account the CBI report, but generally the prospects for the Scottish economy are good, just as are the prospects for the UK economy, provided that we stick to our policy of providing a strong and stable economic environment. If we do that, everyone has good reason to be optimistic.

  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 9 September. [133821]
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 9 September. [133822]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 9 September, 66 devolution issues have been intimated to me. The majority related to criminal law matters such as delay in bringing cases to trial, confiscation action under the proceeds of crime legislation, and the scope of the offences of breach of the peace and shameless indecency. In the civil arena, there were devolution minutes concerning prison conditions at Barlinnie and a significant number on the regime for recovering fixed penalty traffic fines.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that it would be in the public interest to make available to Lord Fraser the Wark Clements tapes on the true cost of the Scottish Parliament? What representations has she made or received in that regard and does she agree that it would be in the public interest to release that information, given that the Scottish Parliament paid for the making of those tapes?
    The Advocate-General: I am sure that we are all very interested in the tapes. Fortunately, it is not my job to advise the BBC or the inquiry, but I shall certainly bring the hon. Lady's representations to the attention of the appropriate quarters.
    Annabelle Ewing: None the less, can the Advocate-General say whether, given that broadcasting is reserved to Westminster, she is of the view that the BBC is acting in accordance with the Nolan principles of openness, honesty and leadership? Surely, she must agree that if it was it would make the evidence available forthwith.
    The Advocate-General: It is a Scottish Executive inquiry and therefore not a matter for the UK Government. So far as the BBC's responsibilities are concerned, it has to be advised about contractual matters and any other matters that it thinks relevant. No doubt its legal advisers will take all such representations into account.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Has anyone raised with the Advocate-General the devolution implications of the fact that a majority of parties active in Scotland are in favour of a referendum on the European constitution?
    The Advocate General: No.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Advocate-General discuss with the Lord Advocate whether Lord Fraser might be given
    150
    additional powers to require the BBC to give the Holyrood tapes to the inquiry, given that that is in the public interest?
    The Advocate-General: I am sure that the Lord Advocate has sufficient lateral thinking ability to consider those matters himself.

    Ferry Services
    Mr. Alan Reid: What assessment she has made of the implications for subsidised ferry services sailing to and from ports in Scotland of the recent European Court ruling in the Altmark case. [133823]
    The Advocate-General: The operation of subsidised ferry services in Scotland is devolved. It is therefore for the Scottish Executive to consider what implications, if any, the Altmark case may have for ferry services in Scotland. In the event of a challenge in the Scottish courts, I would of course have to consider whether I wished to intervene if a devolution issue were raised.
    Mr. Reid: Negotiations with Europe are the Government's responsibility, but if it were ruled that the subsidised ferry services did not need to go out to tender, the Scottish Executive could give the CampbeltownBallycastle route straight to CalMac without having to go through the long and involved tendering process. Could the Advocate-General please look at her law books and reach a conclusion? The present unfair situation helps no one.
    The Advocate-General: The matter is complex, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. It is not as simple as he suggests for me to look at my law books and to come up with a solution, much as I should like to do so. As I have explained, a process is available that is similar in some ways to the process used in the Altmark case. A challenge was made in the German courts in that instance, and a reference was made to the European Court for clarification. Although there are parallels, the issues involved are not identical; but if the matter cannot be resolved by agreement, there is always the process whereby a challenge can be made and an authoritative ruling from the European Court of Justice can be obtained following an application by the Scottish courts to Europe.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—
  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Immigration and Asylum
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: If he will make a statement on limiting lawyers' fees in immigration and asylum cases funded by the Legal Services Commission. [134513]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals in our recent consultation paper on publicly funded immigration and asylum work. We have now collated and analysed all 260 responses received. The Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs has also undertaken an inquiry, and is due to report shortly. We will consider its report along with other responses before any decisions on future policy are made.
    Mr. Foster: As my hon. Friend knows, it is proposed that advice and assistance in such cases should be limited to five hours. Is he aware that expert lawyers have suggested to the Committee that that is insufficient time for the proper preparation of a case? More specifically, what proposals are there for extending the time in more complex cases?
    Mr. Lammy: We referred to possible exceptions on pages 8 and 9 of the consultation paper. We asked lawyers what they should be. The five-hour cap was based on a typical, average case. I have heard representations on more complex cases. I know that the Select Committee will be considering the issue, and we hope to present detailed proposals once it has reported.
    Mr. William Cash:I hear what the Minister has to say, but the Law Society has expressed its determination to root out those who overcharge from the legal aid system. As the Minister may know, I have already called for reform of the system, and I welcome the accreditation system that the Government have come up with, but how can the Government believe that it will help legal aid, asylum seekers or the public interest if—as we have just heard—they try to cap the amount by imposing impossible targets for the amount of time that a case must take? I hear what the Minister says about pages 8 and 9 of the paper, but the plain fact is that trying to impose impossible targets is neither in the interest of legal aid or of the asylum seeker nor in the public interest.
    Mr. Lammy: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the accreditation system. He will know that in the consultation document we referred to the establishment of a unique file number, and there was support for that as well.
    As I have said, the capping was based on a typical, average case. Many Members will be familiar with that. We are listening to suppliers, many of them quality suppliers at the top end of the market, who have told us about complex cases involving complex medical issues, mental health issues, unaccompanied minors and so forth. That is what we must consider in deciding whether there should be a cap or threshold, or some indication of flexibility.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the likely impact of the additional work on hon. Members' advice surgeries when asylum seekers who may previously have qualified for legal advice suddenly find that they no longer do so
    152
    and expect us to do the work that the lawyers once did? That applies especially to diverse constituencies such as mine and, perhaps, my hon. Friend's.
    Mr. Lammy: I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to my constituency, which probably has the largest number of new arrivals in the country. Of course, we have listened carefully to parliamentarians on the matter. We spoke to the all-party group on refugees and I gave testimony to the Constitutional Affairs Committee. We are listening to Members of Parliament, lawyers and broader stakeholders. However, it is right to place some focus on the system because we know that there are lawyers who unscrupulously run through it asylum cases that should not gain support. Hon. Members have had much to say about that. Indeed, the Speaker wrote to the Lord Chancellor about the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should not give away secrets about the Speaker.
    Mr. David Heath: New policies on the issue appear to tumble from the Government at an extraordinary rate. That has led to the current shambolic position. Given that there are undoubtedly some vexatious and ill-founded appeals, and also some shysters who give unprincipled and incompetent advice, why, instead of dealing with them, must the Minister make it impossible for good, conscientious practitioners to do an adequate job for their clients? Will not that cost more in the long run in ill-prepared cases?
    Mr. Lammy: No, is the simple answer. The system is not a shambles. The Prime Minister said in September that he wanted the number of those arriving in this country to decrease from 9,000 to half that figure. The number is now under 4,000, which is a tremendous improvement. However, the budget has increased from £80 million to £174 million in three years and we must ensure value for money. Labour Members want to do that and I had hoped that our Liberal Democrat colleagues would support us in the enterprise.
    Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem lies with the decision-making process in the Home Office and that the real shambles occurs at the immigration and nationality directorate? If the decisions were made in a more appropriate way that was much more easily understandable, the amount of money spent on legal aid would be reduced. What discussions has he held with his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the flow of cases is streamlined and that decision making improves?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend knows that we have a single asylum fund and a joint ministerial board on which I sit with the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. I went to Croydon to talk to caseworkers and ascertain what they are doing. Standards have improved; caseworkers now sample cases, they are supported by senior caseworkers and Treasury solicitors review a random selection of cases. That constitutes improvement and they want to do more. However, the Department for Constitutional Affairs must consider our contribution on legal aid.

    European Parliamentary Elections
    John Barrett: What plans the Department has to hold an all-postal ballot in Scotland for the 2004 European parliamentary elections. [134514]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The European and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, which is currently in Committee, allows innovative voting methods to be piloted in one or more regions or nations of the United Kingdom in the 2004 European parliamentary elections. The Government have not yet decided where any pilot should be held. That decision will be made following advice from the independent Electoral Commission, which is currently considering the matter.
    John Barrett: If the Government decided to proceed with an all-postal ballot in Scotland, it would be the largest of its kind ever undertaken. What measures would be taken to improve security, which has been a cause for real concern in the smaller pilot schemes?
    Mr. Leslie: Postal voting has been a feature of our electoral system for quite some time, and I am not convinced by the argument that it is any more prone to fraud or malpractice than conventional voting systems. Nevertheless, the Bill contains provisions to extend the time limit for prosecutions for electoral offences and to allow arrests for personation to be made outside polling stations as well as inside them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that those measures represent positive steps forward.
    Mr. George Foulkes: May I urge the Minister to hold this pilot in Scotland? There will be no local authority elections there next year, which would make it much simpler. Would he also care to hazard a guess as to why the Liberals, the nationalists and the Tories in Scotland do not want to make it easier for people to vote in the election?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not have to guess that; he just has to answer the first question.
    Mr. Leslie: Far be it from me to engage in party political banter; I would not want to go that far. Suffice it to say that I get a feeling that there is a keenness in certain regions and nations to have all-postal voting. Some of my hon. Friends have already made representations to me on this matter, and I am sure that Opposition Members will do so in due course.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The House and the world outside will no doubt be fascinated to know that, despite the Government's theoretical majority, the Bill that the Minister mentioned suffered a catastrophic defeat in Committee this morning because the Government were attempting to guillotine it and ram it through with indecent haste. Does the Minister recognise that the Government's attempt to introduce the Bill before the Electoral Commission has even finished its consultation, and to start the Committee stage only a bare week after the Second Reading—in
    154
    which many hon. Members on the Government Back Benches signally failed to support the Government's own policy—shows that the Government are gerrymandering the constitution? Does he acknowledge that this is not the way in which important matters to do with elections should be dealt with in the House?
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman was in Committee with me this morning, when there was a minor disagreement about timing and about when we should conduct some of the debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "You lost."] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will debate the Bill in Committee. It will proceed and we will ensure that innovative mechanisms, such as all-postal piloting and electronic voting, will take place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make more substantive points on policy issues in the future.

    Community Legal Service
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: When the Secretary of State intends to complete the review of the not-for-profit contract issued to organisations offering legal services as part of the community legal service in order to incorporate retail prices index increases in salary scales; and if he will make a statement. [134515]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The Government are committed to the increasing contribution of the not-for-profit sector to legal aid work. The Legal Services Commission is currently reviewing the cost to the not-for-profit sector of providing publicly funded advice. A questionnaire will go out to suppliers in mid-November, and I hope to announce the outcome of the review early in the new year.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It indicates that some progress has been made, which is a good thing. Does he agree that if we are to have a high-quality community legal service, it is essential that we should treat those who choose to operate in that area fairly? Will he guarantee that what happened this year will not happen again?
    Mr. Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend has been active in the north Bristol area, where the not-for-profit sector provides advice. He will know that there is an historic difference between the way in which we contract for advice with solicitors and the way in which we do so with the not-for-profit sector. Notwithstanding that, we want to see a greater contribution from the not-for-profit sector. The amount of money that we are contributing to it has increased from £35 million in 2001 to £51 million this year. There have been problems—that is why we are conducting the review—but I hope that we shall be able to come back in the new year and make some positive progress in this area.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Considering the overall cost of legal services, including the important not-for-profit sector, will the Minister keep his diary clear for Friday, by which time he will have in his hands the report on immigration and asylum cases to which he

    155
    referred earlier? In the meantime, can he provide any guidance on whether there will be any savings, which could help the particular sector that we are talking about, arising from the Home Secretary's statement last Friday that 15,000 cases will not now go through the appeals system?
    Mr. Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman will know that many of those cases are old ones going back to the end of the 1990s. Many of the people involved have completed and gone through the appeals procedure. Nevertheless, we estimate that there will be a saving of about £13 million.
    Mr. David Kidney: Will my hon. Friend require those who work for the community legal service to identify areas where local people have no access to legally aided advice and assistance—the so-called advice deserts? When they are identified, what will my hon. Friend do to fill the gaps?
    Mr. Lammy: We are conducting an entire review of legal aid, examining the supply, the purchase and the demand. We know, of course, that there are some rural areas where we have to keep a close eye on supply. However, I shall tell my hon. Friend about last year's figures. There were 2,909 providers on the criminal side and this year there are still 2,909 providers. On the civil side, there were just under 5,000 providers last year, and that number has dropped by 200 this year. So, talking about deserts is a bit strong. We want to guarantee that the great Attlee invention of legal aid will continue into the next century.

    House of Lords
    Ann Winterton: If he will make a further statement on reform of the House of Lords. [134516]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government published the consultation paper, "Next steps for the House of Lords" on 18 September, and the consultation period ends on 12 December. The Government intend to introduce legislation to reform the second Chamber as soon as parliamentary time allows.
    Ann Winterton: Have not the Government been thoroughly irresponsible in beginning the reform of the House of Lords without having a clear idea of how it could be completed without detracting from the Lords' effectiveness as an amending Chamber? Will the Government now learn from their mistakes and opt for the status quo, leaving in place the 92 hereditary peers who exhibit integrity and independence and could never be accused of being the placemen for any Government?
    Mr. Leslie: No, I do not think that it is right to allow the hereditary system to continue. I believe that it is wrong for people to sit in Parliament by virtue of their birth and it is time that we moved forward on that. Yet
    156
    again, I detect a split or division of view among Conservative Members—one of so many that it is difficult to see for the cracks.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: May I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend that any future opportunity to determine the reform of the House of Lords will include a clear-cut opportunity for hon. Members to comment on how the regions and nations of the United Kingdom can properly have a voice in a second Chamber?
    Mr. Leslie: While appointments will continue to be a feature of the second Chamber, we have said in our consultation paper that it is right to look to tasking any future statutory appointments commission to reflect the need for regional and national diversity. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to take steps towards reform, but the door is not closed for the future and we shall continue a dialogue with the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform on those next steps.
    Sir George Young: When the Government introduce legislation, will they ensure that the long title is sufficiently broad to permit the House to consider amendments that would allow a more democratic solution?
    Mr. Leslie: I would not wish to pre-empt the Queen's Speech on the nature or timing of any future legislation. Suffice it to say that I understand that there remain differences of opinion on both sides of the House about the composition of the reformed upper House. I believe, however, that the status quo—the option of doing nothing—should not be taken. We are pressing forward where we can, and I believe that removing the hereditary peers will be a positive step forward.

    Crown Prerogative
    Kevin Brennan: What steps the Secretary of State will take to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the Crown prerogative. [134517]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): As my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on Public Administration is currently conducting an inquiry into the exercise of prerogative powers. The Government will respond to any recommendations it makes in the usual way.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that what we actually have in this country is not an unwritten constitution, but a constitution written in invisible ink? That includes the power to make war—perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us whether the vote in this Parliament has changed that by precedent. Does he agree that it is time to hold a candle to that paper, so that the citizens of this country, and also this Parliament, can know the rules under which we are governed?
    Mr. Leslie: I hope that my hon. Friend will give the Government a chance. We are already undertaking an

    157
    enormous programme of major constitutional reform: making a proper separation of powers between the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature; creating a supreme court; creating an independent judicial appointments commission; and reforming the House of Lords. I am sure that all matters are possible for review, but at this point in time I would like to see the Select Committee's report.

  LEADER OF THE HOUSE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
  The Leader of the House was asked—
  LEADER OF THE HOUSE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Sitting Hours
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: To ask the Leader of the House if he will bring forward proposals to revert to the previous sitting hours for the House on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. [134528]
    Bob Spink: To ask the Leader of the House if he will take steps to reintroduce the sitting hours of the House for Tuesdays as they were before October 2002. [134530]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): No. In October last year, a majority of Members voted to alter the sitting hours so that the House now sits from 11.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The Standing Orders were changed for the rest of this Parliament, which will allow us a sufficient period to make a considered judgment on the effect of the changes.
    Mr. Dismore: The new hours really are not working as they were originally intended to. On a personal level, I find that I cannot do anything like as many constituency visits to schools and community groups as I used to do. In my Select Committee, we find that our evidence sessions are badly squeezed so that we cannot properly scrutinise experts or Ministers. Even the public cannot visit the Chamber as frequently as they could before. Hon. Members are very good at being in two places at once, but now we find on Tuesdays and Wednesdays that we have to be in three, four or five at once, and we simply cannot do it. Many of those who voted—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made the point.
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has made the point to me as well, in forceful terms. I understand the issues that he raises. There is a problem with constituency visits. Some Members have complained that the Chamber is locked in the evening, so they cannot bring visitors who may be dining with them into the Chamber. Such teething problems should be sorted out.
    I am following the instructions of the House, which voted very clearly on what it wanted to do. The hours were decided for the rest of this Parliament. The priority
    158
    now is to make these hours work effectively and we can deal with some of the problems that have arisen, but obviously we shall have to review them in due course.
    Bob Spink: My concern is not constituency visits but the House properly holding the Government to account, and the Tuesday hours simply prevent us from doing that. They inhibit Back-Bench contributions in debate in particular. Given that the mood of the House has changed since that very tight vote on Tuesday hours, is it not time to revisit this question—or are the Government running scared of increased scrutiny?
    Mr. Hain: We know who is running scared at this particular time, do we not? All the Conservative Members are chasing each other, running scared around the place. On the point that the hon. Gentleman raises—I respect his point of view on this and he is right to raise it—the fact is that there is now more scrutiny of the Executive and the Government than ever before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Oh, indeed there is. We have the Prime Minister answering questions at the Liaison Committee, topical questions are now allowed in the Chamber, and we have cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall. The truth is that the number of hours that we sit now is exactly the same as before, so there is the same opportunity to hold the Government to account and to question Ministers. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a point about the hours—fair enough—but he cannot defend his position by saying there is less scrutiny; there is not.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not clear that the change in hours is bringing the House of Commons into disrepute? It is very important that we are aware of how the general public regard a House that has so little respect for itself. The House is now prepared to sit only in the middle of the week and to ignore the views of its own Members. If the Leader of the House is following the interests of elected Members, he should bring to the House a simple device to get another vote to make clear what we really think.
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is one of the most doughty defenders of the House's independence and of its vital role in our constitution. I acknowledge that very freely, but this is not a question of how the public relate to the Chamber. The House sits for exactly the same number of days as before. We do not sit only in the middle of the week. We sit on Monday and Thursday, and on some Fridays—[Interruption.] Yes, sometimes we do sit on a Friday. However, the real issue is whether the public understand why it is that when the rest of the population work normal hours, we do not. Another element is how the public regard an institution that was almost unique in the world in sitting the hours that it used to sit. Other legislative bodies across the world sit more normal hours.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I congratulate the Leader of the House on what he has said today. There is clearly a difference of view on this matter. We should take stock as we would make ourselves look ridiculous if, having made a decision, we were to change our minds just a year later. We should let the House consider these matters at the beginning of the next

    159
    Parliament, and in that way come to a considered view. The arguments about timetabling, for instance, may well be valid, but we should let the reforms settle down and make up our minds at the beginning of the next Parliament.
    Mr. Hain: I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, in the sense that the House made a decision for the rest of this Parliament. There are strong views on either side of the argument, and I am listening to them. Specific points have been made about constituency visits, about the Chamber being locked too early in the evening, and about the timing of Standing Committees and Select Committees. We should try to resolve all such matters and see how things work out. If hon. Members feel that the new hours have not worked and there is an overwhelming desire to reverse the change, we will have a chance to do so when we have had time to judge the experience.

    House of Lords
    Mr. Chris Bryant: To ask the Leader of the House if he will bring forward proposals to allow Ministers from the House of Lords to answer questions in the Commons. [134529]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): That is an interesting question. Of course, there is provision already for Ministers who are Members of the House of Lords to be questioned in the Grand Committees and in the new Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference, and Lords Ministers frequently appear before Commons Select Committees.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer, but "Erskine May" makes it clear that there is no reason why any Member of either House of Parliament should not speak on the Floor of either House, provided that permission were granted by both Houses. In the interim period before we have a wholly elected Second Chamber, would not it make more sense for Ministers from the House of Lords—and this applies especially to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who is about to bring forward very important legislation—to be able to be put to the test in this Chamber, in front of elected politicians?
    Mr. Woolas: Again, my hon. Friend makes another interesting point. He is right to say that Standing Orders in both the Commons and the Lords would need to be changed for what he describes to come about. However, the House may be interested to learn that precedents do exist. Commons Journal No. 99 records that in 1572 and 1604 Ministers who were Members of the House of Lords did answer questions. The Earl of Hertford and his brother, Mr. Seymour, were both ordered to the Bar
    160
    and to sit on stools with their heads covered. I do not think that my noble Friend the Secretary of State would look forward to that.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that it is not necessary to go back five centuries in this matter. Is not it time to take up the suggestion, made by hon. Members of all parties, that all Ministers should be elected Members of this House? I suppose an alternative would be to wait until the other House is elected, but it will be difficult to pursue the problem and make matters more acceptable democratically until all Ministers are accountable to the electorate by some means or other.
    Mr. Woolas: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but custom and practice is that the Government are held to account collectively and Ministers answer questions in both Houses to their respective Houses. Westminster Hall may offer an opportunity for an examination of the issue and the hon. Gentleman may want to put forward that suggestion.

    September Recall
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: To ask the Leader of the House what recent representations he has received regarding the arrangements for the parliamentary term in November. [134531]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I have received one letter from an hon. Member about Parliament's autumn calendar.
    Mr. Bellingham: My question was meant to be about September, not November; the Table Office could not read my writing.
    Will the Leader of the House be very kind and tell the House what was the cost of the recall of Parliament for the September term? What extra costs were involved when all the on-site contractors had to stop operations?
    Mr. Hain: I will happily supply the hon. Gentleman with the costs and will put a copy of my reply in the Library.
    It was important that we sat in September and it worked well. Nobody demanded the by now ritual recall of Parliament in August or late July, which occurred year after year after year, because we had an opportunity to come back in September. What happened during that time? We had two opportunities to question the Prime Minister; there were oral questions to Ministers from 10 Departments; there were five oral statements covering important subjects, including Iraq; there were three Second Readings and considerations of Lords amendments and there were three Opposition day debates. After the Hutton inquiry and the developments in Iraq—all big issues—we had the opportunity to hold the Government to account. That was done effectively in September and I think that the public were pleased that we came back.

Railway Maintenance
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the changes to the way in which railway maintenance is carried out, following Network Rail's announcement last Friday. This is the first available opportunity to keep the House informed of those developments.
The Government are investing very considerable amounts of money to renew Britain's railway, making up for decades of under-investment. Indeed, we are doubling investment over four years. However, as I have said before, for every £1 spent we must ensure that there is £1-worth of benefit to the railway and to its passengers. Controlling cost and improving performance, as well as ensuring a safer railway, are therefore essential.
Following the collapse of Railtrack, Network Rail was set up last October to maintain, renew and operate the rail infrastructure in the best interests of the travelling public. It was set up to bring robust management to the problems inherited from Railtrack.
Network Rail has reviewed its business and identified two key issues that need to be addressed: cost and performance. To help to achieve both, Network Rail is convinced that it needs to establish clear lines of responsibility and accountability for maintenance work, including repairs and upkeep of the track, signals and other infrastructure. It was also concerned to establish consistent high standards of rail maintenance across the rail network, alongside continued improvement in trackside safety standards.
The company has carried out a thorough review of the rail maintenance arrangements set up when Railtrack was privatised. It concluded that the maintenance contract structure created unnecessary cost. Contractors carrying out routine maintenance operate on what is known as a cost-plus basis, which gives them little incentive to cut costs or to respond to problems quickly.
The system has also resulted in enormous variation between different contract areas. Network Rail found that there was a substantial difference between unit costs for maintenance work carried out by different companies in the same part of the country. Different ways of doing things between contractors made it hard to standardise processes and achieve much-needed efficiencies. Current contracts also provide little incentive to respond to incidents quickly and get the network back up and running.
Throughout, Network Rail found considerable management duplication, and complex reporting lines and inspection procedures. In the light of its analysis, Network Rail decided last week to take direct control of all core maintenance.
By next summer, Network Rail expects to have complete control of all maintenance. It will be able to assess its assets and determine what work is carried out and when it is carried out—and it can focus on achieving high standards and cost control, as well as having clear lines of accountability. Maintenance will be carried out by a permanent work force, with more than 18,000 staff transferring to Network Rail over the next year.
162
Network Rail has said that it expects to cut costs substantially through more efficient working, contributing to a saving of up to £300 million a year within three years.
Network Rail will continue to use contractors to carry out renewals, upgrading lines or, for example, installing a new signalling system—areas where there is a competitive supply market. That work is typically carried out on a project basis, making use of a specialist work force. As with major roads projects such as motorway construction, it is suited to competitive tendering.
The issue is not about private companies working on the railway; rather, the issue was the nature of the contracts set up by the then Government at the time of privatisation. Network Rail is determined to control costs, to improve performance and to ensure that the very large sums invested in the railways are used to the best possible effect—something that Railtrack conspicuously failed to do.
Those changes by Network Rail to take rail maintenance in-house, coupled with the new franchise arrangements for train operating companies that the Strategic Rail Authority is putting in place, establish a strong basis for the rail industry to control costs and improve performance. The challenge now is for Network Rail, the SRA and the whole rail industry to work together, with the structures that are now in place, to deliver the improvements that passengers rightly demand.
The House will also want me to say a brief word about the problems in relation to renewal work on the west coast main line last week, carried out by Jarvis plc. Network Rail informs me that Jarvis had been carrying out work on new track in the Cheadle Hulme area when it became concerned that the work had not been carried out fully. That is a very serious matter. Network Rail is getting the work redone, and it has launched an investigation into what happened. It has said that, when it has the full facts, it will decide what further action needs to be taken.
We paid a heavy price in every sense for a botched privatisation. We are putting that right. The Government, through the SRA, are providing strategic direction. Network Rail is getting a grip on the problems that it inherited. The Government are spending substantial sums to tackle the legacy of under-investment in the railway. The steps announced by Network Rail last week are designed to bear down on cost and to ensure that money is properly and effectively spent, as well as to improve performance.
I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: I commend the Secretary of State on his statement and thank him for his characteristic courtesy in letting me have a copy in advance.
The Opposition are also hugely concerned for the long-suffering UK taxpayer, who has been paying so much for so little across the board since 1997. So if the announcements really amount to a much better bargain for the taxpayer, no one will be more pleased than us, but simply asserting that those changes will save money is not good enough. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's record is that every single act of

163
interference, reorganisation or new structure that they have created has generated more cost, more bureaucracy and much lower value?
The Secretary of State says today that those changes will save £300 million a year, but we have heard all this before. When his predecessor announced the creation of Network Rail in the first place, he said that his creation would produce
"a railway system that is united and not fragmented".
Above all, he said that Network Rail was
"designed to be more efficient than Railtrack, with lower…costs."—[Official Report, 24 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 582.]
The result, however, has been very different. In the words of The Times, Network Rail cost the taxpayer twice as much as Railtrack and yet has delivered an 80 per cent. poorer performance. Will the Secretary of State concede that he cannot blame the contractors for that? They are the same people, doing the same work for Network Rail as they did for Railtrack. It is his Government's creation that has utterly lost control of its costs and is now lashing out to find someone else to blame. The only prediction made by the previous Secretary of State that has come true is the prediction that Network Rail would be a not-for-profit company. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, with losses running into the billions, there is no chance of Network Rail defying its instructions to avoid a profit?
A few months ago, as the Secretary of State will recall, the Opposition did not criticise Network Rail when it chose to take a few of the rail maintenance contracts in-house. It said then that it wanted to be able to compare private and in-house capabilities. We agreed that that was sensible. So why, just months later, are there to be no private sector comparators at all? Why has it broken its word, given categorically in private and public, that it absolutely would not take all contracts in-house? Why, for the second time in two years, has a Secretary of State come to this House to announce an act of expropriation, planned at dead of night, acted on without consultation and forced through without regard for previous arrangements and understandings? Why, once again, are shareholders seeing their assets confiscated, their business destroyed and their investments sharply reduced in value, all without much, if any, compensation? Last time round, the Secretary of State at the time was forced by City pressure to provide compensation in the end to Railtrack shareholders at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. Will the taxpayer end up paying extra compensation to the shareholders of the rail maintenance companies this time? Given that his predecessor was proven categorically wrong when he repeatedly ruled out compensation, why should anyone believe any assurances that the present Secretary of State makes on that point today?
Is not the truth that in 1997 our rail system was very far from perfect, but it was self-financing? It had the largest amount of new rolling stock on order for a generation; it was expanding rapidly; and it ran many more trains on time then than now. Under this Government, the rail industry is set to consume over £5 billion a year of taxpayer's money; has the smallest number of forward rolling stock orders in more than 20
164
years; has had to scrap the majority of its expansion plans; and does not plan to get back to 1997 levels of punctuality until 2010 at the earliest? Is not today's announcement absolute proof that this Government do not have a clue how to deliver value for money, and are simply taxing and spending and failing? On the railways, as in so many other areas, Labour isn't working—again.
Mr. Darling: I find it curious that the hon. Gentleman started by welcoming the statement, but as he went on and on, he told us more and more why it might be better to go back to the old days of Railtrack and the botched privatisation that his party left us.
In relation to railway costs, over the last few years, especially since the time of Hatfield, it has become glaringly apparent that successive Governments have not invested enough in the railway infrastructure in this country. If I may illustrate that to the House, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before the previous Government started the privatisation, British Rail used to reckon on having to upgrade or replace about 500 miles of track a year. In the run-up to privatisation, because investment dried up, that renewal figure dropped to about 300 miles a year. After privatisation, it dropped to 200 miles a year. It is therefore not surprising that trains and track operators are now encountering the difficulties of lines that were not maintained properly.
Unfortunately, this country must meet those bills, and must ensure that the railway network operates efficiently. What is equally clear, however, is that we need to do that at a cost that can be justified. I have made it clear on many occasions that the railway industry must cut its costs—that is the central point of the Network Rail decision. The contracts that were set up—not even by Network Rail, as they were imposed by the last Tory Government—provided that maintenance work was to be farmed out to companies on the basis that they decided what to do, when to do it, and that it was done on a cost-plus basis. Those companies could therefore decide what they did and send the bill to Railtrack, as it then was, and it would then have to be met. That is not an efficient way to run the railways. Therefore, in relation to the hon. Gentleman's complaint about getting costs under control, the whole structure that was set up in relation to Railtrack and rail maintenance following privatisation did not work. That is why Network Rail was right to change it.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the proposal was an idea that had been planned overnight. Network Rail took over in October last year. For the last few months, it has publicly been looking at the nature of these maintenance contracts. The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the fact that three contracts were taken back in-house because Network Rail wanted to find out what was going on. It found out that the unit costs of doing work could vary dramatically—by up to 60 per cent., I am told—in similar parts of the country, and that work was not being done in the way that it would expect. In other words, the company—Railtrack—was not being well run. Of course it makes sense to change that.
It is interesting that when the hon. Gentleman was listing all the people for whom he felt sorry, not once did the word "passenger" cross his lips. That speaks volumes about the Tories' attitude to the railway.

165
[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] We all listened to what he said. He seemed more concerned about the fate of Railtrack than about passengers who use the railway.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the railways, we are replacing more track than has been replaced for many years. For example, the west coast main line is being completely—[Interruption.] It is being redone because it has not been properly maintained since the 1960s. Yes, the Labour party was in power for part of that time, but the Tory Government did nothing about it for 18 years.
The hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that forward railway orders were the lowest they have been for some time. We are replacing nearly 40 per cent. of all rolling stock within a five-year period, which never happened under the Tory Government.
Mr. Collins: Tory orders.
Mr. Darling: Tory orders indeed! The work that is being done on the railways is only possible because this Government have agreed to spend public and private money amounting to £180 billion over ten years. Money is going into the railways and we are confident for the future of the railways. The announcement is designed to ensure that money is spent to give the best possible benefit to passengers and taxpayers generally. The measure will put in place proper management for the railways to replace the mess with which the last Tory Government left us.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I must say to my right hon. Friend that his statement is very good news. It is the kind of news, which happens every once in a while, that you do not have to spin. It is so self-evident that it is a good idea—so much so that the RMT chief, Bob Crow, is on board, Transport 2000 is acclaiming it and every passenger who was interviewed said that it was great news. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will probably say the same thing. If my right hon. Friend needs any help to accelerate the process, may I tell him that since he stood up, I have gathered 25 signed letters to ask him to keep the momentum going? Well done.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, although I shall resist the temptation to say much more in case we fall out. I very much appreciate what he says. I can only assume that the Conservative Benches are so thinly attended because Conservative Members are away writing their own letters.
John Thurso: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the statement. It has been patently obvious that the arrangements that were put in place for the maintenance of the railways since privatisation were wholly botched and completely inadequate. Contractorisation has been a failure. I therefore welcome the statement, and Network Rail and the Government's recognition of a need for change. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no doubt that the recent spate of incidents on both the railway and the tube have not only proved that point but, critically, severely damaged the public's confidence in the rail network?
166
Although I welcome the statement and its implications, I have several serious concerns. Given the nature and speed of the decision, can the Secretary of State assure us that the threat of legal action by contractors will not lead to bloated pay-offs to contractors for shoddy work? Does he agree that it is imperative that a culture of safety first be restored to the railways? Given that Network Rail's deputy chief executive conceded that culture change was a serious problem, what can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the change takes place? How will the Government help to restore the public's confidence because we still have the safest railways in Europe and it is vital for that confidence to be restored? The Secretary of State stated that a saving of £300 million will flow from the changes, so will he assure the House that that saving will be spent on tackling the maintenance backlog to which he rightly referred, and not lost on other cost rises? Finally, to paraphrase 1 Corinthians 13, the travelling public deserve a safe, reliable and affordable transport system, but the greatest of these must be safety.
Mr. Darling: No one would doubt that safety is paramount. Safety, and the culture of safety, ought to be in with the bricks. It is not an added extra and should be taken as a given, as it is in the airline industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's more general points, our overground and underground railways suffer from the same problem of decades of under-investment. Many, although not all, of the problems that we encounter are rooted in the lack of money for the railways, which meant that they were not properly maintained and renewed. I am not making a party political point. Successive Governments have been at fault. No doubt Gladstone was a bit remiss as well. However, the public have every right to have confidence in the railway system. It is a safe form of transport—safer than cars and some other modes of travel. We are renewing and improving it. There are no quick fixes, but it will get better year on year provided that we keep up the investment and, crucially, provided that the industry gets a grip of costs. Costs got out of control under Railtrack. They need to be got back under control so that for every £1 we spend we get a £ 1-worth of benefit.
On confidence, it is worth reflecting on the fact that Britain's railways carry more people today than at any time since 1947, despite a tenfold increase in car ownership. So the railways can be popular. People expect the Government to ensure that the system is in place to deliver better railways.
On two minor points, first, it is for Network Rail to sort out legal action with its contractors. Secondly, on savings, the hon. Gentleman will have seen that Network Rail has produced a range of proposals, all designed to reduce significantly the costs of maintaining the railway. People do not begrudge the money going to the railway system, but they want to ensure that it is properly spent.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will realise that passengers and the general public will be highly delighted by this announcement. It is long overdue. People have found it difficult to understand why the enormous sums of money that the Government committed were wasted by

167
being poured into contracts that were demonstrably not doing the job. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new organisation, Network Rail, will not only maintain high standards, but be used as a benchmark for other parts of the railway industry where it is clear that contractors have been taking on the taxpayer in the most outrageous way and need to be curbed?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. I said in my statement that this is not about whether contractors should be used, because many of them are involved in the railways and other parts of the transport industry. What is crucial, however, is to get the nature of the agreement right so that we are very clear about what is supposed to be delivered and what we are supposed to be paying for it. We need to ensure that for every £1 we spend on the railways we get £1-worth of benefit. That is what the announcement is all about. Having decided to take the maintenance in-house, it is up to Network Rail to ensure that it runs a tight, efficient and disciplined organisation that shows that we are getting a better deal out of the railways. If it can do that, it will continue to enjoy our support.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why did the Secretary of State deal with only part of the problem of railway maintenance? Is he not aware that the travelling public are gravely concerned by the deterioration of railway maintenance standards on the London underground system? He mentioned the failure of Jarvis to carry out track-laying work in the Cheadle area. Why is it that Network Rail has to take over that obligation from Jarvis on the west coast main line, yet Jarvis remains, as far as the Government are concerned, happily part of the infrastructure companies that are responsible for maintaining the London underground system? Is it not the case that the railway system run by London Underground is full of contractual complexities and unclear reporting procedures as a result of the public-private partnership, which is clearly not working?
Mr. Darling: I see that since I last replied to a Conservative Member, even more of them have gone off to write their letters. There is only a handful left.
Perhaps I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, but I am surprised to hear him speak out so strongly against the use of contractors and the private sector. I should have thought, sitting as he does on the Conservative Benches, that he would not be so dismissive. The position with London Underground is different because the nature of the contracts is different. Its contracts with the infrastructure companies specify what has to be delivered. Contractors are paid according to outcomes rather than on a cost-plus basis, which is the basis of the overland contracts let by Railtrack. The only similarity is the lack of investment in both the overground and underground systems. Some £16 billion-worth of investment is going in over the next 15 years. It is just a great pity that that work was not started years ago, perhaps even when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government.
Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will recall that I spent 19 years working in the railway industry before arriving in the House. I commend him on his analysis and correct interpretation of the industry's history. That stands in stark contrast to the strange view of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who should probably get out a hit more to see the legacy left by earlier policies. Under privatisation, the railway was designed for failure rather than the success towards which my right hon. Friend is working. Will he commend early-day motion 1808, which I tabled, because it supports the substance of his statement?
Mr. Darling: I shall break my daily habit and read the early-day motion to see what it has to say. My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in the railway industry and he devotes a considerable amount of time to promoting the railways in his work in the House. He is right, of course: the key to a successful railway is money and management. Both must be right. In relation to money, the Opposition's problem is that their tax-and-spend policies do not add up, as they well know. That is why they cannot give commitments on investment in the railways.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: I agree with the Secretary of State's analysis and direction of travel. I am concerned, however, that my constituents' experience of Network Rail has been less than encouraging. I refer in particular to its management of the erection of masts and track-side clearance programmes in my constituency, which contains Cheadle Hulme. Is Network Rail up to the job? Will the Government take a clear lead in ensuring that future work by Network Rail is up to the standard that the public expect? So far, the public's experience in my constituency is that Network Rail is not managed well. It needs to be managed considerably better.
Mr. Darling: As there has been a lot of talk about letter writing, may I suggest that the hon. Lady raises specific concerns about track-side clearance and radio masts with the management of Network Rail—if not locally, then nationally. I am sure that the chief executive will be happy to co-operate. On her central question, most people have been greatly encouraged by the way in which the new management team at Network Rail is getting to grips with the problems it inherited.
Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pleasure to hear that a service can be provided at a lower price, and more efficiently and effectively, in the public sector? Does he also agree that the move away from contractorisation is good in the circumstances? Will he say something to the long-suffering passengers on the west coast main line who take four and sometimes five hours at weekends to do a journey that 30 years ago took two and a half?
Mr. Darling: Network Rail is a private company. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is still a member of the Public Accounts Committee, but, if she is, she will know that it conducted an examination of Network Rail.
I fully understand the frustration of people who travel on the west coast main line at the moment. Unfortunately, the very act of maintaining it, improving

169
it and renewing large sections of it can be disruptive. I travelled on that line only a couple of weeks ago, and I understand that frustration full well. However, when the first phase of the work is completed at the end of next year, it will cut the running time between Manchester and London to just over two hours and allow four trains an hour to run to Birmingham. When the work is fully completed at the end of 2007, it will take almost an hour off the running time from Glasgow to London. It will make for a far better, more efficient railway. Unfortunately, just as with roads, when one starts maintaining or improving, there is inevitably disruption while the work is carried out.
The other thing is that, as my hon. Friend will know, on large parts of the west coast main line there is new, improved rolling stock, and when the work is completed people will say that it ought to have been done years ago and they are glad that it has been done.
Bob Spink: The right hon. Gentleman may know that reliability on the London-Tilbury-Southend line has been increasing recently, and although that is welcome there are still major problems due to maintenance difficulties on overhead cables, signals and track. Can he guarantee that the reliability on that line will continue to improve, and, if it does not, will he return the maintenance contract to the private sector? Can some of the £300 million savings be spent on providing a new terminus for Canvey Island?
Mr. Darling: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the amount being spent on the railway network is increasing. Some years ago, the London-Tilbury line was having real problems and was a source of constant frustration. It was mentioned on just about every radio programme that I can remember. It is an example of what happens when two things, money and management, are put in. That is what makes a difference to the railways.
As far as the future is concerned, the whole point of Network Rail's announcement is to try to improve maintenance and management so that we can drive up reliability. Make no mistake about this: reliability is improving but it still has a long way to go before people will say that it is satisfactory. Nobody in the industry should be in any doubt that increasing reliability and controlling costs are the two major priorities.
Mr. George Stevenson: Has my right hon. Friend noted that Network Rail's decision has been widely welcomed by everyone except, it seems, the Tories? Given the decision, is there not now a compelling logic that renewals should be treated in the same fashion, for two reasons? First, maintenance and renewals are vital sides of the same coin, and the effectiveness of one activity has a profound effect on the other. Secondly, those companies involved in renewals are the same private companies that have let us down so badly on maintenance.
Mr. Darling: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, for the reasons that I made clear in my statement. The problem here was not private contractors working on the railway. I am not against that; I do not know my hon. Friend's view on that but I know that some people find it difficult to accept. The problem was the
170
maintenance contract. It was cost-plus, which is almost an invitation for a company to say, "Well, I'll go off and do what I want, and I'll send you the bill." It is the sort of arrangement that contractors in other industries can only dream of. Contracts for renewal work are similar to those for building a new motorway. The job is specified, tendered for and contracted for, and the contract sets out what is to be done and what the price is. There is a distinction there.
I made it clear last Friday, when I was asked about these matters, that the partnership on the railways between the public and private sectors is generally a good thing, not least because it brings in substantial investment. If that investment was not available, the Government would have to make up the difference. In addition, I think that having contractors for renewals can work perfectly well, provided that we get the contracts right.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Network Rail's announcement has been widely welcomed in Wales and Scotland, as I am sure the Secretary of State knows. However, there will be some disappointment about what he has just said about upgrading and renewal work, because several projects in Wales, including the Cambrian mid-Wales line, have been on hold for some two years, not because the private contractors or the required sums are not available but because Network Rail does not have the engineering capacity to deal with those developments. What assurances can the Secretary of State give the House and rail passengers that Network Rail's capacity to deal not only with maintenance but with renewals will be sufficient in the forthcoming years?
Mr. Darling: I am aware that the announcement was welcomed in Scotland and Wales. It is curious that nationalists always have a problem with mentioning England, but the announcement was welcomed there as well. The hon. Gentleman and those who sit alongside him find that when they mention England, something happens to them. It is rather like what happens when Europe is mentioned by Tory Members: they come over all queer.
The hon. Gentleman's central point was a good one. It is necessary for the industry to grow its capacity to do the amount of work that is now being commissioned, and that is true of other industries. After many years of chronic under-investment, we are now putting in money to get improvements on the railway network, and of course that has led to pressures in capacity. I know that Network Rail is reflecting on how it might deal with that.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I have said to my right hon. Friend in the past that cost increases for renewals since privatisation have been slightly higher than those for maintenance, so I wonder whether he will be revisiting the matter in a few months to tell us about renewals. I also ask him to consider whether this might be a staging post on the way to recreating a publicly owned state railway, comparable to those on the continent, which work so well and put us to shame.
Mr. Darling: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. As I said on Friday, the idea that if we went back to British Rail we would sort out all the problems that we face is not right. Many people in the House, including, and I am not being rude, my hon. Friend, will remember the days of British Rail and the fact that it was deficient in a number of respects.
Mr. Hopkins: That was under-investment.
Mr. Darling: It was not just under-investment; it was its management and, sometimes, its conspicuous lack of innovation for which British Rail could also be criticised.
I do not expect Network Rail to revisit long-term contracts, for the reasons that I stated earlier. Costs have gone up, and I suspect that the point comes back to what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said a moment ago: as capacity in the industry becomes tighter, it is not surprising that the price for which it is willing to do the work will increase. However, we have made it clear to the contractors—I made this point in relation to light rail at the last Transport questions—that the Government's view is not that we will pay whatever it takes, at any price; what matters is that we get the best possible price. In the case of this announcement, we need to be concerned with the nature of the contracts, and Network Rail made it clear that maintenance contracts were inefficient and needed to be changed, and that is why they are to be changed.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State focus on the tragic Potters Bar rail crash of May 2002? The train, as he knows, was en route to my constituency; a number of people were killed and many others were injured. Does he agree that the Health and Safety Executive report was inconclusive, so much so that the contractor is still saying that there may have been an element of sabotage? Surely the only way to move forward and clear everything up is to hold a full public inquiry. Why has the right hon. Gentleman turned down that suggestion up to now?
Mr. Darling: The HSE said that it can find no evidence of sabotage in the Potters Bar accident, and so far as I am aware nobody has found any evidence of sabotage. The last HSE report was pretty clear about the cause of the accident, and in the absence of any evidence the question of sabotage does not really arise.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed throughout the country. Does he agree that the way in which the contracts were imposed on the industry fragmented the old safety culture, which is an important ingredient for efficiency in any industry? Does he further agree that the example of the railways would indicate that the country can no longer afford the outsourcing of public maintenance?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will have heard what I said about maintenance and the fact that Network Rail is going to deal with it, but I will say a couple of things
172
about safety. Understandably, concern has been expressed about safety following recent accidents. In each case, it is important to look at the cause of accident and then decide what needs to be done, but a general point should be made arising from the points made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). The railways are generally a safe form of transport, and we should remember that they are a lot safer now than they were 30 years ago. If we look, for example, at the number of people killed on the railways, particularly trackside workers, who are sometimes overlooked by commentators, we see that safety has been getting better year on year. There are still things that need to be addressed—they are being addressed by the industry—but it is important that we send a clear message to the public. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been some serious accidents—we must look at their cause and learn the lessons—the industry is generally getting safer.
Lembit Öpik: It has been exceedingly hard to secure investment in rural rail networks in mid-Wales. A farmer called Mal Phillips has been waiting seven years for bridge improvements, and the local rail user group has been waiting many years for track improvements to achieve a more frequent service. I have heard rumours that the Government might be willing to compromise rural services further to get major investment in other parts of the network, so will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be measurable improvement in investment in rural services, such as the one in mid-Wales, and that we will not have to suffer further decline as the Government seek to improve other services?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman does not have to bother himself with rumours. The proposal is for a more sensible approach to maintenance, such as the one for roads. Motorways, for example, are built and maintained to a different standard from B roads. The Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the regulator have been considering whether it is necessary to specify the same standard for rural lines as the one used for lines carrying 125 mph trains and freight every five minutes or so. It is far more sensible to look realistically at rural lines, which are often more likely to be used but do not carry such heavy trains. That brings me back to the central point of Network Rail's announcement last week: we need to manage our railways properly. Unfortunately, after privatisation that did not happen. The Conservatives were sometimes not sure what on earth they were trying to do, so it is not surprising that the solution on which they eventually alighted left us in the mess that we are in.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the Secretary of State's willingness to intervene in the public interest when the private sector fails to deliver an important public service, but is he satisfied that Jarvis remains the preferred bidder for renewals on the London north-eastern division, given its record of work on our railways?
Mr. Darling: I hate to fall out with my hon. Friend over her first point—as this statement goes on, I note that the glowing praise is fading somewhat—but the

173
decision announced by Network Rail last week was its decision alone: it was not one urged on it by Government. Of course, it kept us informed, but it was its decision—there was no intervention on my part. As for Jarvis, Network Rail will have to decide whom it will contract with, and it will no doubt want to take a range of matters into account. However, Ministers will intervene in that at all.
Simon Hughes: Like others, I believe that Network Rail's bringing together of maintenance will be as welcome for users of overground services in London as for people who travel in and out of the capital. However, to pursue the question asked by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), may we have further reassurance that inspection of maintenance will be well and truly independent from those who do the maintenance? The best technology in the world can provide ultrasound checking of track, so may we have an assurance that it will be available, perhaps through the Government facilitating a joint purchase by London Underground and Network Rail? May we also have a minimum passenger guarantee about the frequency of safety inspections on the overground and the underground?
Mr. Darling: I shall give a brief answer. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aware that London Underground is the Mayor's responsibility—he must have contemplated that when he decided to stand for the office of Mayor. London Underground also holds the safety case, and its management and, ultimately, the Mayor will decide what is appropriate.
John Cryer: The statement is the best news that the railways have had in many years, but will my right hon. Friend look again at bringing the train operating companies back into the public sector? The split between operators and infrastructure that the Tories gave the country is without precedent and is the root of a lot of problems on Britain's railways. Earlier, my right hon. Friend mentioned Gladstone. Is he aware that Gladstone was, in fact, in favour of a publicly owned railway system? In 1844, he tried to nationalise the railways, but could not get away with it because of the reactionaries of the time, whose heirs are now sitting on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Darling: Gladstone's tax-and-spend policy was at least coherent, which is more than can be said for today's Liberal party.
174
I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The train operating companies will continue to operate as they do at present. However, my hon. Friend does have a point—this was in Network Rail's announcement last week, but it was not picked up very much—about the railway being managed as a railway. It must be recognised that track and train are intimately related. That does not mean that private companies and train operating companies cannot work alongside Network Rail, but a better system of management is being put in place. At the moment, when something goes wrong, there is sometimes an argument between the train operating companies and the network operator about what ought to be done. That will change and there will be a single point of accountability so that if something goes wrong someone can decide how best to put it right.
The railways are receiving a high sustainable level of investment—£73 million a week from the Government, which is attracting a similar sum from the private sector. That is one reason why it would be a big mistake to remove private sector involvement.
Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend concur that the announcement should not have come as a surprise to anyone, least of all Opposition Front Benchers? Presumably, they attended Transport questions last week, when I asked my right hon. Friend:
"Is it not now time for Network Rail to take all maintenance in-house?"—[Official Report, 21 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 503.]
I have great confidence in my right hon. Friend, but I did not expect such a rapid response. He has denied responsibility for the decision but, if he did have any influence over it, will he accept the congratulations of the House on restoring common sense to rail maintenance and getting rid of market imperfection at its most barmy and dangerous?
Mr. Darling: I was acutely aware when my hon. Friend asked his question that I had to give an answer consistent with my duty to be straightforward with Parliament. The fact that nobody drew anything from my answer is a source of comfort to me. The credit should go to the management of Network Rail, who made the decision. The company is charged with running the railway network properly, and maintenance is, I believe, exactly the sort of thing that it ought to be doing. It is just a shame that we had to endure years of Railtrack before we reached that point.

Points of Order
1.18 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise an issue of which I gave you notice. This morning, the Treasury published details of long-postponed proposals on its child trust fund in a written statement. Notice of the statement, however, does not appear on today's Order Paper. In the Library, it was inserted in the list in manuscript form. Hon. Members were not notified of that additional statement, and noticed it only when they turned up at the Library to collect other statements.
The statement is an important publication, and Members will wish to be aware of it. Whatever the reason for its omission from the list, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take it up with the Department responsible, and ask why it sought neither to delay the statement nor to alert Members of its existence by other means?
The new procedures for written statements were introduced by the Government, despite the reservations of many in the House, yet the Government seem unable to comply with their own procedures, which were designed to alert Members to statements being made. Is this incident not further evidence of the contempt in which the Government hold the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. I am advised that the Treasury gave notice of the written ministerial statement yesterday, in the usual way. Unfortunately, due to an administrative mistake, the notice was not printed in the Order Paper this morning. I understand that the statement and the related documents are now available to Members in the Library and the Vote Office.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to draw to the attention of the Editor of Hansard, and to instigate an investigation of, a curious, bald but unattributed statement that appears at column 1122 in Hansard for 18 September under the heading "Royal Assent"? The statement reads:
"Anyone would think that the constitution of this country was the personal chattel of the Prime Minister and his cronies."—[Official Report, 18 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 1122.]
There is no apparent attribution of the statement. It appears there in all its bald significance. It might be an illicit entry. It could have been hacked into the system. It certainly does not look as though it has come from Buckingham palace.
Mr. Speaker: The statement was brought to my attention at the time and I made arrangements to have the matter corrected. It has been corrected.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (COMMENCEMENT)
    Paul Flynn presented a Bill to amend the date of commencement of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed. [Bill 169].

Non-Prescription Contact Lenses
1.21 pm
John Robertson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reclassify non-prescription contact lenses as medical devices; and to restrict their sale so that they can only be sold by, or under the supervision of, a registered doctor or optician.
The fad for coloured or patterned contact lenses, which alter the colour of the wearer's eyes, is a relatively new one, especially among young people, and that may be why we have yet to introduce legislation that adequately regulates their sale. As Plano—or cosmetic—lenses retail for about £25, they are a relatively affordable fashion accessory, and it is estimated that 90,000 people in the UK have used them. Such lenses have been popularised by sports stars who have worn Union jack lenses while representing their country, and by rock stars such as Marilyn Manson, whose scary white eye has become a popular style to emulate. In addition to patterned lenses, there are coloured lenses that intensify the natural colour of the eye or change it entirely.
The law as it stands allows people of all ages to buy fashion or cosmetic lenses over the internet, by mail order or in fashion accessory stores, without any consultation to establish whether the wearer is suitable for contact lens use. There is no requirement for regular check-ups and ongoing after-care, nor is there practical advice or proper guidance on inserting, removing, cleaning, storing and caring for the lenses.
The risks of infection for all wearers of contact lenses, both corrective and cosmetic, are high because lenses stop the cornea getting enough oxygen, thereby allowing the water layer on top to stagnate. That can lead to deposits of bacteria and dirt on the lens surface. Of course, there are guidelines for the use and care of lenses that, if followed accurately, can minimise the chances of infection. That is very important.
Failure to adhere to the guidelines can result in a range of infections and conditions such as microbial keratitis, a condition in which the cornea becomes inflamed after infection by bacteria, fungi or amoebae; interference with colour perception and binocular vision; and acanthamoeba, which can lead to ulceration of the cornea, and ultimately to blindness. Contact lens wearers who do not follow the care instructions are up to 80 times more likely to develop eye disease.
I am not for a moment suggesting that we stop young people wearing such lenses, but rather that they should have to buy them face to face with someone who knows what they are talking about. We need to emphasise the fact that although cosmetic lenses are fashion accessories, they are still intended for personal use, in the same way as corrective lenses. Ultimately, we need to stress that the overwhelming risks of non-adherence to hygiene instructions are very real for all types of lenses.
Although care instructions are issued with cosmetic lenses, they are no substitute for a qualified eye-care professional conducting a proper fitting and explaining how to use and care for lenses. Research suggests that many people pay little attention to written instructions and may give them only a cursory glance in their haste

177
to try the new lenses. I do not believe that men have a special gene or something in their biological make-up that gives them an aversion to following instructions, but I cannot think of many people whose first instinct, when faced with a new and exciting purchase, is to dive straight for instruction booklet before they have a go at figuring out how their new purchase works, particularly when small pictures are shown on the instruction leaflet.
Pre-sale assessment needs to be made a requirement for the initial supply of fashion lenses, and regular check-ups should take place before additional lenses can be supplied, in the same way as is required for corrective lenses. Why? First, a wearer needs to be assessed to ensure that they are suitable for contact lens use, and that the lenses that they seek to buy fit properly. According to the Royal National Institute of the Blind, more than 17 million people in the UK do not have regular eye tests, and the problem of irreparable damage is exacerbated if people harm their eyes by using lenses incorrectly without supervision and assessment.
If people buy lenses over the counter from a shop or through mail order, their suitability for wearing them will not be assessed. If the lenses do not fit properly, they can damage the surface of the cornea. If they are not inserted or removed properly, the risk of transfer of infection is greatly increased. Inserting and removing lenses for the first time is tricky and takes practice to get right. It needs a specialist to show new wearers how to do it, to encourage them when, at first, they get it wrong, and to answer any questions they may have.
There are different techniques for removing contact lenses. The traditional way of removing the lens between one's thumb and forefinger is hopeless if one has long fingernails, but there are alternatives to get around the problem, and these can easily be demonstrated. Having an eye-care professional instructing and supervising makes the world of difference.
If lenses are not cleaned and stored properly, the risk of infection is increased. I have heard of cases where people washed their lenses with water, or kept them in while swimming, which is not quite as grotesque as some of the risks that I have described. However, lenses are affected by the differences in water hardness throughout the country, which can lead to AK—acanthamoeba keratitis—a rare condition that initially causes irritation, but can lead to loss of sight in serious cases. The General Optical Council cited instances where lenses were stored in cases that were full of mould. If people are not required to attend a check-up before more lenses can be issued, infection may not be detected until permanent damage has been done.
More worryingly, I uncovered disturbing incidents of teenagers swapping lenses with friends—often at parties, among a group of friends—which obviously
178
greatly increases the risk of cross-infection. The dangers need to be stressed and stressed again at the point of sale. Worse still, I have received reports of untrained shop assistants demonstrating how to wear the lenses on themselves, before selling them on.
It is unsurprising that the call to regulate the sale of cosmetic lenses has been backed by professional bodies such as the General Optical Council, the RNIB, the Eyecare Trust, the Association of British Dispensing Opticians, the Association of Optometrists, the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians, the College of Optometrists, and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, as well as by a number of opticians who have treated people with infections caused by using novelty lenses, and by individuals who contacted me after being adversely affected.
I realise that it is rare for ten-minute Bills to advance much further than First Reading, but there is a real need for legislation on the issue. I understand that the Department of Health is planning to start a consultation this year and I hope that it will act soon. If my Bill fails to complete its passage, amendment of the Opticians Act 1989 would be a good place for the Department to start. Section 4 of the 1989 Act, which deals with sale of lenses, is wholly inadequate and is ripe for amendment. Under the terms of the Act, the sale and supply of contact lenses
"must be undertaken by, or under the supervision of, registered medical practitioners or registered optometrists".
The key issue is how the courts define the word "supervision". My Bill or any other that is introduced to amend legislation on these matters would apply throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill would cover Scotland, as health professionals are a reserved matter.
Is it not time to introduce legislation to protect those who, through no fault of their own, do not know any better?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by John Robertson, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Bill Tynan, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Peter Duncan, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. David Drew, John Mann, Syd Rapson and Dr. Ian Gibson.

Non-Prescription Contact Lenses
  NON-PRESCRIPTION CONTACT LENSES
  John Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to reclassify non-prescription contact lenses as medical devices; and to restrict their sale so that they can only be sold by, or under the supervision of, a registered doctor or optician: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 170].
Orders of the Day
  Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 18

      JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: ENGLAND
      '(1) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must, at all times after the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, have for the area a joint strategy for the management of—

      (a) waste from households, and

      (b) other waste that, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from households.

      (2) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must keep under review the policies formulated by them for the purposes of subsection (1).

      (3) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must, before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), carry out such consultation as they consider appropriate.

      (4) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must set out in a statement any policy formulated by them for the purposes of subsection (1).

      (5) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must—

      (a) when formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), and

      (b) when preparing a statement under subsection (4), have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State.

      (6) The waste authorities for a two-tier area in Greater London must, when formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), have regard to the Mayor of London's municipal waste management strategy or, where that strategy has been revised, to that strategy as revised.

      (7) Where the waste authorities for a two-tier area prepare a statement under subsection (4)—

      (a) they must take such steps as in their opinion will give adequate publicity in the area to the statement;

      (b) they must send a copy of the statement—

      (i) to each of the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency, and

      (ii) if the area is in Greater London, to the Mayor of London;

      (c) each of the authorities must keep a copy of the statement available at all reasonable times at one of its offices for inspection by the public free of charge; and

      (d) each of the authorities must supply a copy of the statement to any person who requests one, on payment by the person of such reasonable charge as the authority requires.

      (8) Where subsection (1) is satisfied in relation to a two-tier area by policies set out in a statement prepared before the coming into force of that subsection—

      (a) it does not matter that the policies were not formulated for the purposes of subsection (1), but

      (b) subsection (2) shall apply as though the policies were formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).

      (9) Subsection (3) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of that subsection.

      (10) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for subsection (1) to apply, in relation to a two-tier area specified or described in the regulations, with the substitution for "18 months" of some longer period.

      180

      (11) A statutory instrument that contains regulations under subsection (10) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

      (12) In section 353 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (Mayor's duty to prepare municipal waste management strategy), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

      "(3A) In revising the municipal waste management strategy the Mayor is to have regard to any strategies which authorities in Greater London have for the purposes of section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England) of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (joint waste management strategies for areas where disposal authority is not also collection authority).".'.—[Mr. Morley.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.32 pm
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 19—Power to disapply duties under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England).
      Government new clause 20—Interpretation of Chapter 3.
      Government new clause 21—Repeal of duty to prepare recycling plans in England and Wales.
      Amendment No. 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, after `authority', insert
      'taking into account that there can be no separation of responsibilities between district, or county council.'.
      Amendment No. 31, in clause 10, page 8, line 3, after 'authority', insert
      'taking into account that there can be no separation of responsibilities between district, or county council'.
      Government amendments Nos. 44 to 46 and 48 to 58.
      Mr. Morley: I shall speak to the new clauses and to the Government amendments, but I am also happy to give the Government's views on amendments Nos. 16 and 31.
      The new clauses and amendments deal with joint working between waste collection and disposal authorities in two-tier areas. I know that that issue was discussed in Committee. I did not have the opportunity to serve on the Committee, but I followed its proceedings with interest. There was constructive discussion among all those involved on the important issues before us. For the convenience of the House, I shall set out some of the background.
      The White Paper "Waste Strategy 2000" makes it clear that, to tackle waste management effectively, we need to develop constructive working relationships between the different tiers of waste authorities. That is not an unreasonable or controversial point. The strategy unit's 2002 report "Waste not, Want not" made the same point and recommended that the Government consider putting joint municipal waste management strategies on to a statutory footing. In our response to that report, we accepted that recommendation in principle, although in line with our wish to reduce burdens on local authorities, we have also sought to explore other incentives, short of legislation, to encourage joint working.

      181
      In speaking to the new clauses and amendments, I am fulfilling the promises made by Lord Whitty in another place and by the previous Minister for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), that the Government would bring before the House their proposals to effect a statutory requirement for joint municipal waste management strategies. New clause 18 introduces a new requirement for all waste authorities in a two-tier area to consult on and prepare a statement on a joint strategy for the management of household waste and other similar waste within 18 months of the day on which Royal Assent is received. That strategy must be adequately publicised and kept under review. Again, that is not an unreasonable requirement. There are special features for London involving amendments to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 requiring the Mayor of London, in revising his waste management strategy, to have regard to any joint municipal waste strategies produced by authorities in Greater London.
      In accordance with the Government's wider approach to performance management, including the provision of freedoms and flexibilities for higher performers, we have tailored the new clause to ensure that it targets the authorities and areas that most need to improve their performance on waste.
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister tell us a little more about high performers and the sort of freedoms and liberties that will apply to them?
      Mr. Morley: I am happy to do so. New clause 19 gives the Secretary of State power to exempt through regulations an authority whose performance is satisfactory. In accordance with the Government's wider undertaking to remove planning requirements on excellent authorities, we will exempt all authorities that are categorised as excellent under the comprehensive performance assessment, as well as those whose performance on waste is satisfactory with regard to defined targets.
      New clause 19 also enables the Secretary of State to provide for the exemption of two-tier areas. We plainly wish to implement the provisions in a way that avoids placing unnecessary burdens on authorities, while ensuring that, where authorities need to work together more effectively in planning for the exercise of their functions, there is an obligation for them to do so.
      Norman Baker: Surely, there will be most difficulties in agreeing a strategy where there is a need to work together more closely, perhaps because of division between a county and boroughs and districts. What mechanisms will deal with circumstances in which forward-looking districts such as Lewes and Wealden, and Rother for all I know, want to formulate a good strategy, while an antediluvian county council such as East Sussex does not?
      Mr. Morley: I cannot comment on individual councils, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of his local area is greater than mine. None the less, I can say that there will be a duty for co-operation in relation to a joint strategy. He will be aware that, on top of that, the waste collection authorities are
      182
      set a number of targets and responsibilities in relation to the waste strategy. Of course, the Bill also places obligations on the disposal authorities.
      All those involved have their own responsibilities. The disposal authority can also make directions to the collection authorities, and they will be binding. Thus, a range of measures provides a strong incentive for agreeing the joint strategy. The thrust of the new clauses is not to provoke division among local authorities or different tiers, but to bring about co-operation between them. Surely that is better than division.
      Gregory Barker: Let me pick up on the valid points made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). Where the collection authority has a clear strategy to increase the amount of waste that is recycled, but the disposal authority has entered into long-term contracts to provide waste to an incinerator, there will be not only philosophical differences between their interests, but economic ones. I do not see in the proposals a sufficiently robust legal strategy to enable such bodies to work together where there are genuine differences.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is leading us on to other amendments and new clauses dealing with issues such as incineration. Of course, different circumstances will apply where a waste authority has an existing incineration strategy as part of its policies. Such a strategy will involve a considerable capital investment, and the collection authorities will have to work with the waste authority on a joint strategy that takes that into account. There may be other cases in which the disposal authority wishes to consider incineration. In those cases, we would expect them jointly to consider with the collection authorities the most appropriate way forward in relation to disposal policies, which may include incineration. We want discussion and consultation to take place between all those involved in developing the joint strategy.
      Mr. John Bercow: My inquiry is altogether more prosaic than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). Under subsection (11) of new clause 18 and subsection (6) of new clause 19, the Government apparently propose that regulations should be subject to the negative procedure of the House rather than to its affirmative counterpart. If that is so, can the Minister enlighten me as to how there will be an opportunity to debate the contents of those regulations?
      Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that issue has already been independently scrutinised. As far as I know, the use of negative or affirmative procedures was not queried. He will also be aware that negative procedures are fairly common. Personally, I am fairly relaxed about which procedure is used. There are reasons why legislation is sometimes implemented by negative rather than affirmative procedure; those reasons are separately scrutinised by the various Committees.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can the Minister direct me to any part of the Bill or the amendments that deals with dispute resolution? Where

      183
      two elected authorities are both concerned with the collection and disposal of waste, that gives rise to a problem if one authority pursues one strategy while the other pursues a different one. Furthermore, the Bill contains penalties. How are those to be divided up between the two authorities; and what system is there to resolve any dispute between them?
      Mr. Morley: That is a rather complex series of questions. I am happy to deal with them, but it might be better to do so as I outline the meaning and implications of the amendments. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have missed a point, he must feel free to intervene.
      Norman Baker rose—
      Mr. Morley: I shall give way, but I should like to make some progress.
      Norman Baker: I understand that the Minister wants to make progress, but this is an important issue. No one can deny that the joint strategy is right in concept, but the final decision—the whip hand—is given to disposal authorities, which can issue a direction. It is therefore possible—in fact, likely—that a scenario will arise whereby a waste collection authority wants to perform in a way that is more akin to the Government's waste strategy than that of the waste disposal authority. That could create a ludicrous situation in which the waste disposal authority issues a direction to require the waste collection authority to behave in a way that is further away from the Government's intentions. That cannot be right.
      Mr. Morley: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman seems to be assuming that all waste collection and disposal authorities will be at each other's throats. That is not so. It is true that disagreements may arise and that directions can be given by the disposal authority to the collection authority. That is why there has to be a system: the amendments address that.
      The hon. Gentleman argues that one authority might be trying to implement strategies that are much more in line than those of others with what the Government want. The answer to that is that all waste collection authorities will work to a series of targets, especially on recycling and re-use. That is sometimes forgotten. Some of the discussion that took place in Committee, particularly on incineration, seemed to overlook the fact that waste authorities cannot simply do exactly what they like: they have obligations in relation to recycling, re-use and reducing the amount of biological waste. In that sense, they operate within a framework that provides certain disciplines—it is not a complete free-for-all.
      The hon. Gentleman must also recognise that we are committed to giving as much freedom as we can to local authorities in coming together to determine the most effective strategy for their area by taking into account their local circumstances and needs. We do not want to be too prescriptive in terms of taking tight, centralised control, but we do want a framework for delivering targets in relation to fulfilling our commitment to
      184
      sustainability and to meeting our obligations in line with various directives. The amendments strike that balance: I shall outline some of the reasoning behind them.
      1.45 pm
      On the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) raised about exempting local authorities, we plan to give some exemptions in the form of freedoms to those that hit the excellence targets. That is not unreasonable. We have to take into account the possibility that some authorities might go backwards at a later stage, so there must be a facility whereby exemptions granted to authorities whose performance drops below the levels that we would expect are withdrawn. Even then, we would expect them to have a period in which they could improve their performance before being required to produce the strategy. We are trying to be flexible in dealing with that by tailoring the requirements to enable us to target those areas that need to improve their waste performance, while refraining from placing unnecessary burdens on authorities that are performing well.
      New clause 20 defines what is meant by a two-tier area. New clause 21 repeals the requirement for waste collection authorities in England and Wales to prepare and publish a waste recycling plan in accordance with section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It also provides certain consequential repeals in relation to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. That is a clear example of our desire to remove unnecessary and ineffective burdens on local authorities while expecting them to have in place appropriate arrangements for strategic planning of their waste management functions. That strategic planning is vital in moving towards more sustainable forms and in helping us to meet our ambitious targets for composting and recycling.
      Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 remove certain powers to make regulations, and certain references to the duty under section 49 of the 1990 Act to produce a waste recycling plan, from clause 29, which concerns municipal waste management strategies for Wales. The repeal of section 49 of the 1990 Act through new clause 21 negates the need for those references.
      The remaining amendments relate to the commencement and extent of new clauses 18 to 21.
      The Government believe that these provisions, together with clause 31, give waste disposal authorities the power to direct waste collection authorities about the separation of waste and address the concerns that influenced Opposition amendments Nos. 16 and 31, the purpose of which is to require allocating authorities to take into account that there can be
      "no separation of responsibilities between district, or county councils"
      when making an allocation of allowances authorising the sending of biodegradable municipal waste to landfills under clause 4(1) and appointing a person to be the monitoring authority for its area under clause 10(1). There is clearly a genuine functional division of responsibilities in two-tier areas, because waste collection is carried out at district level and waste disposal is carried out by the county council. If the Bill is to succeed in its aim of ensuring that the UK meets its targets under the landfill directive, it is important that we have a clear ownership of responsibility. To that end,

      185
      obligations to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill are imposed on the disposal authorities, whether unitary or county, as those authorities are responsible for the final disposal of waste, and therefore for sending waste to landfill. That touches on the point that was raised about who is responsible for any financial penalties.
      I understand the reasoning behind the amendments in relation to where responsibilities and potential financial penalties fall. The Bill, however, necessarily works by imposing duties on the disposal authorities. As I have explained, we have already catered for the consequences in two-tier areas, and I do not think amendments Nos. 16 and 31 will help in that regard. I hope that in the light of my explanation they will not be pressed to a vote.
      The Government's preferred approach, as I have stressed, is to encourage waste collection and disposal authorities to tackle waste management together, while taking account of the distinct role that each tier plays.
      Mr. Sayeed: If, as we all assume, the Bill's purpose is to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, why does the strategy not encompass waste minimisation? Moreover, the Bill makes no mention of a duty to consult local businesses. Why not? After all, supermarkets and other businesses could be extremely useful in reducing the amount of waste that is produced in the first place.
      Mr. Morley: The Bill does do that. We presented our waste strategy in 2000, and it has been followed by "Waste not, Want not" and the 2002 strategy unit report. What we have established is a clear waste hierarchy, at the top of which is waste minimisation. That is our No. 1 policy. Next come recycling, the reuse of waste as compost, incineration and, finally, landfill. We expect local authorities to adhere to our strategy, and indeed they are doing so.
      I agree that businesses have an important role to play in waste minimisation. We are involving them in, for instance, the Advisory Committee on Packaging, which is focused very much on industry, although not hitherto on the industry that we are discussing. We are also involving them in the waste implementation programme and the waste and resources action plan, which means not just encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of new opportunities and technologies in recycling and minimisation, but giving financial support for the establishment of new businesses and enabling them to explore new markets. We have a sophisticated range of measures to encourage waste minimisation, which includes industry along with other stakeholders.
      Gregory Barker: I am pleased to hear about the waste hierarchy and the emphasis on minimisation, but what troubles me and many others is that little in the Bill will stop waste that currently goes to landfill being booted up to the next level of the hierarchy, namely incineration. There is nothing to prevent a considerable increase in incineration as a result of the clampdown on landfill. One bad thing is being replaced by another.
      Mr. Morley: I do not accept that. We shall be able to discuss this in more detail later, but I will say now that
      186
      I do not see the Bill in itself as a driver for more incineration. The Government have set clear targets for recycling and re-use, and the Bill does not remove the obligation that local authorities will have. This year's target is 17 per cent., and all the indications are that we will meet it. That is a considerable improvement on the beginning of the year, when I feared that we might not.
      There has been an enormous increase in recycling and re-use, for which authorities deserve much credit. Some poor performers have improved dramatically in the last 18 months to two years. The target for 2005–06 will be 25 per cent., and the targets will be driven up to about 33 per cent. Furthermore, there will be a review. It should not be thought that 33 per cent. is necessarily the highest figure for which we are aiming.
      Local authorities are constantly having to address their strategies to meet the waste and recycling targets. That is removing a great deal of material from the waste streams and reducing the amount of biological waste, thereby reducing the need for both landfill and incineration. Nevertheless, we should all be honest about the fact that there may well be a case for incineration in certain circumstances. It is neither true nor reasonable to say that it can never be part of the waste hierarchy. We have a lower level of incineration than any European country of similar size. Denmark, often cited as a country with a good recycling record, has a 55 per cent. level. We need not go that far, but it would be wrong to mislead people by saying that there is no case for incineration—although nothing in the Bill impels further incineration.
      Norman Baker: I have just been to Copenhagen and looked around an incinerator. I was told that Denmark was placing a cap on incineration, and that the instruction was to move towards recycling. The difference between this country and countries such as Denmark is our huge reliance on landfill, which must be got rid of if the landfill directive is to be met. Without real measures to encourage minimisation, re-use and recycling, beyond those already introduced by the Government, the landfill that is removed will simply be replaced by incineration. That is the point that Members are making, and, with respect, I think that the Minister has failed to grasp it.
      Mr. Morley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has produced evidence to support his statement, although he will have an opportunity to do so later, and we shall all have further opportunities to discuss the issue. It does not surprise me, however, that any country whose incineration rate is about 50 per cent. should want a cap. It would want to increase the amount of recycling and re-use, as we are doing.
      Let me say something about potential disputes. New clauses 18 and 19 set a regulatory framework for the development of the joint strategy that we have discussed. It is for authorities in each area to decide together how to develop the strategy on the basis of local conditions, working towards targets that they all need and are required to meet.
      My Department can help all authorities to meet their objectives. Members of the Department have spent a lot of time going around the country and talking to authorities about the strategies they need to adopt in

      187
      order to minimise waste and increase recycling and reuse. They have done a good job, which I think is one reason for the surge in the number of authorities meeting our requirements in a comparatively short time.
      The Government's new clauses and amendments will, I believe, give sufficient encouragement to joint working without imposing further requirements on authorities that already discharge their responsibilities satisfactorily. Along with clause 31, they provide the right framework for a positive relationship between authorities in two-tier areas working towards a common goal. I do not feel that amendments Nos. 16 and 31 are consistent with that approach.
      We believe that our new clauses and amendments offer an appropriate balance between the desire for an integrated approach to waste management and the rights and needs of different authorities at local, regional and national level. I hope that Members will recognise that and support the Government's proposals.
      2 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: We do not wholly disagree with the gist of the Minister's comments. The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and I tabled try to ensure that different sorts of local authority and waste disposal and collection authorities are held together. We want top quality co-operation between both sides of waste management at unitary, district and country level. We therefore need to ensure that they have every incentive to work as a team and that, if one half lets the side down, it is not only in its interest but in that of the other half to bring it up to the required standard. That is important because the Bill provides for fines and a range of penalties culminating in imprisonment to ensure that waste management is done properly. We must therefore make sure that it contains no loopholes that would allow a waste disposer to play off against a waste collector.
      Any fine should relate to both bodies. There is probably a weakness in the amendment because there could be a case in which one authority was clearly out of line and it was not the fault of another. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was right to ask the reason for the lack of a proper process to identify those responsible for a breakdown in the system. That is one of many glaring omissions from the Bill.
      My first question to the Minister is about the term "statement" in new clause 18. How legally binding are such statements? In the worst case, one waste authority could sue another to try to apportion blame. I agree with the Minister that waste collection and disposal authorities will not be at each other's throats. However, if we are legislating to ensure that that does not happen, we must cover every eventuality.
      Earlier, I asked the Minister to define the differences and he referred to new clause 19 and exemptions. As I understand it, an excellent council that performs in the way in which the Government wish no longer has to have a plan. However, to get to that stage, such a council would first have to have a good plan to which it stuck.
      188
      It is especially bizarre that once a council has a good plan that works, it is allowed to ignore it. Surely there is a lack of logic in that.
      Mr. Morley: The concept of the excellent authority means removing some of the directions from it on the basis that it has demonstrated that it delivers excellent standards, including in waste strategies. Those authorities probably have their plans, strategies and joint working, and that is fine. The difference between them and other authorities is that they will no longer be under direction, because we acknowledge that high-quality authorities will continue to act without it.
      Mr. Wiggin: The Minister is right to want greater freedom and flexibility for top councils and to remove the cold, dead hand of Whitehall from them.
      Mr. Sayeed: The Minister's answer is fair, but it misses the point that although a local authority might start out with the best intentions and the best plan, and put it into effect, it is judged by the past. If there is a budgetary constraint or change in council leadership, the future may not be as rosy as the past. Perhaps it would therefore be better for a local authority that wants to move away from the plan on which it has operated to be required to report that.
      Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend makes a valid and useful point. [Interruption.] The Minister says that the Bill covers it. However, my hon. Friend is right that if we judge everything with hindsight, as time goes on and people are allowed to move away from their effective plans, the potential for disaster is obvious. That aspect of the Bill is especially bizarre, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. We are united in acknowledging the Government's good intentions, but they have added a bizarre twist to the measure that may run counter to what they want to achieve.
      My hon. Friends' most important points in interventions related to the quantity of recycling. The United Kingdom recycled 13.5 per cent. of its household waste last year, incinerated 9 per cent. of household waste and 3 per cent. of hazardous waste. It is hardly surprising that some authorities are expected to increase their performance dramatically, especially given their political colour. Eight out of 10 of the best councils at recycling are run by the Conservative party and seven out of 10 of the worst are run by the Labour party. I am therefore delighted that the party of Government is improving its act, but it is easy to do that from a low base.
      We must ensure that the Bill makes a proper distinction between the responsibilities of the disposal and collection authorities so that we get the best possible co-operation. We want money to go into recycling and the re-use and recovery process rather than taken out in fines. Later, we shall perhaps debate whether the fines should go to the Chancellor or back into the process to continue the positive activity that hon. Members support.
      Norman Baker: I am the only Front-Bench spokesman to survive the Committee proceedings. The Minister for the Environment has replaced the Minister for Rural Affairs and Environmental Quality and the

      189
      hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is the latest in a bewildering succession of Conservative environment spokesmen. I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster—and, indeed, all Conservative spokesmen—will remain in position for a long time.
      I am sure that the Minister has read details of our Committee proceedings in Hansard as part of his preparation. The subject of our discussion was considered at length in Committee by all members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). There was agreement, which the Government acknowledged, that we needed a guarantee that waste collection and disposal authorities would work together. It was also agreed that we should not place too many burdens on local authorities and that it was right to deal with recalcitrant authorities, not those that perform well. The Government try to do that in the new clause. So far, so good. My residual worries relate to cases of disagreement between waste collection and disposal authorities, and their resolution. The hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and for Mid-Bedfordshire also asked about that.
      I want to refer to East Sussex—I am not obsessed by it but I know it best. Waste collection authorities there, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat, pursue high recycling levels. Indeed, parts of Wealden district council, which is run by the Conservatives, are recycling more than 50 per cent. as a consequence of doorstep collection. There is also a phenomenal uptake in Liberal Democrat Lewes district in my constituency. Those collection authorities will achieve recycling levels that exceed the Government's targets. That is important, because the waste disposal authority will calculate on a lower recycling rate. That means that it will agree an incinerator contract—which has not yet been drawn up, by the way—for a guaranteed throughput of waste to he delivered to the incinerator company, which in this case is Onyx. I hope that the Minister is taking in this complicated argument.
      If the waste disposal authority then wished to have a guaranteed throughput, that would necessarily depress the amount of material available for recycling, particularly if the Government are successful in reducing the overall amount of waste. In those circumstances, the only guaranteed set figure would he the amount required for the incinerator, and everything else would have to go in order for that target to be met. There is therefore a real danger that, in these two-tier areas—I think that this could arise in East Sussex—the waste disposal authority could issue an instruction to the waste collection authority effectively to cap or even reduce its recycling capacity.
      Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
      Norman Baker: The Minister is shaking his head, but that could happen if the authority were recycling an amount in excess of the Government target, and had to reduce its recycling capacity so as to ensure that there was a sufficient amount for the incinerator throughput.
      Mr. Morley: I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman is making in relation to those who exceed the Government's recycling targets. If there is incineration—particularly if it involves a heat-from-waste recovery system—a contract might be needed in
      190
      relation to the throughput. I do not know the details of the particular case that he is describing, but this situation should not stop the collection authorities reducing the biodegradable waste. There is always an element of waste that is not biodegradable, and there may be a case for incineration in those circumstances. The authority could simply extend the area to include some of those factors, rather than reducing recycling. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to argue that there should never be incineration in any circumstances?
      Norman Baker: We shall debate incineration in due course. I am arguing that incineration has a role in specific circumstances, such as the destruction of medical or other special waste, so I accept the Minister's point on that. I was talking about mass-burn household waste, but we will come to that later.
      It is conceivable that a waste disposal authority could issue an instruction to a waste collection authority, to which the latter did not want to agree but to which it would be obliged to agree. Carrying out the instruction would involve decreasing the amount of material recycled. That is a real possibility that is not being addressed, and there is no dispute resolution system in place to deal with such situations. Because the penalties relate to landfilling as well, the only objective of the waste disposal authorities, in terms of avoiding fines, will be to meet the landfill targets. They can do that either by incinerating or by recycling, and they will not be particularly bothered about which way they achieve that target. They will simply want to meet the target. The primary goal of the waste disposal authorities will be to avoid paying a fine, and they will say, "It doesn't matter how we get there. We'll incinerate, we'll do anything that we have to do, provided that we can avoid a fine."
      The Minister is effectively creating a system in which waste disposal authorities will seek to avoid landfill at any cost, but he is not putting in place the waste hierarchy that he advocates to achieve the solutions that we all wish to see. I said in Committee—I repeat the point for the Minister, who I hope has now finished his conversation with his Parliamentary Private Secretary—that this is not a waste hierarchy implementation Bill, but an EU landfill directive implementation Bill. It has been brought before us solely to achieve the EU landfill reduction target. That is all that it is about.
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case, but it is worse than that. This is actually a fine-avoiding Bill, and not even a very good one, because I believe that we are going to be in line to receive fines of £180 million a year for failing to minimise waste.
      2.15 pm
      Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This is about money, and the paucity of the Government's forward planning is illustrated by the fact that they are continually running after EU directives, rather than anticipating them and putting in place structures to deal with them. We should be in the lead in these circumstances, rather than having to chase after Europe to catch up.
      There will be cases—a minority of cases, I accept—in which waste disposal and collection authorities will be at each other's throats and disagreeing on the best way

      191
      forward, and it is in those situations that the Minister wants to apply new clause 18. He does not want to apply it when there is agreement between the authorities and the recycling levels are good. He wants to apply it when there are problems, and those problems will predominantly be caused by disagreements between waste collection and disposal authorities.
      The Minister is saying that the disposal authority will always have the decision-making powers when push comes to shove, but I do not think that that is right, for the reasons that I have given. I hope that he will be able to deal with this point when he replies. If a waste collection authority believes that the direction from the disposal authority is unreasonable, either because it runs counter to the Government's waste hierarchy or because it could undermine the collection authority's targets, what redress will it have? What power of appeal exists? What could the authority do in those circumstances? As I read the strategy, that arrangement is open-ended. It is not clear what powers apply to the waste collection authority in those circumstances. It seems to me that it would have to comply, whatever the environmental and financial consequences. We could be faced with a situation in which a disposal authority required a course of action to be followed which would cost the collection authority an unreasonable amount because it would have to dismantle certain things that had been put in place. What would the consequences be in those circumstances?
      Has the Minister considered whether the continuation of the arrangement whereby responsibility is split between the collection and disposal authorities is actually sensible? There is a case for merging the two into one authority. One answer might be to have a regional light-touch waste plan, and to have the collection authorities dealing with the bulk of the work. Although the Minister has done his best to get the balance right in the new clause—I accept that he has listened, and that his colleagues have listened in Committee—there will be a minority of cases in which there will be a dispute between collection and disposal authorities and in which they are following entirely different paths, as some are at the moment. There is going to be trouble as a result of this.
      Mr. Sayeed: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and I would disagree with very little that he has said. The Minister is competent and courteous, but he was not in Committee with the hon. Member for Lewes and me. Those sittings were very time-consuming, and one of the problems that the hon. Member for Lewes, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and I talked about all the way through was that the Bill is extremely narrowly drawn. It fails to provide a comprehensive strategy for all forms of waste, because its prime aim is to save the Government money.
      We have here a Bill whose scope is narrow, whose vision is extremely small-minded and whose provisions are inadequate. I have always believed that legislation is best formulated when it is a vehicle that is used to drive forward a long-term, holistic and sustainable vision. Bad legislation is nearly always reactive, singular and isolated, and a panic-stricken reaction to a European
      192
      demand. That is what we have here. Although I support the Bill's overall environmental objectives, it is still a legislative response, rather than a driver designed to send out policy signals to local government and industry for the purposes of long-term security and investment.
      Legislation about the environment should be driven by the overriding objective of carbon emission reduction, and the development of a market that rewards sustainable consumption of primary resources and recycled materials. We need a Bill that encourages environmentally sensitive forms of product design and that frowns on unnecessary waste, but the present Bill does none of that.
      I asked the Minister whether he believes that there is an adequate system of dispute resolution, and I have to tell him that he has not answered that question adequately. I realise that the issue applies to provisions that we shall debate later, but one of my main concerns is where long-term contracts have been entered into by one authority—for an incineration plant, for instance—and another authority wants to reduce the amount going for incineration and has a better, more environmentally sensible proposal, which is in greater accord with the waste hierarchy. If that authority tried to implement that plan, it could be penalised for the losses of the other authority. There is a potentially profound dislocation between the two authorities and unless an appeal procedure that permits a Minister to make a judgment is in place, the Bill may cause as many problems as it solves.
      Another concern is that the Bill is so narrowly drawn that it does not allow all the other interested parties to share in its implementation. Much household waste is produced in supermarkets—we all know that—yet there is no incentive for local authorities to involve supermarkets and other producers of waste packaging in the process. There is an incentive not to send material to landfill, which is good, but there is an almost equal incentive to send it to the next cheapest option of incineration. We shall deal more fully with incineration in a later group of amendments, but unless the Minister can demonstrate that the Bill will fulfil the Government's objectives on waste hierarchy, it will amount to a lost opportunity.
      Mr. Morley: I shall attempt to deal with some of the points that have been raised.
      The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked what was meant by the term "statements", and the answer is statements of policy. Those amount to guidance to the authorities and joint committees that determine the strategy. It is guidance by its very nature, because we are trying to avoid a too rigid or straitjacket approach in respect of what can and cannot be done. We want to give local authorities some flexibility. There may well be different solutions in different areas, and local authorities are probably best placed to determine what they should be. Where there are two-tier collection agencies, we want a joint strategy so that agreement can be reached. Hon. Members have referred to problems that might potentially arise in that regard, and I shall attempt to deal with those.
      On the subject of scrutiny and whether there should be positive or negative resolution, I want to make it clear that the procedure that I outlined earlier was correct.

      193
      However, these new clauses have, of course, just been tabled, so they will have to go through that scrutiny. The Lords Committee will have an opportunity to scrutinise the provisions and a supplementary memorandum will be prepared to deal with the question of these powers and other matters raised during this stage of the Bill. The process will be put in place as I have outlined.
      Mr. Wiggin: Before the Minister moves on from his point about flexibility, will he clarify for the record whether the same flexibility will apply to authorities that are being fined? There are good and excellent authorities, but we also need to take account of the ones that begin to fail. When a fine begins to be apportioned, will it be the authority that decides on the most appropriate way of dividing the fine, or will there be a more rigid process? There could be a significant danger here and I would appreciate the Minister's guidance.
      Mr. Morley: The fines in the Bill apply to the disposal authority. I understand the difficulties that hon. Members have mentioned, but in the end it is necessary to have a line of accountability. I have some sympathy with the argument that a disposal authority could find itself in trouble because of the failures of a collection authority, but taking responsibility away from the disposal authority also means removing some of the incentives and controls. There are pros and cons to the issue, but I believe that it is right to concentrate on the disposal authority.
      Norman Baker: Before the Minister moves on from that point, will he consider the mechanism that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and I suggested—an appeal to a Minister in extreme circumstances where the two authorities cannot agree?
      Mr. Morley: I was going to deal with that point later, because it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). I do not want to have to go over the issue in my hand-written notes again. Ministers are sometimes asked to intervene on a range of issues, and we debated that matter in the Committee considering the Water Bill, on which several Members present served. The formal process is appeal to the Secretary of State, but, in reality, the Secretary of State sets up a mechanism for dealing with the appeal. In the case of major disagreement between the collection authority and the disposal authority—we are talking extremes here—the collection authority could refuse the direction from the disposal authority. That would mean going to court for the matter to be resolved. If the collection authority believed that it had a genuine case, it could put its case through the legal process. Due process exists for those extreme circumstances.
      Norman Baker: With respect to the Minister, that is no solution at all. The waste disposal authority would simply point to legislation saying that it had the right to issue a direction—end of case.
      Mr. Morley: No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the legislation. He has completely disrupted my nice linear flow as I have to jump around from note to note. If I am completely confused by the end, he will understand why.
      194
      Hon. Members' main concern in respect of clause 31 seems to be a dispute over incineration. That is the most frequently mentioned example. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the specific example of a collection authority that believed that it had better solutions for waste minimisation—the object of the Bill—than incineration. However, clause 31 does not give the waste disposal authority powers of direction for incineration. Directions can relate only to legal obligations on the waste disposal authority and there are none specifically for incineration. The waste disposal authority therefore has to consult the waste collection authority before it issues a direction, and the waste disposal authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
      That brings us back to the waste hierarchy and the fact that waste minimisation, re-use and recycling are at the top of the hierarchy. Those are the Secretary of State's directions and I do not go along with the argument that the Bill necessarily gives an impetus to incineration. I simply do not accept that, because in no way does it cut across the policy framework. The authorities must work within the hierarchy of disposal and take into account the various regulations.
      2.30 pm
      With respect to the hon. Member for Lewes, who does not normally duck the question, I did ask him whether he was arguing that incineration could not be used in any circumstances. [Interruption.] No. The hon. Gentleman said that he accepted incineration for clinical waste, but that is a bit of a cop-out, because clinical waste must be incinerated. However, in every area there will be an element of waste that is not biodegradable, so the choice for that waste residue will be landfill or incineration. In some circumstances, it may be decided that incineration—particularly where there is heat recovery, energy recovery or combined heat and power—may be the best option. That is for local authorities, through their joint strategies, to decide. I should like to know whether Liberal Democrat Members believe that we should never have that facility in any circumstances.
      Sue Doughty: Yes, we are very strong supporters of a zero waste policy. Within that, however, there may be circumstances where it is possible to take opportunities, such as in the construction industry with cement kilns. Certain products that do not easily degrade, such as tyres, can provide good materials for other processes, so we are taking an ideal opportunity to use those materials to support another industry.
      Mr. Morley: Forgive me, but that sounds as though the Liberal Democrats are really saying "Let us incinerate by sticking material in cement kilns". It is still incineration. The salient fact may be that the incineration would take place in an existing facility. I do not know why the Liberal Democrats, in particular, continue to be so evasive about this. I am simply asking whether they are saying that in no circumstances whatever could there be incineration.
      Norman Baker: I shall try to tell the Minister again. I have given him one example of where incineration

      195
      would be appropriate: special waste. If he reads the Committee reports, he will see that we suggested that there should be a moratorium, and that therefore existing incinerators that have been practically shut down might be used, although we want greater monitoring of the dioxins—as we have said in a new clause that we shall discuss later—and we want a life-cycle analysis of incineration. We do not want more Bills at present, because we do not believe them to be necessary, and we think that it is possible to deal with the country's waste without recourse to further incineration. That is the policy we espoused in Committee and which we shall espouse again shortly, when we discuss incineration in a few minutes.
      Mr. Morley: I had noticed the hon. Gentleman's comment that there should be a moratorium on incineration, although I am not aware that there is a lack of business in incineration—rather the opposite, in my experience. However, at this stage I do not want to focus too much on incineration, because there will be an opportunity to discuss it later.
      Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. The answer to his question from the Conservatives, as far as I can remember, was that, provided the most environmentally friendly activity had been undertaken and found not to be cost-effective, one could then go to a lower level of the hierarchy. But one had at least to check that the most environmentally friendly system of disposal was used first.
      Mr. Morley: That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position to take. Incineration should be a resort, because it is down the waste hierarchy. As the hon. Gentleman fairly states, it should not be first choice. There are a lot of caveats: there are issues in relation to standards and safety, whether other options are available and whether it is the best practical measure. That is a perfectly reasonable and, I might say, honest position to take on incineration.
      Mr. Wiggin: Although the Minister's initial comments were about the hierarchy and how the Bill would bring it about, they quickly descended into how the authorities would avoid being labelled failures and being fined. Immediately, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) gave an example, which the Minister pursued, quite keenly, towards incineration. Does the Minister not think that that parallels exactly what the Bill is all about, and that as soon as it becomes law everyone will run to the lowest common denominator, which is incineration?
      Mr. Morley: No; absolutely not. I do not believe that. I was pursuing the point because the hon. Member for Lewes raised it and I was trying to tease out where he stands on this matter; I am still not absolutely certain. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lewes will have the opportunity to explain as we progress through the Bill, so I do not wish to be distracted at present. I have all these bits and pieces of notes and I have to try to reach a conclusion on this.
      196
      The hon. Member for Mid-Befordshire repeatedly raised the issue of supermarkets. We do not ignore the role of supermarkets. In fact, most local authorities, including my own, find that supermarkets are a very convenient centre for recycling because many people buy a lot of material there, and it is a convenient place to take the material back to. I see supermarkets playing a very important role in relation to waste minimisation, which is a legitimate part of the joint strategies that should be developed by the local authorities through the collection and disposal authorities. That is dealt with by these amendments.
      We have had a fairly broad run around on this issue, but judging by what I have heard, hon. Members accept the desirability of joint strategies. We have tried to make allowances in relation to authorities that are rated excellent, and to deal with matters that may give rise to disputes. I have tried to give some reassurances that I do not believe that the joint strategies are necessarily driven by incineration alone in relation to the waste hierarchy. The strategies and guidance from the Secretary of State will prevail and the local authorities will have to work within those in terms in formulating their strategies.
      These sensible new clauses reflect the desire expressed on both sides of the Committee, and I very much hope that they are supported. I believe that the amendments tabled by Opposition Members are not relevant, although I understand the reasoning that prompted them, and I hope that I have answered hon. Members' questions.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 19

      POWER TO DISAPPLY DUTIES UNDER SECTION (JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: ENGLAND)
      '(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a duty under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(1) to (7)—

      (a) not to apply to an authority if conditions specified in the regulations are met;

      (b) not to apply to an authority if, on an application made in accordance with the regulations, the Secretary of State is satisfied that conditions specified in the regulations are met;

      (c) not to apply to the waste authorities for a twotier area if, by reason of provision under paragraphs (a) and (b), it applies to one or more, but not all, of them;

      (d) not to apply to the waste authorities for a twotier area if, on an application made in accordance with the regulations, the Secretary of State is satisfied that conditions specified in the regulations are met.

      (2) The power under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) must be exercised so that provision under that paragraph will cause a duty under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(]) to (7) not to apply to an authority only if—

      (a) the standard of the authority's performance in carrying out functions of its has been at, or above, a particular level, and

      (b) that level is—

      (i) the level that, in the Secretary of State's opinion, counts as satisfactory performance, or

      (ii) a level that, in his opinion, is higher than that level.

      197

      (3) The power under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) must he exercised so that provision under that paragraph will cause a duty under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(1) to (7) not to apply to the waste authorities for a twotier area only if—

      (a) as respects at least one of the authorities, the standard of its performance in carrying out functions of its has been at, or above, a particular level, or

      (b) as respects at least two of the authorities, each has so carried out functions of its that the overall standard of their performance in carrying out those functions has been at, or above, a particular level, and (in either case) that level is one mentioned in subsection (2)(b).

      (4) Subject to subsection (2), the conditions that may be specified under subsection (1)(a) include (in particular) conditions that may be met only in the case of authorities that from time to time are, by reason of provision made by or under an enactment, of a particular category.

      (5) Regulations under subsection (1) may include—

      (a) provision about the duration of any disapplication under that subsection of a duty;

      (b) provision postponing the application of a duty on the coming to an end of a disapplication under that subsection of the duty;

      (c) provision modifying the application of subsections (1) to (7) of section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England) in relation to a twotier area where a duty under those subsections applies to one or more, but not all, of the waste authorities for the area.

      (6) A statutory instrument that contains regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

      (7) A reference in subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) or (b) to functions of an authority is to functions of the authority in any capacity (and not only to functions of its in its capacity as a waste disposal authority or waste collection authority).'.—[Mr. Morley.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 20

      INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 3
      In this Chapter—

      (a) "twotier area" means the area of a waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority;

      (b) "the waste authorities" for a twotier area are—

      (i) the waste disposal authority for the area, and

      (ii) the waste collection authorities within the area; and

      (c) "waste disposal authority" and "waste collection authority" have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43).'.—[Mr. Morley.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 21

      REPEAL OF DUTY TO PREPARE RECYCLING PLANS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      'The following provisions are repealed—

      (a) section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (collection authorities' waste recycling plans),

      (b) sections 353(3) and 361 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (which refer to section 49 of the 1990 Act), and

      198

      (c) paragraph (a) of section 7(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (power to amend etc. section 49(1)(c) of the 1990 Act).'. [Mr. Morley.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      STRATEGIES FOR WASTE MINIMISATION: ENGLAND
      '(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for waste prevention and minimisation, containing quantitative targets for overall waste reduction and for specific waste streams.

      (2) The Secretary of State will set out in regulations requirements for local authorities and business relating to waste prevention and minimisation including—

      (a) taking a lifecycle approach;

      (b) reducing packaging.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—

      (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate, and

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

      (4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Scottish Ministers,

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.—[Norman Baker.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 2—Strategies for waste minimisation: Scotland—

      '(1) The Scottish Ministers must develop a strategy for waste prevention and minimisation containing quantitative targets for overall waste reduction and for specific waste streams.

      (2) The Scottish Ministers will set out in regulations requirements for local authorities and business relating to waste prevention and minimisation, including—

      (a) taking a lifecycle approach;

      (b) reducing packaging.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—

      (a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,

      199

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.

      (4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      New clause 3—Strategies for waste minimisation: Wales—

      '(1) The National Assembly for Wales must develop a strategy for waste prevention and minimisation containing quantitative targets for overall waste reduction and for specific waste streams.

      (2) The National Assembly for Wales will set out in regulations requirements for local authorities and business relating to waste prevention and minimisation, including—

      (a) taking a lifecycle approach;

      (b) reducing packaging.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—

      (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

      (4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the Scottish Ministers, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      New clause 4—Strategies for waste minimisation: Northern Ireland—

      '(1) The Department of the Environment must develop a strategy for waste prevention and minimisation containing quantitative targets for overall waste reduction and for specific waste streams.

      (2) The Department of the Environment will set out in regulations requirements for local government and business relating to waste prevention and minimisation, including—

      (a) taking a lifecycle approach;

      (b) reducing packaging.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—

      (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

      200

      (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

      (3) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (4) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the Scottish Ministers, and

      (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

      New clause 8—Minimising Arisings from Nuclear Waste—

      '(1) The Secretary of State must develop a strategy for—

      (a) minimising the arisings of nuclear waste;

      (b) minimising the discharge of liquid radioactive waste into the marine environment;

      (c) ending the production of plutonium;

      (d) implementing best available techniques for the management of spent nuclear fuel.

      (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—

      (a) consult the governments of all neighbouring countries around the North East Atlantic, including those countries bordering the Irish and North Seas;

      (b) consult Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment;

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate;

      (d) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate; and

      (e) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.'.

      New clause 9—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: England—

      '(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric And Electronic Equipment.

      (2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

      (4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Scottish Ministers,

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      201
      New clause 10—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Scotland—

      '(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric And Electronic Equipment.

      (2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.

      (4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      New clause 11—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Wales—

      '(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric And Electronic Equipment.

      (2) The National Assembly for Wales will establish by regulation that the electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

      (4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the Scottish Ministers, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      New clause 12—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Northern Ireland—

      '(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric And Electronic Equipment.

      202

      (2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

      (4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the Scottish Ministers, and

      (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

      New clause 13—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: England—

      '(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

      (2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

      (4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Scottish Ministers,

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      New clause 14—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Scotland—

      '(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

      (2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—

      203

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.

      (4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      New clause 15—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Wales—

      '(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

      (2) The National Assembly for Wales will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

      (4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the Scottish Ministers, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

      New clause 16—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Northern Ireland—

      '(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

      (2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—

      (a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate.

      204

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

      (4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Secretary of State,

      (b) the Scottish Ministers, and

      (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

      Norman Baker: We have had a broad run around the houses and we have mentioned waste minimisation. I have no wish to distract the Minister further and wander off the point, so I shall stick to waste minimisation as far as I can.
      The Minister referred to the waste hierarchy. One of the points of agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House and the population at large is that the waste hierarchy is right—the order of process is right. However, incineration is further down the hierarchy than landfill. It has been reclassified as a disposal technique rather than a recovery technique following a recent Luxembourg judgment, which I hope the Government are aware of and will now take account of in their strategy. However, the hierarchy is right and at the top, as the Minister says, is waste minimisation. Yet that is the least developed part of the hierarchy: we know least about it, and have discussed it the fewest times. I suggest that there are fewer measures in the Bill to deliver waste minimisation than there are for other elements of the hierarchy.
      In fact, delivery of the hierarchy is almost like an upside-down pyramid in reverse. Landfill remains the most attractive option in many ways, even though the EU landfill directive will no doubt have an effect. The landfill tax has not increased to the optimum level. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed a rate of £35 a tonne, but getting there is taking a long time and we are not there yet. After landfill, incineration is the next most attractive option, followed by recycling, re-use and waste minimisation. In terms of incentives, that is the waste hierarchy in reverse. It contrasts with Government statements about what should be happening in theory.
      Our intention with the new clause is to help the Government and the Minister, by encouraging waste minimisation. I want to help the Minister to deliver his strategy, as he is not doing so at the moment.
      Waste is not being reduced but is growing by 3 per cent. a year. That is the key measure of the Government's success in protecting the environment, which is what we are talking about, not EU directives or avoiding fines. The best way to help the environment is to minimise the creation of waste in the first place.
      Waste minimisation is not happening, for a number of reasons. One is that the levers to pull in respect of waste minimisation are more difficult to find. I am happy to accept that that is the case. Another reason is that EU measures cannot, by their nature, be fiscal measures, as countries have not agreed unanimously to introduce such measures. The packaging directive, for example, requires that a certain amount of waste is recycled but

      205
      does not reduce the amount of packaging used in the first place. The directive helps recycling, therefore, but not waste reduction and minimisation.
      Another factor is that the Government's waste minimisation strategy, to the extent that it exists, is not communicated effectively to local authorities, which do not consider that they have a waste minimisation function. They see themselves as having a waste recycling, incineration or disposal function.
      I recently gave evidence at the public inquiry into the East Sussex waste local plan, covering Brighton and Hove. I attempted to suggest that we should broaden the waste minimisation plan, but the barrister representing the county council told me that I had no business to try to introduce waste minimisation into the local plan. He said that that was inappropriate because waste minimisation was a national measure. The clear message from the councils is that waste minimisation is a matter for Government, but the Minister has said that it should be delivered by local councils. The reality is that no one is doing it properly, which is why nothing is happening and why waste is continuing to grow.
      A number of measures could help, and I shall set them out later. First, however, we should remind ourselves of the scale of the problem and of the amounts disposed of last year in this country: they include 24 million car tyres, 972 million plastic water bottles, and 94,000 fridges. There were 226,000 old cars abandoned, as opposed to their being disposed of. In addition, 2 million mobile phones and 32 million printer cartridges were thrown away.
      Printer cartridges provide a good example of where the waste minimisation strategy proposed in new clause I could be helpful. Twenty per cent. of the printer cartridge market is taken up by re-usable products that can be refilled and reclaimed. That minimises the throwaway culture and the amount of landfill taken up by printer cartridges.
      I am sure that the Minister will agree that re-using printer cartridges is a better solution in environmental terms than buying new cartridges and throwing them away at the end of their useful lives. However, the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive discussions were led by the Department of Trade and Industry, and not by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as I think should have been the case. Britain has taken the lead in resisting the inclusion in the WEEE directive of printer cartridges. The DTI does not want cartridges to be classified as electrical wastes. Under pressure from Hewlett Packard and other manufacturers, the DTI wants the disposable culture to continue. That is an example of how the Government are simply not implementing their waste minimisation strategy.
      Mr. Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A number of companies in this country want to get into the business of recycling printer cartridges and other items, but they feel that they will be at a disadvantage if such cartridges are not included in the WEEE directive. Does he agree, therefore, that it is also a matter of allowing small businesses to grow in this sector?
      2.45 pm
      Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is right—
      Mr. Morley: No, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) is not quite right on that matter. It is true that printer cartridges and other such items are not included in the WEEE directive, but there is nothing to preclude their re-use and refilling. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was right to say that the DTI took the lead in the negotiations, but the basis of the directive is that the electrical equipment that it covers should go back to the original manufacturers. The same logic would apply to printer cartridges: if covered by WEEE, they would go back to the manufacturers, even though many are refilled and reused. That will not be affected by the WEEE directive.
      Norman Baker: The Minister is either being slightly disingenuous, or ill informed. The point is that we think that the WEEE directive should cover printer cartridges. The requirement should be that they are dealt with on a comprehensive, life-cycle basis, but the Government are resisting that.
      Mr. Wiggin: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it extraordinary that the Minister did not say in his intervention that the real problem with printer cartridges is that they are being put in landfill? By including them in the WEEE directive, we would achieve what the whole Bill seeks to achieve.
      Norman Baker: That is exactly right. In respect of the Minister's intervention, I should point out that many small businesses would benefit from the inclusion of printer cartridges and such items in the WEEE directive. All printer cartridges used in this country are imported, and some are recycled and re-used by British companies. So every time the Government stand up in Brussels—or sit down in smoke-filled rooms—and say that they cannot allow the WEEE directive to include printer cartridges, they are disarming small businesses in this country, and damaging the environment.
      That is what the DTI is doing. It has created the mess, and DEFRA is left to pick up the pieces afterwards. That is how the Government are constructed. We need more effort on waste minimisation, and I have given the Minister one concrete example of something that he could do to help.
      The Minister also needs to clarify the Government's position on variable charging. My party believes that the proposition has considerable merit, and that it at least deserves to be tried in pilot projects around the country.
      The Minister referred to the strategy unit report entitled "Waste not, Want not", which grasped that nettle. However, I do not know the Government's intentions in the matter. I think that they have concluded that variable charging is too difficult in political terms, and that they will sweep it under the carpet, at least until after the next election. Will the Minister say what he intends to do in connection with variable charging for local authorities? Perhaps another system could be used, but there has to be some incentive for householders in particular to reduce the amount of

      207
      waste that they create, and thereby to ensure that waste minimisation strategies work. So far, I have seen no evidence that that is happening.
      Where are the Government strategies to encourage businesses to minimise waste? I used to be chair of economic development in East Sussex county council, before it adopted antediluvian incineration policies. We looked at a business estate in Newhaven and discovered that some businesses were paying to dispose of stuff that other companies on the same estate needed as virgin products. We not only saved some businesses' disposal costs, which was good for them, but produced virgin material—or, at least, ersatz virgin material—for other companies to use, in place of what they would have had to buy on the open market. Waste minimisation can therefore help business as well as the environment, but there is no evidence that the Government are helping British businesses in that regard.
      Why do the Government not sign up to the concept of zero waste? No one pretends that it can be delivered overnight, or even in 20 years, but it must remain the ultimate aim. A zero-waste culture would not consider waste as something to be disposed of, but rather as something whose creation should be avoided. If waste were created, it would be regarded as a material with a potential use, rather than as a problem to be got rid of. That may not always be possible, but we should move in that direction. I have heard no encouragement from the Government for the concept of zero waste, although the Liberal Democrat party conference in Brighton this year officially adopted the zero-waste policy.
      A number of councils around the country—Liberal Democrat councils and others—have adopted the zero-waste strategy. They include Lewes district council and Bath and North East Somerset unitary authority. Other councils of different political persuasions have also adopted the concept. Why are the Government not doing so? They pay lip service to the concept of waste minimisation but do nothing about it.
      We have heard one or two examples of what the Government were, theoretically, doing but I have seen no evidence of it. The key point is that the waste stream is growing. It is rather like the Government's road traffic reduction policy. In 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that there would be fewer vehicles on our roads and said that we should hold the Government to that promise. However, there are far more vehicles on our roads and road transport is increasing. We are told that the Government want waste minimisation, but a growing amount of waste is being produced. They cannot deliver their own rhetoric. That is part of the problem that we face.
      We need a zero-waste strategy and key to that is the extension of producer responsibility. Yet again, the lead is coming from the EU, which is introducing measures such as the end of life vehicles directive. Such initiatives will ensure producer responsibility, which we all want, but they are not coming from the Government, who plan to implement the directive in such a slipshod manner that its effects will, in the short term, be the opposite of what is intended. The polluter must pay, but currently that is not happening.
      208
      We have little evidence that the Government take these matters seriously. I refer the Minister to the comments of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It stated:
      "Measures to encourage waste minimisation in the UK remain very weak."
      If the Minister does not like that, he could try looking at the report of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which stated:
      "No target has been set for waste minimisation. The resources available under the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund have been largely directed at recycling projects rather than waste minimisation efforts. Few other levers to stimulate waste minimisation exist to compensate for this."
      The Committee further noted that it agreed with the assessment of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that UK measures to encourage waste minimisation were very weak.
      That is interesting. Two Select Committees both used the phrase "very weak" to describe waste minimisation measures. Two cross-party Committees, specialists in their field, heavily criticised the Government—[Interruption.] The Minister mutters "Out of date". In that case, ""Waste Strategy 2000"" is out of date. He cannot claim that some documents are state of the art just because he happens to like them and dismiss others as out of date. Those Select Committee reports postdate "Waste Strategy 2000", so they are less out of date than the Government's strategy.
      The Government have done nothing seriously to address the need to minimise waste, but have instead allowed it to grow. They recognised the need to deal with landfill, with consequences for incineration that we have already discussed. To be fair, they have also recognised the need to increase recycling and have introduced measures to encourage it. However, they have not dealt with the first two items in the waste hierarchy: waste minimisation and re-use. Until they do so, their waste strategy will not be worth the paper it is written on.
      Will the Minister set out what the Government plan to do to minimise waste? A sensible way forward would be to accept new clauses 1 to 4.
      Hywel Williams: I have a problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposals, as would my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and his hon. Friends with Welsh constituencies. The proposals state that the devolved Administrations must develop strategies and describe the regulations that should be included, but is not that inconsistent with the whole idea of devolution?
      Norman Baker: That is a far better point than any of those made by the Minister—[Interruption.] I am sorry; that was a bit harsh. The Minister is a very nice chap and I apologise for being unduly rude to him—but it is still true.
      Our new clauses are an attempt to deal with the Bill as it has been constructed by the Government. We have tried to be consistent with the existing terms of the Bill. The measure applies to the whole United Kingdom, so that is how we tried to deal with our proposals. If the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is suggesting that there should be more devolution to

      209
      Scotland and Wales, I should not oppose that—[Interruption.] I have tried to explain that it is a UK Bill and that is why we took that approach.
      Sue Doughty: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on that point. The measures are based on the European directive, which would penalise the UK as a whole, so the legislation has to deal with that fact. Where a European directive applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, we need a mechanism so that the problem can be divided up between the various UK nations. That is why we drew up our proposals as we did, but it would be up to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament to make such representations as they can. The matter was considered in the Standing Committee, as we were concerned about the devolved aspects of the Bill.
      Norman Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the argument more eloquently than I did in my response to the intervention.
      New clause 8 would minimise arisings from nuclear waste. We have not really touched on that subject during the passage of the Bill, but it is a serious environmental issue that relates to the waste stream. I do not entirely understand why successive Governments treat nuclear waste as something other than waste. I realise that it has to be dealt with differently, but why is it subject to separate consideration and not included in the waste strategy? It should not be put to one side; it can be dealt with under waste minimisation programmes and we should have a strategy for doing so.
      Our new clause encourages the Secretary of State to develop a strategy for
      "minimising the arisings of nuclear waste…minimising the discharge of liquid radioactive waste into the marine environment…ending the production of plutonium—
      and—
      implementing best…techniques for the management of spent…fuel".
      The Minister is extremely well informed so I am sure that he is aware that the amount of radioactive waste stored in Britain has more than doubled over the past 15 years. The Government have released figures showing that stocks of nuclear waste, including high-level waste, which will, in some cases, remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years, increased to 92,000 cu m last year. The Minister will also be aware that, according to his predecessor, there is no information about the amount of waste stored before 1984, so there is uncertainty about what happened then.
      I do not want to take up too much time on this matter, but a waste strategy that fails to recognise the doubling of nuclear waste—with all the implications of that—can hardly be complete. I encourage the Government to find a way of including nuclear waste in their strategy.
      That should not be a DTI-DEFRA issue. I do not want a situation to arise in which the Department of Trade and Industry lets the nuclear industry off the hook, as it may do in relation to the nuclear liabilities Bill, and then asks DEFRA to clear up the mess. I am trying to help DEFRA by encouraging the Minister and his colleagues to be rather more vocal about the nuclear industry than they sometimes are.
      210
      I endorse new clause 1 and unless the Minister gives us a good response I shall divide the House on it.
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made an extremely good and accurate speech about the state of the Government's approach to waste. I thoroughly agree with him and if he puts the new clause to a vote I shall support him in the Lobby. Similarly, I hope that he will support me when I move new clauses 9 and 13.
      The Bill treats landfill in complete isolation, whereas we need a comprehensive approach to waste policy. The waste electrical and electronic equipment and the packaging directive must be incorporated in the Bill. We need a strategy to reach those targets. The Government have missed the opportunity of using the Bill to connect the targets in a single, co-ordinated strategy.
      The WEEE directive applies to the European concept of producer responsibility, whereby the producer or supplier must carry the cost of the overall environmental impact of the product when it becomes waste, through recycling and recovery rather than landfill disposal of all electronic and electrical equipment. Targets are required for collection and recovery to be met by the end of 2005, and a strategy to meet those targets is vital. The WEEE directive was published on 13 February and the UK now has 18 months to transpose it into national law. It states that systems for separate collection of waste must be set up, and it places obligations on producers and consumers, but not on local authorities.
      3 pm
      In 1997–98, the packaging waste directive was implemented in the UK, obliging Britain to increase the recovery and recycling of packaging materials. The Government's packaging recovery target for 2001 was 52 per cent. However, needless to say, it was not met and still only 48 per cent. of packaging is recycled. The European Commission proposes higher targets of 60 to 85 per cent. for recycling and recovery in 2006 to 2008. To meet its targets and avoid heavy fines, the UK must recover an extra 1.2 million to 2.7 million tonnes of packaging from the municipal waste stream. A great increase in separate household waste collections could aid the recovery of packaging if households were focused on it. We need a proper national strategy to reach that target, and new clauses 9 to 16 seek to achieve such a strategy. I recognise that the Government will not wish to accept those new clauses, but if we are to avoid enormous fines, we need a proper co-ordinated policy.
      The hon. Member for Lewes told the House that official Liberal Democrat policy is to have zero waste. I recognise the benefit of zero waste. Waste involves resources, and it is a shame that landfill is the Government's preferred choice, followed by incineration. The hon. Gentleman said that achieving zero waste could take 10 or 20 years and that it may never happen. Perhaps he will tell us what is his party's policy on that time scale during the afternoon.
      Norman Baker: It so happens that I have with me the Liberal Democrat policy motion, which was accepted at the Liberal Democrat conference, and I can formally tell the House that the conference agreed that there should be a target of zero for all municipal waste by 2020; 60 per cent. by 2010; and 70 per cent. by 2015.
      Mr. Wiggin: That is very helpful.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) talked about supermarkets and the volume of waste packaging generated by people who shop. That is another excellent point and another very important reason why the packaging waste directive needs to be included in the Bill.
      I am warned by my Whip that we may only get one vote on this subject, but all hon. Members can see that the Government have been seriously remiss in not including both those European directives, which they have signed up to and which they will be paying fines for if we do not achieve those targets. I should like to see both directives included in the Bill.
      Mr. Sayeed: Last November, the Government's own strategy unit produced a very good report entitled "Waste not, Want not", and one of its central recommendations was that all Government thinking on waste should be coherent and holistic. Instead, we have a Bill that is exactly the opposite. Rather than starting at the front line of the battle and dealing with waste minimisation, we are starting at the rearguard and the final disposal of waste—not particularly holistic and certainly not particularly coherent.
      The Bill penalises and affects local authorities in their disposal of waste, but it does not help them to minimise waste at source. It fails to provide incentives for individual citizens to act in a more environmentally friendly manner. The Bill is piecemeal, in direct contravention of what "Waste not, Want not" was all about. That is one of the reasons why it will fail.
      I will not rehearse the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) about the WEEE directive and the end-of-life vehicle directive, but it is absolutely clear that a Bill that deals with only 30 per cent. of waste misses a very considerable opportunity. The Bill should encompass strategies that deal with the WEEE directive, the packaging waste directive and the end-of-life vehicles directive.
      The Bill should also make it clear how local authorities can deal with some of the most pernicious scourges in rural and urban Britain: abandoned cars and fly-tipped waste. The Bill says a lot about penalties on local authorities, but it does not demonstrate, and give clear guidance on, how local authorities can use the law to prosecute and penalise those who cause such antisocial and anti-environmental crime.
      This is a bit of a Bill. In Committee, we tried to make it a much better Bill. We tried to shift its emphasis, so that it would do what the Government said that it was meant to do: deal with a waste hierarchy and encourage local authorities to do the most environmentally friendly thing. All it will actually do is penalise local authorities for doing one of the least environmentally friendly things. It is an opportunity missed.
      Mr. Morley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last comment at all. Hon. Members have spoken as though the Bill is the be-all and end-all of our waste strategy. It most certainly is not, and I shall come to some of the other issues. There is a range of work streams in progress and enormous acceleration in policy formulation, actions taken, changes in delivery, changes in targets and changes in achievements. Those are all important issues.
      212
      I am not going to say that we did not start at a low level—it is absolutely true that we did—but we have doubled the rate of recycling in this country since 1997. That is not enough, and we have to do more. I am very glad to say that we are making progress, and I shall refer to the work streams that we have in progress in a moment. Before I do so, I shall deal head on with the point about the variable charging made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).
      There may well be a case for variable charging, and we are considering how it could possibly be applied. We are talking to the Local Government Association about how that could be done. However, there are downsides to variable charging, as the hon. Gentleman will be only too aware, and we must address the possible disadvantages as well because, if we introduce variable charging, we want the policy to be successful. My personal concept of variable charging is not to impose additional charges on people who are already paying for waste disposal through their council tax, but there could be discounts for people who change their behaviour. We have to consider how that could be put in place, but we are interested and we are trying to address the issue.
      New clauses 1 to 4 would require the Secretary of State and each of the devolved Administrations to develop a strategy for waste prevention and waste minimisation, but that presumes that that is not being done in England and by the devolved Administrations, who are developing their own strategies. That is right and proper, as it is the principle of the devolved approach. We have to put in place more sustainable waste management arrangements. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that waste is still increasing at about 3 per cent. a year—we are well aware of that—but that makes the fact that we have increased recycling and re-use so significantly a greater achievement, although that is no ground for complacency when waste is still increasing.
      The growth in municipal waste has slowed to about 2.4 per cent. a year. Again, that is no cause for doing cartwheels down the street. All I am saying is that we are making a bit of progress. We have an awful long way to go, but we are committed to making progress. Waste prevention cuts across a number of disciplines, and there are several Government programmes that I have not mentioned, such as waste minimisation, which is already covered in "Waste Strategy 2000". Incidentally, that waste strategy approach is very different from what is in the Select Committee reports that have been published. I have the utmost regard for both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, which DEFRA takes seriously. If Members look at DEFRA's record, they will find that we try to implement the recommendations that Select Committees make to us, because we respect their views and the detail in their reports.
      Paddy Tipping: I am of course grateful for the Minister's comments. He made a point earlier about variable charging and his desire to make progress. One of the ways to make progress is to have pilots. Will he reinforce his efforts to look at experimentation in this area? No one wants a full scheme at present, but there is a need to play around with some of these issues.
      Mr. Morley: That is a sensible suggestion. When dealing with a new approach, it makes sense to pilot it in several areas, to gain experience and establish what are the advantages and disadvantages. Those are among the issues that we are currently discussing with the Local Government Association. As I said, it is a complex issue, and we need to consider a range of issues, but we are talking those through, and I will certainly take seriously the pilot area approach.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) who, like me, sits on the Select Committee. In addition to variable charging, will the Minister consider incentives, because I believe that 90 per cent. of people in this country would recycle voluntarily if they were given the opportunity?
      Mr. Morley: That is a possibility. My local authority, under the brown bin scheme, which involves composting by the local council—I live in one of the villages that does not benefit from the scheme, so I do not know whether it still goes on—used to give every household that took part in the scheme a bag of compost, which it could use on the garden or do with as it liked. I accept that that is a small incentive, but it is an incentive nevertheless, and it makes people feel that they are part of something meaningful and useful, and I like that idea. A range of incentives is possible, and I do not rule out that kind of approach.
      Mr. Wiggin: The Minister will appreciate that a bag of compost is not necessarily the sort of incentive that sends out the clearest signal about what exactly he wants to achieve.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised about how much enjoyment some people can get from a bag of compost in relation to their pastimes, so I would not rule out that incentive.
      We are taking forward the waste resources action programme, which involves promoting waste minimisation and the recommendation of the Prime Minister's strategy unit to consider developing proposals for indicators for local authorities that incorporate success in reducing waste volumes. That will include consideration of the case for setting quantitative targets for waste reduction. The second phase of the 1994 packaging waste directive review will also look at re-use, minimisation and producer responsibility, and I intend to be fully engaged in that process. As a first step, I have already asked the Government's Advisory Committee on Packaging to provide me with advice on the issue to feed into the work of DEFRA, and it is already looking at ways of achieving more minimisation and reuse of packaging. The idea that the whole Government strategy hinges on this one Bill alone is therefore entirely untrue.
      It is all very well for the hon. Member for Lewes to talk about zero waste and targets, but those must be delivered. I will watch with interest what Liberal Democrat authorities do in relation to those targets, but a clear strategy is necessary, which involves making decisions, not copping out on incinerators by talking about a moratorium and refusing to give a straight answer as to whether there is a role for them. The whole range of issues must be addressed, and there must be a
      214
      hierarchy, which I do not believe is upside down. I accept that we have not got the hierarchy right in relation to the percentage of waste streams that we want, but we are addressing those issues. We have strategies in place, which we are pursuing, and I hope that I have addressed that point.
      3.15 pm
      In relation to new clause 8, the hon. Gentleman invites us to develop a strategy for, among other things,
      "arisings of nuclear waste…the discharge of liquid radioactive waste into the marine environment…ending the production of plutonium…implementing best available techniques for the management of spent nuclear fuel."
      Again, all those policies are currently being put in place. We are currently putting in place the nuclear waste committee and the various strategies that we would apply, such as new strategies in relation to minimising liquid radioactive waste, which I believe have great potential. Those issues need to be addressed differently. The way that the hon. Gentleman was speaking—I am sure that he did not mean to present it in this way—it sounded as though the local council would send a bin lorry round to Sellafield to pick up today's nuclear waste and take it away for composting and recycling. Dealing with those issues is a bit more complicated than that. In that respect, a separate strategy is required, which we are putting in place.
      This Government's policy has always been to minimise arisings of radioactive waste. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that a number of power stations are coming to the end of their working life. Those have to be decommissioned, and as a result, there will be an increase in radioactive waste, which is inevitable. Robust strategies will be necessary to deal with that.
      Mr. Alan Meale: I am grateful for the answer that the Minister has just given. What he is saying to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is that if we go full speed ahead and close our nuclear power plants, what will occur is not minimisation of waste but maximisation of waste. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of UN talks that are going on at the moment, whereby we will try to have a worldwide approach to this enormous problem. For instance, he is aware that only two places on the planet are geographically safe to store nuclear waste underground—Australia and parts of Africa. The reality is that until we have a worldwide strategy, not only in relation to storage but in relation to transportation, we should be very careful about how we handle this whole issue.
      Mr. Morley: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The UK is recognised as one of the world leaders in relation to the expertise that we have in nuclear waste handling, but I acknowledge that it is a global issue, which we need to address. In fact, in September 2001, my Department and the devolved Administrations published a consultation document entitled "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely", which was about developing a policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the United Kingdom, and we are currently in the process of appointing the new committee that I

      215
      mentioned on management of such waste. In July 2002, my Department published a UK strategy for radioactive discharges, which set out proposals for reducing radioactive discharges to the marine environment in the period to 2020. That strategy is in compliance with targets agreed at a ministerial meeting of the OSPAR commission in 1998, which we also addressed this year. We are therefore approaching the issue in relation to best available techniques, we are taking seriously our commitments in international bodies such as OSPAR, and we are addressing the targets that we set ourselves.
      Mr. David Marshall: The new clauses relate to strategies for the composite parts of the UK. What discussions has the Minister had already, if any, with Ministers in the Scottish Parliament, and what was their attitude to this aspect of the Bill?
      Mr. Morley: Regular discussions take place between my Department and the devolved Administrations, at ministerial level and at official levels, and facilities at Sellafield serve the whole of the UK, as my hon. Friend will be aware. Nevertheless, there are power stations in each of the devolved areas, which have considerable interest and involvement in the formulation of those strategies.
      New clauses 9 to 16 are all concerned with the implementation of EU waste management directives. Again, this Bill is not necessary to implement such strategies as the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. We are already making progress on that. As with all directives, the UK is required by European law to implement it. The purpose of the directive is to prevent waste electrical and electronic equipment and encourage the re-use and recycling of such waste. It includes a requirement for member states to ensure that producers set up systems to provide for the recovery of WEEE. The requirement in the new clauses for separate regulations is therefore not necessary—it is already being done.
      New clauses 13 to 16 deal with packaging and the packaging waste directive. I am pleased to inform the House that the new clauses are unnecessary because the requirements of packaging directive 94/62/EC have already been transposed into UK law, mostly through the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. We are getting on with implementation and making progress toward meeting the targets.
      Mr. Wiggin: If we are not reaching the targets set by the directive, will the Minister explain whether people are breaking the law or whether the system must be reinforced by amendment to the Bill?
      Mr. Morley: There are separate issues relating to the potential penalties that apply within the directive that was implemented. However, we are making especially good progress on waste from packaging. Since 1998, which is when the obligations took effect, recycling of packaging waste increased from 27 per cent. to 44 per cent. in 2002. The figure is now beyond that. When the higher recycling targets in the next directive are put in place, I expect that there will be even greater reductions in waste.
      216
      I apologise for my somewhat lengthy explanation, but the idea that the Government's waste strategy is restricted only to the Bill is not fair, justified or correct. I have outlined to the House that a whole range of policies, strategies and work schemes are in place. We are making good progress on domestic, commercial and packaging waste and we intend to do more. I appreciate hon. Members' comments, understand their concerns and share their desire for progress. We are committed to continuing to make progress, so I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
      Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, although they were a broad sweep over the waste hierarchy and did not tell us much about waste minimisation, which is the subject of new clause 1.
      On new clause 8, which relates to the nuclear industry, it is quite true, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), that closing nuclear power stations would increase the amount of nuclear waste in the short term. However, my answer to that is that not closing the stations would produce even more waste in the long term because they produce waste as they continue to operate. The Government might say that they are producing strategies and doing this and that to minimise nuclear waste, but it is not long since they resisted attempts by the Irish, Norwegian and other Governments to stop the discharge of T99 from Sellafield, so their record is not especially good.
      Mr. Meale: I am not really against many of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. However, I have difficulty with new clause 8. My area receives electricity from the Normandy coastline in France, which is interconnected with a series of power stations. The problem cannot be considered as purely a British response to nuclear spent fuel—there must be a global approach.
      Norman Baker: I have some sympathy with that point. Of course, the problem must be dealt with internationally as much as possible and international agreements on energy and nuclear power exist. Such matters are often best dealt with at a European level, which is why environmental improvements that have occurred during the past 20 or 30 years have largely been a result of EU directives rather than individual action by successive British Governments. However, that is not to say that this country cannot do something. We should consider what can be done because we are creating nuclear waste and we should try to deal with it responsibly—I am not convinced that we always do.
      Let me deal with the central issue of waste minimisation. I am grateful to Conservative Members for their comments, which show that there is agreement and understanding on this side of the House about the need to promote waste minimisation. We heard a lot from the Minister about recycling—the third bullet point on the waste hierarchy. I am happy to say that the Government are doing work on recycling and that recycling levels are going up. Progress is being made, albeit from a low base, so I give credit where credit is due. However, with respect, that is not the subject of new clause 1, which is about waste minimisation.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving credit where credit is due. Credit is due to the

      217
      Conservative councils that form eight out of the 10 best councils at recycling and recovery. That has not been due to the Government because they are failing to reach their targets, which explains why we need such provisions in the Bill.
      Norman Baker: We do need the provisions in the Bill, so the hon. Gentleman and I agree on that.
      On variable charging, I am grateful to the Minister for taking up my point and that made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on the need for pilot projects—that is sensible. However, such charges should not represent a stealth tax. The system should be revenue-neutral so that those who help the environment receive a financial gain and those who behave irresponsibly receive a financial penalty. I hope that the Minister will conclude his discussions with the Local Government Association quickly and that a pilot project—or three or four—will be up and running before the next general election so that we can judge its success.
      I return to the central point of minimisation. The way in which the waste hierarchy has been delivered is upside down, although the hierarchy is the right way up on paper. There are insufficient measures to address minimisation. The waste stream is increasing by 3 per cent. a year and nothing that I heard from the Minister convinced me that that trend will change. For that reason, I shall press new clause 1 to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided:Ayes 172, Noes 283.

      Division No. 340]

      [3:25 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cotter, Brian

      Allan, Richard

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Amess, David

      Curry, rh David

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Baker, Norman

      Baldry, Tony

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Barker, Gregory

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Doughty, Sue

      Barrett, John

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Boswell, Tim

      Flook, Adrian

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Breed, Colin

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Francois, Mark

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Burnett, John

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Burns, Simon

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gidley, Sandra

      Butterfill, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Goodman, Paul

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Grayling, Chris

      Cash, William

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Chidgey, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Chope, Christopher

      Hammond, Philip

      Collins, Tim

      Hancock, Mike

      Conway, Derek

      Harvey, Nick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      218

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Rendel, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heath, David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Hendry, Charles

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Holmes, Paul

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Howard, rh Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jack, rh Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Selous, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Keetch, Paul

      Shepherd, Richard

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

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

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spring, Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Steen, Anthony

      Lamb, Norman

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Syms, Robert

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lidington David

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Loughton, Tim

      Teather, Sarah

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Thurso, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Maclean, rh David

      Trend, Michael

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Maples, John

      Walter, Robert

      Mates, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maude, rh Francis

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Moore, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Wilshire, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Page, Richard

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Paice, James

      Young, rh Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Randall, John

      Tom Brake and

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Berry, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Best, Harold

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Browne, Desmond

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burden, Richard

      Austin, John

      Burnham, Andy

      Bailey, Adrian

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Baird, Vera

      Cairns, David

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bell, Stuart

      Challen, Colin

      219

      Chaytor, David

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Coleman, Iain

      Heyes, David

      Colman, Tony

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hurst Alan (Braintree)

      Cummings, John

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Illsley, Eric

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Denham, rh John

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Doran, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Efford, Clive

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Etherington, Bill

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lepper, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Flint Caroline

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Linton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foulkes, rh George

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCafferty, Chris

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDougall, John

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gilroy, Linda

      McIsaac, Shona

      Goggins, Paul

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hain, rh Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McWilliam, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      220

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Short, rh Clare

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Squire, Rachel

      Moffatt, Laura

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Stevenson, George

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Organ, Diana

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Perham, Linda

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Picking, Anne

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trickett, Jon

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Ward, Claire

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      White, Brian

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Vernon Coaker

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF INCINERATION
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall carry out a full national environmental impact assessment of existing incineration capacity using life cycle analysis, including assessment of the impacts of—

      (a) transportation,

      (b) emissions;

      (c) effects upon alternative methods of waste disposal

      (2) The Secretary of State must ensure that no permissions for new incinerator capacity are granted until after the requirements of subsection (1) have been completed.

      221

      (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—

      (a) work in conjunction with the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,

      (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate

      (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

      (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

      (4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

      (5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

      (a) the Scottish Ministers,

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (c) the Department of the Environment.'.—[Norman Baker.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 6—Monitoring of Dioxin Emissions from Waste Incinerators—
      'In section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43) (Emissions etc. limits and quality objectives) there is after subsection (2) inserted—
      "(2A) The Secretary of State must introduce regulations to require continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions for all waste incinerators by 2006.".'.
      New clause 17—Directions to waste disposal authorities—

      '(1) a waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration.

      (2) Any waste disposal authority which receives such a direction shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure it is complied with within 12 months of the issuing of the direction.

      (3) A waste collection authority issuing a direction under subsection (1) above shall pay to a waste disposal authority such amounts as are needed to ensure that the disposal authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with the direction.'.

      Amendment No. 59, in clause 26, page 17, line 23 at end insert—
      '( ) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration. Failure on behalf of the waste disposal authority to comply will result in a penalty as set down in Clause 9'.
      Norman Baker: No doubt the Minister wants to discuss incineration. He has shown a thirst for the subject in our debates this afternoon, so I am confident that he will deal eloquently with new clause 5, which requires an environmental impact assessment of incineration—a spot check, as it were, of the current
      222
      position. That is important, because incineration is not only a controversial matter for the public but is being reviewed, as the Minister will know, at European Union level. I am sure that he will be aware of the Luxembourg judgment, which I mentioned in an earlier debate and which has recently reclassified incineration, previously a recovery technique, as a disposal technique. That should influence the Government's thinking—it does not change the components of the hierarchy, but it moves incineration further from recycling and closer to landfill, and it is important that we view it in that way.
      In "Waste not, Want not", a report on the future of waste management by a Government strategy unit, a review of the health and environmental impact of different forms of waste management was promised. The Government have therefore taken the issue on board, although the review encompasses more than just incineration. A report was promised for autumn 2003, so perhaps the Minister will say something about its progress. I hope that that there has been consideration of whether or not to introduce fiscal measures on incineration—in other words, an incineration tax. If incineration is now officially a disposal technique, should we not apply the logic that we have applied to landfill and discourage it through the introduction of a tax? Before anyone seeks to intervene, the tax would not be used to raise funds and would be redeployed on a revenue-neutral basis.
      We must however find a way to discourage incineration. Like other Members, I believe that, under pressure from the European Union, the Government have sought to minimise landfill but have not sought to prioritise anything else in the hierarchy. Consequently, the waste that was going to landfill will simply go to the next available alternative which, I am afraid, is incineration. It will not be recycled, minimised or reused—it will be largely incinerated. The Government must therefore consider whether they are content to incinerate the 50 per cent. of waste currently going to landfill that will no longer be allowed to be disposed of in that way by 2015. I urge the Minister to give the matter serious consideration, as that will happen unless the Government change the course.
      The public are entitled to a clear understanding of the full national environmental impact assessment of incineration, as required by our new clause. The Government's general assessment in "Waste not, Want not" is welcome as far as it goes, but unless the Minister tells me otherwise, I do not believe that it will deliver such an understanding. He will be aware that in 1996 a European Commission report on the draft incineration directive estimated that for every tonne of municipal waste that was incinerated, between £21 and £126 worth of environmental damage was caused. Incineration therefore has a serious downside that has to be accounted for in environmental terms. If there is a cost to the environment, perhaps a cost should be imposed on incineration above that which currently applies.
      We need to know the true cost of incineration—not simply a 1950s Treasury cost of incineration but the overall environmental cost, taking account of externalities, whether damage to health, transport movements or the loss of the proximity principle, if that

      223
      can be costed. Incineration can result in such a loss because it requires a large throughput to justify the initial capital costs, pulling waste from a large geographical area, larger than that required for recycling schemes or other waste treatments. To use East Sussex as an example again—I am sorry to do so, but it is the area I know best—there is a proposal to have one incinerator there. Waste from a large geographical area will be pulled into a single incinerator, thus defeating the proximity principle that the Government correctly espouse when they talk about the waste hierarchy. The idea that local communities should take responsibility for their own waste has also been defeated. If it is all transported 40 or 50 miles to an incinerator, they are not taking that responsibility.
      Paddy Tipping: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. The logical conclusion is that if an incineration plant is localised and conserves energy and heat as well as waste, that is supportable. Is that his position?
      3.45 pm
      Norman Baker: Not entirely, but I shall get there. In response to that sensible intervention from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), I can say that an incinerator that was more local, which people owned and for which they had responsibility, and which was consistent with the proximity principle and used the heat generated, would be preferable to the sort of incinerators being proposed across the country, which do not always meet those requirements by any stretch of the imagination.
      We are told by those who propose incineration that it is perfectly safe and that there are no health risks. The health case is not certain, one way or the other. However, those who advocate incineration are the first to jump up and say, "We can't have it in our area." Why? Because they are concerned about the health risks and the negative impact of incineration. They want the waste taken somewhere else, out of their area. The Government should not support such a strategy, which undermines the concepts that they espouse in the '"Waste Strategy 2000"' and in "Waste not, Want not".
      Transportation is an aspect of incineration that must be considered as part of any impact assessment. The process of incineration, by and large, requires greater transport movements than would be the case with waste minimisation and re-use, obviously, and possibly also with recycling. Have the Government quantified the transport movements that incineration generates?
      I mentioned emissions. It is true, as those who advocate incineration say, that emission levels have been tightened considerably over the years and are now a fraction of what they were. I accept that, but there is still some doubt among eminent scientists who have looked into the matter. Dr. Vyvian Howard and others say that the present level of emissions still represents a health hazard. I do not know whether that is true or not, but people with experience and qualifications maintain that case. A further issue for those who live in the vicinity is the emissions resulting from large numbers of lorry movements to the incinerator and back. We need further investigation of the health aspects.
      224
      We cannot necessarily believe the figures that we are given about dioxin emissions. There are two reasons for that. One is that the Environment Agency does not have enough staff to undertake proper monitoring. Their visits are pre-announced, so it is possible for the incinerator plant to be operating at maximum capacity in order to produce the minimum dioxin emissions at the time that monitoring takes place. Secondly, if there is no continuous monitoring of incineration emissions, as there should be and for which new clause 6 provides, all we get is intermittent photographs that tell us everything is all right. In the meantime, if the incinerator plant has not been operating at capacity, the emission levels may have increased without being caught by the Environment Agency.
      There are other downsides to incineration. The Minister will know of the fly ash that is generated. Up to 5 per cent. of what is incinerated has to be disposed of to landfill in any case—highly toxic fly ash. There is also bottom ash, which is generated in even larger quantities. There is no doubt that incineration gives rise to significant problems. If we can avoid it, we are keen to do so, except for specialist uses such as the disposal of special waste, chemical waste and medicines waste, where incineration clearly has a role to play.
      Can we obviate the need for incineration? Earlier, the Minister kept asking me questions and would not take yes for an answer. If landfill is minimised according to the landfill directives, if there are special purpose incinerators, as well as the existing incinerators, if recycling, re-use and other techniques are promoted, particularly the separation of organic material for composting, which is a strategy that we have not yet maximised, if we consider anaerobic digestion and so on, and if we have a proper waste minimisation strategy, which we do not have at present—if all those conditions are met, we do not need the expansion of incinerators. That is the aim that the Government should pursue, but they have palpably failed to do so.
      Paddy Tipping: In response to my previous intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not against incineration in practice, but he now seems to be saying that he is against it in principle. Will he clarify in simple terms his position and that of his party?
      Norman Baker: I have clarified the position and I do not know how much more I have to do so. The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically disingenuous. He suggested earlier that the incinerator that he described was preferable to the others being built across the country. I was happy to agree with that proposition while not endorsing the creation of such incinerators. That is the position. If we are to have incinerators—that is the phrase that I used—it is better that they be the sort that he described than those that local authorities are currently planning to build. In making those comments, I am not suggesting that we should use incinerators as a matter of course, as I am keen to avoid them.
      Paddy Tipping: Let us be clear: is the hon. Gentleman against incineration in principle?
      Norman Baker: I am in favour of the waste hierarchy, which the Government fail to deliver. I believe that a judicious mix of waste minimisation, re-use and

      225
      recycling, separation of organic waste, the use of anaerobic digestion and so on, obviate the need for a lower option in the waste hierarchy to be pursued in relation to incineration, taking account of specialist needs such those related to chemical and medicinal waste and so on. I hope that that is clear.
      Mr. Morley: It is not clear to me. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the waste hierarchy, in which incineration is listed above landfill, especially where it is linked with energy re-use. He is probably aware that we have commissioned a detailed study in conjunction with the Royal Society—I shall deal with it in more detail later—on the environmental and health effects of all the various ways of disposing of waste. I have no idea what that study will say, but what will his position be if it says that incineration is the best option in certain circumstances in terms of environmental and health objections? Does he agree that incineration may be justified in certain circumstances, depending on what those circumstances are?
      Norman Baker: I do not know how many times the Minister used the word "if" in that intervention. I have already answered his question: there are certain circumstances in which incineration is the best option.
      Mr. Morley: At last.
      Norman Baker: It is not a matter of saying "at last", as I have made the same comment about eight times. In dealing with clinical waste, for example, incineration is clearly the best technique. There is nothing new about that—it is the hypothetical example that the Minister wants and he has now got it. I hope that that is now clear. Many problems also arise in respect of landfill, but it may be the best solution in relation to inert building waste, for example. There are circumstances in which landfill is an entirely appropriate solution.
      The Minister is keen to push the cause of incineration, and people out there in the country should be aware that he has intervened regularly this afternoon to defend it. That will not be missed by local authorities and others outside the House. If he does not want to believe me, however, let me refer to work done by his colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who made effective contributions on Second Reading. He carried out a study in which he received replies from 130 councils about what they were planning to do with their waste. Some 45 of those councils, or 35 per cent., are contracted to private incinerator firms individually or as part of a consortium, and 36 of them, or 28 per cent., will start using incinerators within a set time frame. Only 49 of the 130 councils that replied—it was a big survey—have no plans to use incineration, and 19 of the 36 councils considering incineration have relatively short-term plans. So it is clear that, whatever the Minister may say about his hierarchy, local authorities are opting for incineration.
      Mr. David Drew: I should be intrigued to know how many of those authorities have, first, applied for planning permission and, secondly, achieved it.
      Norman Baker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the excellent survey on the website of the hon. Member for
      226
      Southampton, Test, which includes that information. He has also collected, through parliamentary answers, details of planning permissions that have been given and are outstanding. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) may want to dispute that information, but it comes from a Labour MP, so I hope that he is not saying that it is in any way unreliable.
      The reality is that under the Bill, local authorities are faced with a very short time scale within which to conform to the EU landfill directive. They know that they have to reduce the amount of landfill very quickly. The situation is not comparable to that in Denmark or anywhere else. We landfill about 80 per cent. of our household waste and we have to get that down to 35 per cent. Doing that quickly will require either an explosion in recycling, a really radical waste minimisation programme, or more incineration. Local councils are saying that only way in which they can meet the target quickly and effectively is to opt for incineration.
      Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
      Norman Baker: The Minister may shake his head, but that is what is happening all over the country. He needs to get out a bit more to talk to local councils.
      Incineration is not the best solution by any stretch of the imagination. There is no tax or other disincentive to incineration—on the contrary, once landfill is eliminated, there are perverse incentives to incinerate, arid it is not surprising that local councils are taking them. The Government want to avoid a chain of incinerators, but that is what they will get.
      Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
      Norman Baker: The Minister shakes his head again, but I am sorry to say that he does not know what is going on. Planning permissions are being granted all over the country. If we end up with a chain of incinerators, that will represent a failure of the waste plan. Local authorities will be tied into what the European Union now officially calls a disposal technique—not a recovery technique—for 25 or 30 years, because they have to enter into long-term contracts with incinerator manufacturers in order to recoup their funds. They will not be able to change direction and we will be stuck with this fourth option in the waste hierarchy for the foreseeable future.
      Sue Doughty: It is worth reminding the Minister that the Environmental Audit Committee regularly tells the Treasury that, because it is cheaper to send waste to incineration than to landfill, the perverse incentive will remain until it starts to tax waste that goes to incineration, as well as to landfill, and accelerates it to some £35 a tonne in a far shorter time frame than is currently planned. The Bill will maximise that perverse incentive. We require the Government to take the threat seriously and to understand that they have a choice, as well as responsibilities, in this matter.
      Norman Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: that is absolutely correct. I hope that the Minister will deal head on with whether the Government are going to introduce an incinerator tax, because he has so far studiously avoided that question.
      Mr. Wiggin: I have kept very quiet because I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. He is right that the Bill promotes incineration, but does he agree that for the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) to urge an increase in the landfill tax sends a wrong signal? Surely we require some sort of disincentive for incineration, not for landfill.
      Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to be careful how such fiscal measures are introduced. They should not be introduced individually so that they send the wrong signals. The Government should implement a comprehensive overall waste strategy through an Act of Parliament that brings in measures to achieve the ends that they, and we, want. By contrast, all that we are getting is the part of the Bill that discourages landfill. As long as the Government continue to run behind EU directives instead of considering the waste hierarchy as a whole and producing joined-up legislation, they will continue to send perverse, stop-start signals that, for example, discourage landfill and encourage incineration. What is missing from the Bill is a comprehensive, overall, holistic view of the waste stream.
      4 pm
      As I have said, local authorities will be tied to their contracts with incineration companies for 25 or 30 years. If we find that the health problems are greater than we may now think them to be, or discover other problems with incinerators, we shall not be able to do much about it. We shall be stuck with those problems, as will local populations.
      The situation is even worse than that, however. Sensibly enough, for business reasons—I do not blame them—the incinerator companies want to guarantee throughput. They have to operate their plant at near capacity to reduce dioxide emissions, and they want to be assured, as part of their contracts, that they will be delivered a certain amount of waste with which to deal.
      What will the consequences be? I do not happen to believe that the Government are right about waste minimisation, but let us suppose that the Minister proves me wrong and that the Government reduce the amount generated by, say, 10 per cent. over the next 10 years. The amount to be incinerated, however, will not diminish because it is guaranteed under the contracts. In the event of minimisation, recycling must suffer, because there will be no waste to recycle. We can have minimisation and incineration or incineration and recycling, but we cannot have all three—and I know which option I want to dispose of: incineration.
      The Minister must face the reality of the fixed-term contracts, and what they mean in terms of guaranteed waste throughput. When the amount of waste is changing, the only fixed point is the amount that authorities are required to give the incinerator companies. Notwithstanding the Minister's protestations, this is a Bill for incineration. It will lead to incineration up and down the country, in council area after council area, as landfill gives way to that option. Unless the Government produce real measures to implement the waste hierarchy, that is what will happen, and I intend to be here in 10 years to say to the Minister, "I told you so".
      Mr. Wiggin: I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) that this is a Bill for incineration, although I do not believe that the Government intended it to be. I know that the Minister strongly favours implementation of the waste hierarchy, and I share that sentiment; what I do not share is his optimistic view that the Bill will lead to such implementation. The purpose of new clause 17 is to ensure that we do not increase the amount of incineration. I know that that will find favour with the Minister, which is why we are trying to amend the Bill in a helpful and constructive way.
      The important thing about local authorities and, indeed, all involved in the waste scheme is that they will try their best to do what they interpret the rules as making them do. That means, first and foremost, that they will avoid being penalised. They will not allow themselves to fall into the trap of having to pay because they have failed to achieve their targets. They will therefore look for the best way of achieving those targets. They will start with good intentions, and recycle, re-use and recover as much as they can; but if they feel for one second that they will not achieve their targets by those methods, they will immediately investigate incineration. Because there is little incentive for them to do otherwise, they are likely to choose that option.
      The Minister responded positively when I pressed him on the incentives issue earlier, but he should give it proper consideration. This is the way in which to encourage people to do the right thing. I always prefer incentives to penalties, but unfortunately that is not how the Bill has been drafted. Local authorities are opting for incineration to meet reduced landfill targets because the Bill contains no measures to implement the waste hierarchy, which places recycling and re-use above incineration. A decision on incineration needs to be made properly.
      I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as are a couple of Labour Members who are present. The Committee expressed a fear that incineration will be the sole beneficiary of the landfill directive. It said:
      "We fear that increases in the landfill tax could simply drive waste to the next cheapest option, which is likely to be another form of disposal such as incineration."
      I believe that that is right—I suppose that, as a member of the Select Committee, I would. The statement is clear and accurate, and we need to deal with the matter today to prevent that fear from being realised. We are trying to make the Government acknowledge that incineration will increase so that they deal with that undesirable disposal option. Waste minimisation should be the focus, but the Government have set no targets for it and it is not incorporated in the Bill.
      We have not yet mentioned energy recovery today. The United Kingdom currently recovers only 9 per cent. of energy from waste, compared with 78 per cent. in Japan, 58 per cent. in Denmark, 45 per cent. in Switzerland, 42 per cent. in the Netherlands, 38 per cent. in Sweden, 35 per cent. in France and 18 per cent. in Germany. Those figures are impressive. If we are to follow the incineration route, we must also have energy recovery. I am keen not to rule out incineration, because it is not an inappropriate method of dealing with waste, but it must not be encouraged in the Bill. However, the

      229
      measure will do that instead of encouraging what the Government want to achieve. New clause 17 tries to change that counter-productive aspect.
      Paddy Tipping: I wonder whether it would be helpful to caricature the hon. Gentleman's position. He does not like waste or incineration, but does he accept that incineration of locally collected waste, which produces energy, is relatively better than many other options? Does he support that?
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman's caricature is most unfair. The Bill was not designed to encourage incineration, but it will do that. That is its failure. The hon. Gentleman should have drawn that caricature but, sadly, he did not. I have no objections to the position that he outlined. There are many benefits, especially in terms of carbon dioxide, to be gained from local incineration, but the Bill aims for implementation of the waste hierarchy and it fails. That is a fundamental problem, which new clause 17 seeks to resolve.
      Paddy Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman wants to have another go at painting my caricature, I should be delighted.
      Paddy Tipping: Let me have a second go. Am I right that the hon. Gentleman is not averse to local incineration schemes that produce energy from waste?
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman should read new clause 17 carefully. He is trying to force me to make a statement on incineration when I do not need to do that. According to the Minister, the Bill does not promote incineration. However, he, the hon. Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and I know that the Select Committee found that it would do that. Although local incineration that cuts carbon dioxide and provides energy has many benefits in principle, and Britain could increase the amount of energy recovered from waste from 9 per cent. to the levels of our European counterparts, that is not happening. Worse, it may never happen if we do not insist on energy recovery from incineration. Nothing in the Bill does that. The Minister tells us that the measure promotes the waste hierarchy. Unfortunately, the Opposition do not believe that that will happen. That is a shame, because we all want to do the right thing for the country and the planet. We shall fail because the measure is inadequate. I have made my position clear and I note that the hon. Member for Sherwood is no longer trying to intervene.
      Waste collection authorities may direct the waste disposal authorities to which they deliver not to dispose of waste by incineration. However, the hon. Member for Lewes gave the example of waste collection authorities collecting sorted waste that could have a more beneficial use but goes to incineration because that allows the disposal authorities to avoid penalties. It will be a mistake and a wasted opportunity if we allow the Bill to progress without rectifying that.
      New clause 17 would amend the Bill to ensure that collection authorities can insist that disposal authorities do not burn the hard sorted, hard collected and most
      230
      useful resource that constitutes much waste. It would also ensure that recycling, recovery and re-use happened before incineration. I am sure hon. Members agree with that, and I therefore urge them to support new clause 17.
      Mr. Drew: I rise not to continue the debate that we had in Committee but to try to clarify the misjudgment in relation to the new clauses. In Committee, we managed to redefine the Bill as one that would not speak the name of incineration. That was probably achieved from a position of opposites, and I am sure that I do not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). From my perspective, the reason that the Bill does not speak the name of incineration is that incineration is not a possibility. It is certainly not a possibility at present, and I do not foresee it being one in the future.
      Unlike the Liberal Democrats, I genuinely believe that local democracy should flourish. From all the analyses that I have carried out in my area, I have discovered overwhelming opposition to any proposals for incineration, in terms both of planning procedures and of the overall debate on waste disposal. I worry about putting the term into the Bill, because if we begin to speak the name of incineration, it could become a possibility. It could become a viable option, but I do not think that it should be, either for economic, social or—dare I say it—political reasons. I should like to see a local authority launch a campaign for incineration as its means of waste disposal, because I hate to think what would happen if such a campaigning agenda were adopted.
      Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for individual councils not promoting incineration. Like him, we are committed to local decision making and democracy. He must, however, address the issue of why, if there is such overwhelming opposition to incineration from the public, for a whole variety of reasons, local authorities up and down the country are promoting it.
      Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) did some interesting evaluations of local authorities in regard to this issue, and it is fair to say that they are in something of a mess. A meeting will take place this week in Gloucestershire with the county council, the waste disposal authority, at which its waste proposals will be discussed. Its waste plan did not get a very good response. In fact, it was so badly written that the inspector ended up coming in like a deus ex machina and talking about putting back the proposal of a regionally centred incinerator, which has caused an outcry. The one thing that the whole panoply of parties in Gloucestershire can agree on is that incineration is not the right way to go.
      In our long discussions in Committee we agreed that incineration would not be on the face of the Bill. That does not mean that we removed incineration, but it is a piece of realpolitik that no one on the Committee saw us going in that direction in the immediate future, so I do not quite understand why hon. Members are now trying to put it back into the Bill.
      Mr. Wiggin: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the people of Gloucestershire is extremely

      231
      important. What we are really saying to the general public is, "If you don't want incineration, you should recycle." It is sad that 90 per cent. of people would go for that—they will recycle if they are given the chance—but that is not happening either. We are in a dangerous position in which the Government could force people to incinerate because there is no other option, and expect to pay penalties.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Drew: I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman because we agree on many things, not least on the subject of fluoridation, on which I shall say more in a minute.
      It is dangerous to pre-empt local decision making by saying that, if local authorities are incapable of changing the mindset and consciousness of their local populations, they will inevitably come back with the incineration proposal. I believe that they would be foolhardy to do so. They had better get on with the persuading now, because if they deem themselves faced with that problem—that may be what they fear, as the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test may suggest—they will face some difficulties. If they are in tune with their local populations, the campaign against incineration should be the way in which authorities meet the Government's agenda. That is why I fear proposing these particular changes at this time.
      I hope that the two parties will reconsider. Having secured a degree of agreement in Committee, it is not right to divide the House now. We should be clear and the message should come out loudly from this Chamber that incineration is not the way forward—and it is not what is happening out there. The Minister was accused of not knowing what is going on, which I honestly cannot understand unless I am misreading all the parliamentary answers that suggest time and again that planning has resulted in not proceeding with incineration. Even where there has been an attempt to expand existing capacity, it has not progressed. Something confusing is going on out there, but I believe the parliamentary answers.
      Further to challenge the Liberal Democrats, I hope that they will not repeat what they did in the fluoridation debate. They led me to believe that there would be four-square opposition to fluoridation, but at the last moment bottled out on their opposition, resulting in a much bigger majority for clause 61. I understand that that is a different issue, but if the Liberal Democrats are against incineration, they should state that they are against it. Similarly, if they want incineration, albeit with qualifications, it would be honest of them to say so. It is no good making proposals that tend to mislead, for example by saying that the process is up to local authorities, and the waste collection authority can be predisposed to argue in favour of a different process from the waste disposal authority. That is quite an assumption. One cannot envisage waste disposal authorities opting for incineration where the waste collection authority says something different.
      I hope that we are clear that incineration is not the way forward. The Bill is clear that there are other ways of disposing of waste, and we should campaign to ensure
      232
      that people know about them. Making specific provision for incineration in the Bill at this time is a mistake.
      Mr. Sayeed: During the course of our debate on Report thus far, the Minister has tried to persuade hon. Members that the Government have a coherent strategy and that the Bill is just one part of it. We are told that the other parts of the strategy will mesh together comfortably to provide a series of policies that fulfil all the environmental aims that we all share. I have to tell the Minister that he has not persuaded the participants in the debate, and in respect of his particular assertion that the Bill will not encourage incineration, he has very clearly not persuaded some hon. Members. Furthermore, neither he nor his predecessor has been able in the past to persuade Committees in which his own party has a majority.
      What we do know is that incineration is already cheaper than recycling, thanks to the perverse tax breaks that it receives from schemes such as the climate change levy and the renewables obligation, as well as enhanced capital allowances and exemptions from business rates. With co-incineration plants also receiving tax breaks to burn waste, incineration operators could reduce their gate fees to compete even with landfill. That would make the prospect of incineration even more attractive to local authorities.
      I am indebted to Friends of the Earth, which has conducted a series of case studies, which provide us with evidence from outside this place that seems to indicate that some local authorities are already planning to reduce the amount they send to landfill and intend instead to resort to incineration. For instance, Brighton and Hove and East Sussex councils, in a confidential report to the cabinet dated 12 March 2003, have identified that their contract with a major incinerator company. Onyx Aurora, will enable them to sell surplus landfill permits, generating extra income for the councils. Onyx then plans to build an incinerator in Newhaven with a capacity of 250,000 tonnes. The councils intend to recycle just 14 per cent. by 2015.
      Norfolk county council has voted for a policy of landfilling nothing by 2010. That sounds great, but it has also rejected the recommendation of a 50 per cent. recycling target. How will it fill the gap between recycling just 36 per cent. and landfilling nothing? I suggest that some of it will go in incineration. A report to the county council's cabinet on 14 July 2003 acknowledged that the council
      "may be able to buy and sell tradable landfill permits for 'unused' landfill space. This would allow [Norfolk]…a possible 'windfall'".
      We know, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is right to say it, that incinerators remain a contentious issue with the electorate, who foresee enormous plants with a long lifespan that will despoil the landscape, consume waste that is not just locally generated, create more traffic—not just local traffic—and demand a steady stream of rubbish in order to operate efficiently and fulfil the terms of their contracts. Local people will not want incineration. However, if they are faced with the alternative of having no way of disposing of 64 per cent. of their rubbish, they may be forced to accept it.
      As I told the Minister, I believe that some incineration is necessary, but I believe that tests should be undertaken before we reach that stage. For the

      233
      avoidance of doubt, those tests are that where it is economically possible waste should be dealt with at the higher end of the waste hierarchy, and only when it is not economically possible should one be looking lower down the waste hierarchy for a solution.
      We know that some European countries have proved that high levels of recycling can go hand in hand with certain forms of incineration, but what do we know in this country? We know that small-scale energy-from-waste plants that deliver energy to the local community, coupled with incentives to minimise waste, should help us to develop policy that leads to sustainable consumption and resource management. We also know that local authorities have a pivotal role in that, but what does the Bill say about it? It is silent. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to support new clause 17, as it will force the Government to face up to reality.
      The new clause does not go far enough. We need to ensure that the Bill encourages local authorities to provide a market for recyclables. Part 2 uses a market mechanism to produce an emissions trading scheme. It is rather odd that such a mechanism should be accepted as a way to get rid of waste, but not to encourage the better use of that waste. The Bill could, and should, have used fiscal measures to encourage a market for recyclable materials. It should have contained the mechanisms, drivers and signals to encourage the right type of design, production, consumption and investment. In that way, more of what we produce could be recycled.
      The Bill also fails to provide the raw materials that allow us to recycle more efficiently. One of those raw materials is source-separated waste. The Bill is silent on that. We have shown that environmentally friendly councils could produce source-separated waste that could be mixed again to produce the right mix for an incinerator. That is another opportunity that the Bill has missed.
      Sue Doughty: The Bill is yet another example of the Government transposing a European directive into law without taking the opportunity to introduce some sensible legislation to support the environment. Amendments on packaging waste and the WEEE directive could have been incorporated in the Bill, and we have not even touched on the subject of hazardous waste. Only last week, members of the sustainable waste group heard Sir John Harmon of the Environment Agency say that we are nowhere near ready to deal with the hazardous waste directive. That is another matter that must be resolved.
      The problem is that we are not looking at waste in an integrated way. The Minister probes us about Liberal Democrat policies on incineration, but the Bill deals only with biodegradable municipal waste. It does not cover hazardous waste, or clinical or construction waste. It contains no strategies to help councils avoid the pitfall of incineration.
      People worry about incineration. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) implied that councillors were unelectable if they were keen on incineration, but incineration is part of Surrey county council's waste strategy.
      There are major problems associated with incineration. Surrey has encountered a great many, but the council leader, wearing his regional assembly hat,
      234
      has proposed it as a possible strategy for the whole of the south-east region. In that regard, the figures produced by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) in relation to councils' intentions to go for incineration when there is no real alternative tell their own tale.
      Taxation is another problem. The fact that landfill waste is taxed and incineration waste is not is a cause for concern. The Select Committees have pointed out that if we taxed materials that are currently being destroyed we should promote the recycling market. That is what we are really talking about. It is not merely that we are unhappy about incineration and the health risks and problems; it is sheer folly to build incinerators to burn materials that could have a further use. There is so much in the waste strategy relating to re-use and minimisation that implementing a policy that pushes such matters right down the waste hierarchy seems completely perverse.
      4.30 pm
      The public are worried about incineration and we need some good studies on the impact of incineration, fears about dioxins and other health concerns. One problem is that even the monitoring of dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators is unreliable. Two years ago, the Environment Agency told the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee that it did not believe that viable, continuous monitoring systems existed, yet in Belgium such systems have been implemented with no great increase in either the capital costs of incineration—the figure is about 0.2 per cent.—or the running costs. The laboratory costs have been driven down; market forces have had an effect and more samples can be taken at lower cost.
      The Belgian experience shows that when there is continuous monitoring—every two hours or so—the result is different from the snapshots that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) pointed out, might be taken when the incinerator was just being started up. Overall, the recording of dioxin emissions in Belgium was much higher—50 per cent. higher—than had been experienced previously, because the sampling system that had been used was so unreliable. That should become a thing of the past; we have improved water sampling so that it is statistically viable, but we do not seem to be able to do the same with incinerator sampling.
      Mr. Sayeed: Was that unexpected result due to the fact that when certain materials are incinerated there are peaks of some types of dioxin emission? People tend to ignore those peaks and consider only the mean figure, so continuous monitoring and closure of plant may not be the best idea, even though it was suggested in the report to which the hon. Lady referred.
      Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. The report, which was published in 1998 in the Journal for Organohalogen Compounds, identified several long and technical reasons and suggested that continuous monitoring equipment could give dioxin emission readings that were up to 50 times higher than when measurements were taken only twice a year. There were many factors involved in those low readings, many

      235
      of which were identified, but the fact remains that our current sampling method is not based on sound statistical science and it is high time that the public received the information that they need about the health risks from dioxins. Our decisions must be based on sound science rather than on information collecting methods that are widely mistrusted by the public and thereby add to their concerns.
      On the provisions relating to collection and disposal authorities I welcome the amendment. In an area where a council of one political persuasion is responsible for disposal while another is responsible for collection, it would be tempting when drawing up a countywide waste strategy to place the incinerator where people would not vote for the ruling party in any case. That is why it is so important to know whether the Conservative party will support holding real consultations between county and district or county and borough, so that there can be a co-ordinated response and local wishes can be taken into account. The wishes of people living in the collection authority area must be considered, whatever their party view, as that is important for local democracy.
      In Essex, it is well known that the Friends of the Earth group in Mersea has got recycling up to 60 per cent., yet the Essex waste strategy still includes the possibility of incineration. One group is saying, "We can do it" and another is saying, "We'll use incineration." The authority in Colchester signed the zero-waste pledge. We have heard about the problems in Surrey and those experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes.
      Many of those problems could be avoided if the Government were to adopt a coherent waste strategy that took into account fiscal measures, the economics and the number of jobs that would be produced by a sustainable waste strategy. We have been talking about lots of jobs in recycling—for example, refilling ink cartridges—but that is not what the Bill is about, so I shall not detain the House further, except to make the essential point that, even if the Bill does not explicitly promote incineration, by golly, that is what it will do.
      Mr. Morley: Interesting contributions have been made by a range of hon. Members—the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and for Guildford (Sue Doughty)—and I was very interested in what they had to say. I appreciate that incineration was a major issue in Committee, where it was discussed in some depth. People feel very strongly about it, but I make no apology for probing the Liberal Democrats on exactly where they stand.
      The hon. Member for Lewes took a bold stand on water metering when debating the Water Bill and he was perfectly reasonable about that, but his position on incineration is a bit weaselly—although I do not know quite why weasels always get that reputation—and I am still not absolutely clear about it. I thought that we had moved forward a bit.
      With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Guildford, I do not think it coherent to have a waste strategy that apparently rules out one strand whatever
      236
      the circumstances and whether or not it is justified. That is not a coherent strategy; it is just populist pandering, without trying to weigh up properly the advantages and disadvantages of each strand of the hierarchy.
      In all fairness to Conservative Members, I do not disagree with their position on incineration. They want to consider the options as part of the hierarchy—which has been established, as we all agree—and, occasionally, there just might be a case for some form of incineration or, indeed, some form of thermal treatment. I do not say that I advocate incineration; all I am saying is that it should not be ruled out of consideration.
      Sue Doughty: We have been consistent about incineration in the context of the Bill and municipal waste. We have been thinking out a coherent waste management strategy, and it seems a bit rich for a Minister of a Government who do not have a coherent sustainable waste strategy to criticise any other party.
      Mr. Morley: That is just a load of old nonsense. I have just gone through in great detail a range of work streams and strategies, including "Waste Strategy 2000", the strategy unit and the waste and resources action programme. Incidentally, in respect of what was said by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, that programme provides a range of support to develop markets for using recyclates, which we regard as an important part of the overall strategy. We have strategies coming out of our ears. It is important to make them work effectively, but part of doing so involves considering the range of options available—not ruling them out, without consideration, in the way that Liberal Democrat Members suggest. I repeat that the Bill is not in itself the principal deliverer of the waste hierarchy; it is part of the delivery of the waste hierarchy. It is one of a number of elements in relation to the Government's strategy and approach.
      The aspect of new clause 5 on which I do not particularly disagree with the Liberal Democrats relates to the potential health and environmental effects of incineration and the concern that incineration could crowd out other forms of waste disposal. That is a serious point that we should examine, and a full national environmental impact assessment of existing incineration capacity should be carried out, on which I will touch in a moment. I do not agree, however, with the press release from Friends of the Earth, which I have looked at in some detail, in relation to the assumptions being made about this Bill and its potential to increase incineration. In that sense, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Leominster. I am not saying that there may not be further incineration in this country, because the Government's approach in relation to the joint strategies in the Bill, while not advocating incineration per se, is that people should look at all the options. I return to the point that incineration is above landfill in the hierarchy, and in some circumstances that may be the more preferable approach. Local authorities, as part of their strategy, will determine whether they think that that is appropriate.
      Mr. Wiggin: The Minister's point is genuine, and none of us has questioned that the Government's approach is well intentioned. However, will he tell the House exactly how many incinerators he accepts must

      237
      be built? If more than that number are to be built, will he reconsider whether the Bill has been successful? The Opposition are worried that we will see an explosion in the number of incinerators. If he is prepared to say that that will not happen, will he set some parameters?
      Mr. Morley: I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not see an exploding number of incinerators. The answer is that I cannot predict how many incinerators may be constructed. I do not believe that such an incentive is part of the Bill. Let us look at the situation on mainland Europe in relation to recycling, as one of the concerns expressed is that the Bill might crowd out recycling as part of an increase in incineration. Where there are no restrictions on incineration on the continent, no evidence exists of recycling being pushed out. In Flanders, for example, in 1999, the recycling rate was 62 per cent., which I would be very pleased to see in this country, and the incineration rate was 22 per cent., whereas ours is 8 per cent. There is a very large difference between the recycling rate in Flanders and in this country. No evidence exists that looking at incineration as an option necessarily pushes out recycling.
      Norman Baker: The situation in other countries in Europe is different from that in this country. Over a long period, those countries have stopped landfill and have grown recycling as a desired option, as well as incineration. In this country, however, we must move off landfill very quickly, and that is the difference. Local authorities are faced with that quick, stark choice. Under the circumstances that Liberal Democrat Members have described, local authorities will opt for incineration more than we would like, because they are not starting with a strong recycling base in the way that other countries are.
      Mr. Morley: I certainly accept that we are not starting with that strong recycling base, although we are making increasing progress in relation to accelerating the process of improving the percentage of recycling and re-use in this country, and we will continue to do that. I return to the point that statutory targets exist, which local authorities must meet, that incineration cannot remove. Some examples have been given of authorities that have high rates of recycling, and I do not necessarily believe that, with incineration, those rates would go down.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made a good point about the difficulties of the planning process in relation to incineration. Incineration is very unpopular—no two ways about that—as is landfill. These days, even applications for large-scale composting are not popular with people. None of those things is popular. It is absolutely right that local authorities will have to reduce landfill under the Bill's obligations—that is its objective—but there are several ways in which they may do that. They will not necessarily have to go down the route of incineration because that is unpopular with local people and local democracy means that that must be taken into account. Although this is not an argument put forward by the Department, the point made by my hon. Friend shows that understandable local concerns will put enormous pressure on local authorities to up their levels of
      238
      recycling and re-use rather than going down the road of incineration and landfill. That pressure will be on, so I do not accept for one moment that the wonderfully easy route to incineration that has been spelled out will exist.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister deal specifically with the case of Norfolk, where the authority intends to recycle only 36 per cent. of waste by 2010? It has pledged to stop all landfill, so what will happen to the other 64 per cent.?
      Mr. Morley: I do not know all the details of what the authority in Norfolk is planning. Part of the approach is for local authorities to determine the best way in which to deal with waste in their areas. We expect them to consult and have a joint strategy, and that will apply to Norfolk as much as any area. Any decision that authorities reach must be made on the basis of what they think the most appropriate approach, and they will be accountable for that to their electorate and local communities. It is for them to justify the choice that they make. Local authorities should have the right to determine the best steps that they can take on waste minimisation with regard to the measures that we introduce.
      On the potential impact from incinerators, the hon. Member for Lewes fairly recognised that things have changed greatly during recent years. Indeed, the most modern incinerators bear little comparison with older ones. Directive 2000/76/EC replaced earlier directives on hazardous waste incineration and the prevention and reduction of air pollution from municipal waste incinerators. The 2000 directive imposes stringent operating conditions on incinerators. It was partly transposed into UK law through the Waste Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 and remaining provisions have been transposed in directions to regulators. That led to the closure of several older incinerators and a two-hundredfold reduction in dioxin emissions from incinerators compared with five years ago. I know that the hon. Gentleman conceded that.
      We want to go further. We need more information to compare the impact of incinerators with landfill. The Department has commissioned an independent review on health and environmental effects, as I briefly mentioned earlier. The review will cover all waste disposal options because they all have associated risks. It will include an assessment of the potential risks attached to incineration, and will especially consider the latest science and technology. The review is nearly complete and we expect it to be published in the near future. We are taking seriously the points raised by the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes and addressing them, as the House will discover when we publish the report.
      We are not actively encouraging incineration as a waste management option, but it is part of the hierarchy and people should be able to consider it. We have been through the hierarchy—there is no need for me to go

      239
      through it again—and hon. Members know that minimisation and recycling are at the top of it and that we are putting measures in place to encourage that.
      Norman Baker: Will the Minister support an incinerator tax?
      Mr. Morley: All financial instruments should be regularly reviewed. There may be a case for reconsidering them whatever the waste route. That is a possibility. We have no plans to do that, but financial instruments are an important tool, especially in terms of environmental outcomes.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: There is considerable sense in what the Minister advocates. However, I am struck by the fact that local authorities are deciding to have incineration today and that could tie them in to long-term disposal methods. That approach by local authorities will bind future generations, will not allow best technology to be used in future and could have an impact on re-use, recycling and minimisation strategies. Surely the Minister must share some of the concerns expressed.
      Mr. Morley: I understand why hon. Members raise that point. Again, I return to the thrust of the Government's approach. We have confidence in local democracy and such decisions need to be taken locally. People will have to weigh up the capital costs of long-term contracts. I do not dispute that.
      Even if we make good progress on recycling and re-use, which I am confident we will, and achieve a recycling rate of 50 per cent.—I would be more than pleased to hit that target, which would be pretty good in this country—14 million tonnes of municipal waste would still need to be disposed of each year. We could reduce that by using waste minimisation measures, which we have to address, but we would still need to dispose of a similar level of waste. Some of that could be dealt with in other ways, but there is a limit to the amount of material that is biodegradable and can be composted. The choice is to use landfill or incineration to dispose of that residue. Incineration may be the most sensible option, especially if it involves energy recovery, which the Conservatives mentioned. We agree that we need energy recovery if we are to benefit from the waste.
      Mr. Thomas: What proportion of the current waste stream would fall into that category? I accept what the Minister says about local democracy, but would he not be well advised to give guidance to local authorities on the letting of contracts so that they do not tie the hands of future generations?
      Mr. Morley: The latter idea goes a bit far on the legitimate role that central Government play in the decisions that local government makes on contracts. Local authorities are issued with guidance on a range of issues in relation to financial and practical matters. The waste implementation programme that we established also provides advice and support to local authorities on a range of waste strategies. That support is in place. The proportion of energy recovered from incineration is very
      240
      low, although I do not know the exact figure. We need to increase that percentage if further development is to take place.
      New clause 6 requires continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions for all waste incinerated by 2006. I am not unsympathetic to that approach. Work is being done on the technology to achieve that. I am not sure that the technology has been established or proven to the extent that I could be confident that it would be robust enough to put in place by 2006, but it is coming and we think that it has a role to play.
      That technology may not be appropriate for all types of incinerator. The material that goes into municipal solid waste incinerators is very homogenous, so the pollutants produced during combustion tend to be more predictable than hon. Members have suggested. Nevertheless, we do not rule out the use of such technology in future.
      Amendment No. 59 and new clause 17 would allow the waste collection authority to direct that the waste disposal authority shall not dispose of that waste by incineration. That goes a little too far for the waste strategy because it would rule out what might be the most appropriate option, so we cannot accept those amendments.
      I hope, although I am not confident, that I have given a detailed explanation, because this is an important issue that the Government take seriously. I genuinely do not believe that the Bill, in itself, is a stimulus to large-scale incineration. We have established the waste hierarchy, within which, all hon. Members agree, incineration should be considered if it is the safest, most environmentally sound and most appropriate option. However, given the problems with planning, local opinion and the views of local councils, I cannot see that there will be a massive expansion of incineration capacity. I do not believe that the Bill will in any way upset the targets that we have set for waste minimisation, recycling and re-use, which are far above incineration in the Government's hierarchy of priorities.
      Norman Baker: I shall be brief because we have had a long run round the course. The Minister is genuine in his desires, but I simply do not accept his analysis in one crucial respect, because the honestly held view on this side of the House is that the Bill will engender further incineration.
      I refer the Minister to a parliamentary answer given by his predecessor on 10 March to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who had asked what incinerators were planned. This also picks up on the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who thinks that incinerators will not happen because local opinion is against them; that is not the case. The planning status is as follows: Grimsby, granted; Portsmouth, granted after appeal; Southampton, granted; Capel, Surrey, planning withdrawn and new application expected; Slough, granted; Chineham, granted; Hull, application refused and planning appeal in progress; Neath, Port Talbot, granted; Maidstone, granted; Bexley, public inquiry pending; Derby, granted; Sheffield, granted; Cornwall, application submitted.
      Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman is right about the long list of planning applications, and it would be interesting to consider its historical antecedents. But how many of them does he genuinely think will proceed? I think that very few of them will proceed.
      Norman Baker: I have no reason to think that any of them will not proceed. After all, if someone has gone to the huge expense—it is probably millions of pounds—of getting together a planning application and meeting all the Environment Agency's requirements for pollution prevention controls, which are also being determined, although I did not read out that part of the parliamentary answer, clearly they will proceed with that application.
      Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any company considering making a planning application for an incinerator, rather than investing in other, more sustainable technologies, will only be encouraged by the Minister's words today? The Minister may be ambivalent towards incineration, but it is a huge, lost opportunity in the Bill.
      Norman Baker: Companies may not be encouraged by the Minister's words—that is a little harsh towards the Minister—but they may reasonably conclude, after reading the Bill, that they can proceed with incineration because that is the direction in which the Government are pointing, whether or not they want to.
      Richard Younger-Ross: Will not barristers at planning appeals use the words that have been used today in their arguments that the Minister should decide in favour of a planning application?
      5 pm
      Norman Baker: Barristers looking at the Brighton and Hove waste plan chided me for daring to try to include waste minimisation. They did not see a role for it, as they believe that the priorities should be recycling and incineration. That, I am afraid, is what is happening on the ground, irrespective of the Minister's best intentions.
      I refer the Minister to comments made by his colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test in Standing Committee B on 8 April 2003, at column 174:
      "The ultimate conclusion is that if nothing else happens by the end of the decade, some 70 per cent. of waste disposal authorities will be involved in some form of incineration."
      The hon. Gentleman had talked to councils and conducted a survey of their methods of waste disposal. He continued:
      "Perhaps we need measures outside the Bill on incineration tax and different ways of dealing with incineration, and perhaps we need incentives on how local authorities work."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 April 2003; c. 174.]
      The hon. Gentleman is very good on these matters, but the Minister has not given us the definitive assurance about incineration tax that we would like. Once landfill has been excluded, or at least made difficult, which is what the Bill rightly does, there are no further incentives to prioritise the waste hierarchy, so local councils will go for the easiest option. They will follow the money and choose incineration—a matter about which the hon.
      242
      Member for Stroud asked. Councils will follow financial pointers, so the Government must change those pointers to stop them doing so. Unless the Government take an active interest and introduce change, the right decisions will not be made at local level.
      I am grateful for the Minister's comments on DEFRA's work on the health and environmental review, which I mentioned in my introduction. He was right to highlight that welcome Government development. I am grateful for his comments on new clause 6, to which he was sympathetic. I am not sure that I agree that the technology is not proven, as there is continuous monitoring in Denmark and other countries. That is a minor point, but at least he will look at the matter.
      I am not convinced, however, that the conditions set out in new clause 5 will be met in the assessment of transportation, emissions and alternative methods of waste disposal. It is important that the House send a signal that it does not want incineration unless that is a last-gasp effort, according to the Minister, in the waste hierarchy. However, we are going to get it as the Bill is currently constructed, so I shall seek to divide the House on new clause 5.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 292.

      Division No. 341]

      [5:02 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Doughty, Sue

      Bacon, Richard

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Baker, Norman

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Baldry, Tony

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Barker, Gregory

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Fallon, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Flight Howard

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Flook, Adrian

      Bercow, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Boswell, Tim

      Francois, Mark

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Brady, Graham

      Garnier, Edward

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Brazier, Julian

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Breed, Colin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Goodman, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Grayling, Chris

      Burns, Simon

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Burt, Alistair

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, John

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Grieve, Dominic

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gummer, rh John

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hammond, Philip

      Cash, William

      Hancock, Mike

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Chidgey, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Chope, Christopher

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Collins, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Conway, Derek

      Heath, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Hendry, Charles

      Curry, rh David

      Holmes, Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Howard, rh Michael

      243

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Keetch, Paul

      Salmond, Alex

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Selous, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lait Mrs, Jacqui

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Lamb, Norman

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Spring, Richard

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Steen, Anthony

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lidington, David

      Syms, Robert

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Maclean, rh David

      Teather, Sarah

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thurso, John

      Maples, John

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mates, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Maude, rh Francis

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Viggers, Peter

      Mercer, Patrick

      Walter, Robert

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Moore, Michael

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Weir, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Whittingdale, John

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wilkinson, John

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Willetts, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Page, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Wishart, Pete

      Randall, John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Redwood, rh John

      Young, rh Sir George

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rendel, David

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Robathan, Andrew

      Sir Robert Smith

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bell, Stuart

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Allen, Graham

      Berry, Roger

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Best, Harold

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Borrow, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Baird, Vera

      Browne, Desmond

      Banks, Tony

      Bryant, Chris

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Burden, Richard

      Battle, John

      Burnham, Andy

      Bayley, Hugh

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cairns, David

      244

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Challen, Colin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clelland, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hermon, Lady

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heyes, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst Alan (Braintree)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Illsley, Eric

      David, Wayne

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davis, rh Terry (B ham Hodge H)

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Denham, rh John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Lammy, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lepper, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Follett, Barbara

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Foster, rh Derek

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gilroy, Linda

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      245

      McKechin, Ann

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacShane, Denis

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Short, rh Clare

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Merron, Gillian

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, rh Alun

      Squire, Rachel

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morley, Elliot

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mountford, Kali

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mudie, George

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tipping, Paddy

      Olner, Bill

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Organ, Diana

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Trickett, Jon

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Picking, Anne

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Plaskitt, James

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pound, Stephen

      Ward, Claire

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watts, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      White, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Winnick, David

      Purnell, James

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Worthington, Tony

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ruane, Chris

      Derek Twigg and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 17

      DIRECTIONS TO WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES
      '(1) a waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration.

      (2) Any waste disposal authority which receives such a direction shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure it is complied with within 12 months of the issuing of the direction.

      (3) A waste collection authority issuing a direction under subsection (1) above shall pay to a waste disposal authority such amounts as are needed to ensure that the disposal authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with the direction.'.—[Mr Wiggin]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 289.

      Division No. 342]

      [5:16 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Flook, Adrian

      Allan, Richard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Amess, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Bacon, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Baker, Norman

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Baldry, Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Barker, Gregory

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Barrett, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodman, Paul

      Bercow, John

      Grayling, Chris

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brady, Graham

      Gummer, rh John

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Hammond, Philip

      Brazier, Julian

      Hancock, Mike

      Breed, Colin

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Harvey, Nick

      Burnett, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Burt, Alistair

      Heald, Oliver

      Butterfill, John

      Heath, David

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hendry, Charles

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Holmes, Paul

      Cash, William

      Howard, rh Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Chidgey, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, rh Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Conway, Derek

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Keetch, Paul

      Curry, rh David

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Doughty, Sue

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Lamb, Norman

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Lansley, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Fallon, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Flight, Howard

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      247

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Lilley, rh Peter

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

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Maclean, rh David

      Steen, Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stunell, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Teather, Sarah

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Moore, Michael

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Norman, Archie

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Viggers, Peter

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Walter, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Watkinson, Angela

      Paice, James

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Paterson, Owen

      Whittingdale, John

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Randall, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Willetts, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Rendel, David

      Wilshire, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Ruffley, David

      Young, rh Sir George

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Selous, Andrew

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hugh Robertson

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Burnham, Andy

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cairns, David

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Challen, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Baird, Vera

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clelland, David

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bell, Stuart

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cohen, Harry

      Berry, Roger

      Colman, Tony

      Best, Harold

      Connarty, Michael

      Borrow, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cooper, Yvette

      Brennan, Kevin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cranston, Ross

      Browne, Desmond

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bryant, Chris

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Burden, Richard

      Cummings, John

      248

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Illsley, Eric

      David, Wayne

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Denham, rh John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Doran, Frank

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Etherington, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lammy, David

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fisher, Mark

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flint, Caroline

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Foulkes, rh George

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCafferty, Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonnell, John

      Grogan, John

      MacDougall, John

      Hain, rh Peter

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hanson, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McWalter, Tony

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hermon, Lady

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Heyes, David

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Mountford, Kali

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      249

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Soley, Clive

      Olner, Bill

      Squire, Rachel

      Organ, Diana

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Stevenson, George

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Perham, Linda

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Picking, Anne

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget E (Lewisham E)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Purnell, James

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watts, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      White, Brian

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Worthington, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Derek Twigg and

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      TARGET YEARS
      Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 8, after 'waste', insert
      'municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in clause 9, page 7, line 11, after 'waste', insert
      'municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste'.
      No. 60, in clause 21, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

      '(1A) In determining whether waste is biodegradable for the purposes of this Chapter the following is to be excluded—

      250

      (a) waste that has had its biological activity significantly reduced through accelerated decomposition technologies or other non-incineration technologies that the Secretary of State may specify by regulations; and

      (b) is within statutory limits of biological activity that the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.'.

      Mr. Wiggin: Amendment No. 10 not only highlights the Bill's glaring inadequacies but tries to amend it positively and constructively. That means that the definition of biological or biodegradable would include all the different components of the municipal solid waste stream. That includes commercial, industrial, construction and demolition waste.
      In his previous speech, the Minister talked about Flanders. I urge him to be careful when using European examples because European countries measure waste and recycling differently from the United Kingdom. The European Union is trying to amend the definition of waste and recycling to establish a uniform European standard of measurement. That will be constructive but before it happens we must be careful about citing examples from other countries. They do not necessarily measure the same thing as we do.
      We cannot be proud of the UK's recycling record, although Conservative councils are making the greatest inroads into achieving the Government's targets. It is especially difficult for me to listen to the Government emphasising the extent of progress when I know that Conservative councils are responsible for it. The amendment would increase the small amount of waste that the Government try to cover in the Bill and therefore have a greater impact on society and the environment.
      There is a second advantage, because construction and demolition waste is not combustible so it would not be appropriate to incinerate it. That would have a positive effect on local authorities because the weighting is currently in favour of incineration. Widening the waste stream would render that method of dealing with waste less appropriate. We need to widen the Bill to increase the amount of waste that we recycle, re-use and recover, and to move away from incineration.
      5.30 pm
      I would also like to draw the Minister's attention to the amendment passed in Committee which took away an improvement made in House of Lords. That improvement would have ensured that all biodegradable waste, having been composted, was sterilised by heating it to 90° C, which would have killed the pathogens in it. It would also have killed some of the positive elements resulting from the composting, but the important point is that the noble Lords were seeking to prevent another outbreak of a disease such as foot and mouth, which can be spread on the fields. The Government have taken a risk in removing that provision, and they must be comfortable with that; otherwise they would not have done so. I hope that they will monitor closely what is going on, in case we are unlucky enough to have another outbreak of a disease

      251
      such as foot and mouth. If that should take place, I hope that they will immediately review the rules set out in the Bill. We have put it on record that we are aware of the risk that they are taking, and we recognise that what they are doing has been considered.
      Mr. Morley: I want to deal with this point now in case I forget to do so in my main reply. I recall the House of Lords amendment. It set specific maximum temperatures in relation to composting. I understand that it was intended to deal with pathogens, but they are dealt with under the Animal By-Products Order 1999. We believe that the regulations that have been set will bring about a temperature that will kill the pathogens. The problem with the House of Lords amendment was that its provisions would not only have killed the pathogens but set the green waste on fire. The waste would have been incinerated. The temperature for the biological waste would have been so high that it would have killed all the microbes, and all that would have been left would be a nasty black sludge, rather than biodegradable waste that could be used for soil conditioning.
      Mr. Wiggin: I think that the Minister is exaggerating. He will recognise, perhaps more than any other Minister, the real risk from foot and mouth. He is perhaps not being himself in taking such a light-hearted approach to such a serious disease. Let me remind him that the smell of burning sheep in Bromyard was so overpowering that residents there had to close their guest houses and hotels, thanks to the way in which the Government handled the foot and mouth outbreak. It is most unlike the Minister to take a light-hearted approach to this issue. He is wrong to do that, and he has missed the serious point that the Lords were seeking to make.
      Mr. Morley: It is not like the hon. Gentleman to paint me in such a way. He knows very well that I do not approach these matters light-heartedly. I take them very seriously. It is only fair to say, however, that amendments have to be workable, and that one was not.
      Mr. Wiggin: The Minister smiles as he says these things, but I know that he takes this matter seriously, and I am prepared to forgive him for his earlier comments. He is right: to some extent, it would have been extremely difficult to make the amendment tabled in another place practically applicable. But I am asking him not to ignore the spirit of that amendment. We are worried that a disease such as foot and mouth could be spread on the soil because a certain temperature was not being achieved, and the Minister should look again at that.
      I have not sought to bring back that provision here, however. The amendment that we are debating simply widens the types of waste that would be dealt with under the Bill. I merely wanted to draw the Minister's attention to the risk that has been put into the Bill by ignoring the amendment passed in another place. That is all that I sought to do in this amendment. However, I think that he now realises how important the noble
      252
      Lords' amendment was, and I am sure that he will monitor very carefully the biodegradable waste that is spread on fields.
      Sue Doughty: Amendment No. 60 is about a problem of definition. The Minister may wish to make a statement or at least take note of it. People need a clear guideline or steer on what is or is not biodegradable waste. Anaerobic and aerobic treatments, worm digesters and all sorts of things take biodegradable waste and move it into a more inert form. I cannot say that those treatments move it into an inert form: it remains slightly "ert", one might say, which is where the problem lies. The question is about the level of activity within the treatment process, when something stops being biodegradable and whether it needs to go to landfill.
      This is an important matter. It is important to the people who produce materials from these plants and it is important for standards. In a fairly robust previous discussion of incineration, the Minister feared that we were not looking at the wider approach to waste disposal. The approach that councils or disposal authorities take is important. Treatment must be acceptable and to known standards; objectives have to be fulfilled and they should be measurable in terms of the stability and change of the materials produced as a result of the process.
      I and other members of the Committee received a letter dated 29 April 2003 from the former Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). The letter said that some treatments of biodegradable waste
      "could result in a reduction in the biodegradable content of the residue waste…For biodegradable waste to change its nature totally and become inert waste, it would be necessary for it to meet the strict definition of inert waste in the Landfill Directive. It is unlikely that any treatment of biodegradable waste, other than perhaps energy recovery"—
      incineration in this case—"will achieve this." The question is whether the Government believe that, unless treatment applied to biodegradable waste is thorough enough to ensure that the residual waste meets the definition of inert waste, it must by definition be biodegradable waste. It is either inert or biodegradable.
      According to the simple definition in the landfill directive, biodegradable waste
      "means any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste and paper and paperboard."
      Important issues are at stake about what one does after mechanical biological or other biodegrading treatments. We need to know whether, if mechanical biological treatment leaves a residual waste, it will be classified as biodegradable waste.
      The Environmental Services Association is concerned because it believes that the correct interpretation of the directive is that processes such as MBT can be sufficient to prevent the residual waste from being classed as biodegradable for the purposes of the directive. I am sorry about the technical nature of this matter, but it is important.

      253
      The draft European directive on biowaste also sets out to clarify the position. It concerns whether something continues to degenerate. It says:
      "If residual municipal waste undergoes a mechanical/biological treatment prior to landfilling, the achievement of either a Respiration Activity"—
      meaning continued activity—
      "after four days… below 10 mg O2/g dry matter or a Dynamic Respiration Index below 1,000 mg O2/kg Volatile Solids"—
      that is, fats, carbohydrates and proteins—per hour,
      "shall deem that the treated residual municipal waste is not any more biodegradable waste"—
      in other words, one definition says that it is and the other that it is not—
      "in the meaning of Article 2 (m) of Directive 1999/31/EC."
      In other words, mechanical biological treatment—even where the resultant material is landfilled—becomes a legitimate route for local authorities to pursue in seeking to meet their landfill directive targets.
      Amendment No. 60 would allow the Secretary of State to anticipate the arrival of that directive by putting in place a similar measure that would make clear the standards that mechanical biological treatment or other treatments must achieve to be legitimate approaches to meeting the landfill directive targets. It is all a matter of what is done with the waste afterwards.
      We should like to know whether mechanical biological treatment and the landfilling of the residual waste from the treatment are a legitimate approach to meeting the landfill directive targets. That is the reason for tabling the amendment. It is horribly technical, but it does have a bearing on the industry, which needs to be dealt with at this stage.
      Mr. Morley: On that last point, the hon. Lady made an important, very technical argument. She could have simply asked, "Can biodigestion be part of the process?" That would have been a bit quicker, but she was making a serious point and I shall deal with it in detail in a moment.
      Amendments Nos. 10 and 27 would vastly extend the scope of the landfill allowances scheme established by the Bill to include not only biodegradable municipal waste, but municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and demolition waste. Amendment No. 10 would require the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of each of the waste streams that can be landfilled in each target year. Amendment No. 27 would place a duty on waste disposal authorities not to landfill more of any of those waste streams than the allowance they hold for that year.
      I appreciate the need to tackle the wider issue of sustainable waste management but, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) knows, it is not the purpose of the Bill to go as wide as that. All those wastes are covered by Waste Strategy 2000—we will not ignore them, because they are important—and that is the starting point for those streams.
      The Bill is designed to provide the United Kingdom with an innovative and workable system that will allow it to meet the reduction targets in the landfill directive. There is a lot of interest in the Bill and in that concept, arising from the Bill. The EU has taken a particular
      254
      interest. The targets relate to biodegradable municipal waste, as it is known. That is the waste stream that is the subject of the landfill targets and the allowance scheme set out in the Bill: the targets are restricted to that. That is not to say that I shall ignore the other arguments that the hon. Gentleman made.
      Each country in the UK has already put in place a comprehensive strategy covering all waste streams. In England, we have Waste Strategy 2000, which has set a target to reduce by 2005 the amount of commercial and industrial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent. of that landfilled in 1998. The landfill tax has had an impact on commercial and industrial waste. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 have also had an effect on commercial waste. Those policies are not lying dormant. The Chancellor announced in the Budget that the landfill tax escalator would increase to a minimum of £3 per tonne from 2005–06, increasing the tax to £35 per tonne no later than 2010–11. The packaging directive is also under review.
      Provisional Environment Agency data, based on returns from licensed landfill sites, suggest that the amount of industrial and commercial waste going to landfill may have decreased by about 8 per cent. between 1998–99 and 2000–01. The Environment Agency is carrying out a new survey and we should get the results in 2004. We shall see then which way the trend is going. However, the trend on the commercial side is encouraging.
      A large proportion of municipal solid waste is already covered in the Bill because the bulk of that is biodegradable municipal waste. Much municipal solid waste is also household waste, which is targeted through statutory household waste recycling and composting targets for local authorities. Those have been backed up by an increase in funding to local authorities for recycling, both through the block that local authorities get—the environmental protection and cultural services block—and the national waste minimisation and recycling fund. That is another way of encouraging waste minimisation, incidentally.
      I have briefly outlined how we are dealing with this part of the Bill. My comments go broader than the provisions of the Bill, but I want to assure the hon. Member for Leominster that these are important issues; we take them seriously and are trying to address them as part of our strategy.
      5.45 pm
      Amendment No. 60 would alter the definition of "biodegradable waste". The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) explained in some detail the definitions involved. The amendment would exclude from that definition waste that has had its biological activity significantly reduced through accelerated decomposition technologies or other non-incineration technologies that the Secretary of State may specify by regulation, and if it is within the limits of biological activity specified by the Secretary of State.
      I understand the intention behind this amendment. The hon. Member for Guildford made it clear that she seeks clarification that mechanical and biological treatments are acceptable alternative ways to deal with waste. She has also written to me, and I will make sure

      255
      that she gets a reply on this point. I understand that her concern is that local authorities will conclude that incineration is the only way to meet their targets under the landfill directive—a point that relates to our earlier debate. I can assure the House that that is not the case, and that amendment No. 60 is therefore unnecessary.
      The Department has held a series of roadshows nationwide to brief local authority officials and others. During the roadshows, it was made absolutely clear that mechanical and biological treatment is a perfectly legitimate operation in respect of meeting the requirements of the directive, when it reduces the biodegradable activity in the waste. We must be a little careful in this regard, as operations that merely reduce the water content of the waste but leave the biodegradable activity unaltered would not be legitimate, as that would still result in methane emissions, whether or not the waste was landfilled.
      It has also been made clear that when legitimate mechanical and biological treatments have been carried out, the waste disposal authorities should get the benefits of any reduction in biodegradable content of the waste in landfills. That would count in respect of reduction. Although such treatments may not result in zero biodegradable activity, they can make a considerable reduction. The mass balance monitoring system that we intend to implement will be designed to pick up that reduction. The extent of any reduction will be determined on the basis of a research project that will set out the reduction in biodegradable content achieved by each treatment type.
      That information will be very useful. If a waste disposal authority can then demonstrate that its residual waste was subject to a particular treatment, it will be credited with the biodegradable content reduction assigned to the treatment. I know that local authorities are very interested in biodigestion, for example, and that one or two schemes are being put in place that would use it on quite a large scale. We think that that is perfectly legitimate in respect of meeting the target. I hope that that reassurance will meet some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Guildford.
      Sue Doughty: I am very interested to know how standards will be set. How will the Government determine what has been happening? The Minister told me what I wanted to hear, in the sense that merely removing liquid will not be sufficient. Will a specific body be established to set the necessary standards?
      Mr. Morley: The guidelines will be set by DEFRA. As I mentioned, we are setting up a research programme to look at the reduction in biodegradable content achieved by each treatment type. We lack that information at present, and we need to have it. That is why we are setting in hand research to address that matter.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As I noted in my opening remarks, I thought that the Government would be unlikely to accept my amendment, but I think that the Minister has accepted its spirit. He certainly made it clear that the Government are mindful of the importance of reducing the quantity
      256
      of all types of wastes that are consigned to landfill. With that in mind, I am content that my amendment has achieved all that could be hoped for.
      I am also grateful that the Minister took on board the very serious point made by the House of Lords. If we have achieved nothing more today, then ensuring that there is never another outbreak of foot and mouth disease will represent a genuine service to the nation.
      I was also interested in the points made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). Just outside my constituency, at Wooferton, there is a plant where it is proposed to carry out biological and mechanical waste disposal of the type that has been mentioned.
      With those comments in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (4) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of this section.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government amendments Nos. 37, 38, 41 and 42.
      Amendment No. 5, in clause 23, page 15, line 34, leave out '2019' and insert '2015'.
      Amendment No. 6, in page 15, line 35, leave out `2013' and insert '2009'.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 15, line 36, leave out `2020' and insert '2016'.
      Government amendments Nos. 43 and 47.
      Mr. Morley: I hope that I shall not have to detain the House too long, as these amendments are largely technical. I shall deal with them only briefly, but if hon. Members want to question me on the detail, I shall be happy to try to answer.
      Amendment No. 36 amends clause I so that the requirement to consult the devolved Administrations can be satisfied by consultation before, as well as after, the coming into force of clause 1.
      Amendment No. 38 makes a similar amendment to clause 3 in respect of the requirement to consult the devolved Administrations about the amount of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to be landfilled for the "notional target year" ending on 16 July 2004.
      Amendment No. 43 allows a requirement on the allocating authority to consult bodies or persons who may be affected by regulations before making them. As hon. Members know, it is the Government's view that allocating authorities should have the ability to begin their allowance schemes as soon as possible. For that reason, substantial work has already been undertaken with the aim of achieving a 2004 start date. That has involved considerable consultation with the devolved Administrations, local authorities and waste facility operators. The amendments will allow those consultations to "count" in respect of the Bill's provisions.

      257
      Amendment No. 37 is merely technical. The remaining Government amendments are also technical and mainly relate to changes in the schemes and the target years. If hon. Members have any questions, I shall be happy to try to answer them.
      Mr. Wiggin: My amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are designed to urge the Government to hesitate before taking advantage of the four-year derogation available to comply with the EU landfill targets. The earlier target years should give a long enough time to meet the demands; those deadlines should be achievable.
      The Government's lack of ambition in their landfill policy and their indecision has led to uncertainty in the waste management industry, where there is a singular lack of willing investors. That is important. The Government have failed to address the serious problems of landfill and they take advantage of derogation after derogation. We must get them to stop and think before they sign up to such things. They should ensure that their ambitions are fulfilled within the time available.
      Of course, derogations are useful, and the Government should take advantage of them if they are necessary. However, the Government should be more ambitious in achieving targets that are important not only for the country and for people who care about recycling but for the future of the planet. That is why we are undertaking this legislative process.
      It is extraordinary that the Government, who have a pressing legislative programme, should be so unambitious in the Bill. However, this is not the time to discuss that.
      The UK should take a position of environmental leadership and aim to comply by 2016, not by 2020. The Government should invest the necessary additional resources, enhance regulatory certainty and improve the speed of the planning process, all of which would make it much easier for us to comply.
      The Netherlands already complies with the 2016 biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets of the landfill directive, as do Austria and Denmark. The Government are merely shying away—again—from tackling the problem of waste. Both their approach and their strategy are inadequate, and I hope that they will adopt our amendments and buck up their ideas for dealing with biodegradable municipal waste.
      Sue Doughty: I will be brief. I have a query about Government amendment No. 36. Will the Government allow further consultation, or will they say, "You've had your consultation, and we're going to do what we want"? We would like to have more information about that consultation process and about why the Government want to amend the Bill in that way.
      I support amendments Nos. 5 to 7. It is clear that the Government are choosing the easy options. The target years should be the same as those in the landfill directives, and the Government should not use the four-year derogation. We want a Government who are confident about meeting their environmental targets, not a Government who allow an opt-out before they have started. We have a lot of catching up to do, compared with our continental neighbours, and the Bill
      258
      provides a splendid opportunity to do that, but it is such a pity that, yet again, we are tiptoeing forward, rather than walking forward with confidence.
      Mr. Morley: I do not accept those points. The Bill's provisions on landfill are, frankly, pioneering. I accept that we have a lot of catching up to do. I do not hide that fact or dispute it. That is why I am so strongly committed to the range of measures that we have been discussing in considering the Bill, as well as those in the Bill itself.
      On the point made about Government amendment No. 36, a range of consultation will take place on the Bill's implementation, but a lot of consultation work has been done, as I have mentioned. If we have held detailed consultations on aspects of the Bill, it is not unreasonable for that work to count, rather than going through all that again, which people would find bureaucratic and would slow the implementation process. That, simply, is why we want to include that provision. In no way is it designed as a short cut or to cut out the opportunity for people to comment on a range of measures in the Bill.
      I understand the reasoning behind amendments Nos. 5 to 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). We have to give local authorities as much certainty as possible to plan for such strategies. I understand that such issues were discussed in Committee and I thought that our explanation had been accepted at that time, but I wish to say briefly that we cannot leave the position open-ended. To assist local authorities in planning for the scheme, we plan to operate the scheme on the basis that the three target years for the UK will be 2010, 2013 and 2020, and local authorities are aware of that.
      There is a quirky technical issue: under amendments Nos. 5 to 7, we would have to plan to take advantage of the derogation for the first year, but not for the second and the final target years. The unusual consequence of not taking advantage of the derogation for the second and third target years, while doing so for the first, is that the second target year—2009—would fall before the first target year, 2010. So those amendments would have a strange effect, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are committed to the implementation and that we are trying to act reasonably and pragmatically.
      Mr. Wiggin: I wish that I could accept that, but when we consider—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry. This is not the hon. Gentleman's group of amendments. Government amendment No. 36 has been moved. My apologies, but the hon. Gentleman cannot speak for a second time.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      NON-TARGET YEARS
      Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'with the agreement of' and insert 'following consultation with'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'with the agreement of' and insert 'following consultation with'.

      259
      No. 15, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
      '(5) The power under subsection (1) is exercisable following consultation with the relevant local authorities.
      No. 17, in clause 5, page 4, line 9, after 'may', insert
      'with the agreement of the relevant waste disposal authorities'.
      Mr. Wiggin: One can but try in this business, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      This group of amendments seeks to ensure that physical consultation, not just things involving vague terms such as "agreement", takes place between the Secretary of State and all allocating authorities before any decision on targets is made in regulation by the Secretary of State. It also seeks to ensure that regulations are not enforced, without proper discussions, by the affected UK countries that limit the Secretary of State's power over devolved authorities. This is one of the most important areas of this Bill, and I hope that the Government will take our points seriously. What we are seeking to do is ensure that the Government, who, as the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) rightly pointed out, are tiptoeing forward in a timid fashion—
      It being one hour before the moment of interruption, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [20 March], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
      Government amendments Nos. 37 to 58 agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6 pm
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I start by putting on record my appreciation of the generally constructive way in which Members on both sides of the House have approached the Bill at all stages. I am only sorry that I did not see the Bill through in Committee, and that I was not involved with the whole process. It is an important and interesting Bill, which raises a number of key issues that I have been happy to debate with Members on both sides of the House.
      I appreciate that one of the major areas of concern has been the potential impact of the Bill on incineration. I have had a difference of opinion with some hon. Members on that, and we will have to agree to disagree on the matter. Even on that subject, however, I accept that some issues, such as the health effects, need to be considered carefully. I also accept that independent research is necessary. These days, research on health effects of any kind must be done by independent bodies, which is important.
      I also believe that the statutory recycling and composting targets that have been set by the Government will reduce the pressures on incineration, to which some Members have referred. I repeat, however, that it is important that local authorities, through their joint strategies, consider what is the best way forward within the structure of our waste hierarchy, which I am glad to say has received universal support from the House.
      David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that authorities such as mine in
      260
      North-West Leicestershire, whose recycling levels are low, are being encouraged by the Government to increase those levels and to introduce schemes that are significantly more expensive, while having fairly low levels of grant settlement? Does he believe that a more sympathetic approach to authorities of that kind is likely?
      Mr. Morley: Whatever resources are available, they are never enough, whatever organisation is involved. The block in terms of the resources available to local authorities for waste and environmental protection, however, has increased significantly and substantially in the last few years. A lot of additional money has therefore gone to local authorities to reflect the fact that we want to see progress on waste and recycling. I said earlier that I have been heartened by the progress made in the last few years by local authorities, some of which have dramatically increased the rate of reuse and recycling. Apart from the increase in the cultural and environmental protection block, additional money has been made available through the challenge fund, and assistance and advice is available through the waste implementation programme. A range of measures has therefore been put in place to assist local authorities to meet their targets. Of course, when money goes to local authorities through the block, it is for them to decide how they allocate resources according to their priorities. As my hon. Friend knows, we have set local authorities targets and although the targets are ambitious, we expect them to be met. That is because a more sustainable approach on waste management is important both nationally and locally.
      Increasing the amount of re-use, recycling and waste minimisation will give financial advantages to local authorities—the Bill provides for such an advantage. Local authorities will be set limits on landfill and if they make fast progress in getting below the limits, they will receive tradeable credits that will give them a financial advantage. We have a comprehensive package of measures to encourage and support local authorities to meet targets.
      The relationship between waste disposal and waste collection authorities has understandably featured strongly in the debate. Successful waste management depends on close and constructive relationships between those authorities, although we acknowledge that there can be tensions, not least political ones, from time to time. We have touched on that during our consideration of the Bill. It is in the interests of both parties and the people whom they represent for them to work together and co-operate, which is why we are trying to encourage that through the joint municipal waste strategies that we agreed on Report. I know that those issues were of interest to hon. Members during the Bill's progress and we have honoured our commitments.
      Hon. Members have a range of interests in waste and recognise that the Bill represents an innovative step forward on the handling of waste. By making use of economic instruments, the Government recognise that prescription alone is not always the best way forward. It is sometimes better to supply the means by which to achieve the ends, and it is sometimes valuable to introduce financial instruments to provide levers for local authorities. We have had a broader discussion on

      261
      other possible financial levers and it is always worth considering them. The examination of the range of incentives and financial instruments that we could use to achieve our waste targets and a generally sustainable approach is ongoing rather than static.
      We are sometimes accused of merely following the European Union's lead on waste rather than taking the initiative, but the Bill's provisions on landfill and the scheme that will follow provide evidence to the contrary. Although it is true that many European countries have a longer and better established system of recycling than our country and we are pushing forward to catch up, the Bill will introduce what we understand to be the first trading scheme in the world involving waste. Moreover, the European Commission has expressed a strong interest in the scheme and has asked for views on the use of waste trading schemes in its communication on a thematic strategy for waste prevention and recycling. We expect our ideas to be studied closely by Commission officials. I believe that the Bill will introduce pioneering new techniques that will influence other countries.
      We have spent little time discussing emissions trading, but its impact should not be underestimated. The Bill supports the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme with statutory penalties. Climate change is the subject of an important international commitment that we have made, especially through the Kyoto protocol, and the Bill will help the UK to deliver on its commitments.
      There is a clear link between the two main aspects of the Bill. One of the principal reasons for tackling waste generation and management is to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. The Bill addresses such challenges with the use of economic instruments that will stimulate reductions in the emission of pollutants and make us less reliant on landfill in the most economically efficient manner.
      The Bill is important. It will have a strong impact on our approach to sustainable development and the various targets that the UK must meet. Opposition Members have not opposed the principles behind it. Most of the discussion has focused on whether it could go further and do other things. That is legitimate and we need to consider those issues. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that although the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for all the proposed measures, I do not disagree with many of the points made, and I hope to address those within the work streams that I outlined.
      I believe that progress will be made on all issues raised. They are important. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about what we must do to minimise waste and to take a more sustainable approach to waste management. The process is dynamic and ongoing. We intend to build on what we have put in place and to review those measures. Some ideas, suggestions and points raised may be incorporated in that process.
      As I said, I am grateful for the constructive and thoughtful way in which hon. Members approached their work. The Bill is better than when it started. We have taken into account the issues raised and it has been amended accordingly. It is only right and proper to put on the record my appreciation of the work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton
      262
      (Mr. Meacher), who was involved in the Committee stage. Like him, I am deeply interested in showing that protecting our environment is a high priority for both DEFRA and the Government. I accept that the problem is not merely DEFRA's responsibility. It cuts across Departments and influences the shape of Government policies on sustainability, both nationally and locally. The Bill will make a major contribution to achieving that end.
      I thank Committee members, who worked hard on the Bill, and all hon. Members who contributed to the debate, especially Labour Members. I also acknowledge the work of DEFRA officials and their enormous commitment to the Bill. They have been involved in all its stages and have shaped it so that it is a pioneering Bill that sets the pace on how we use financial instruments to deal with landfill and to construct a sustainable agenda. It will influence many other EU countries.
      6.12 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: I associate myself with the Minister's remarks on the work of the Committee and extend my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and, of course, for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who led us in Committee. The Minister made some important points, especially on how we found ourselves in agreement on much of the Bill. He has been extremely agreeable and it is always a pleasure to debate such important issues with him.
      I do not oppose the Bill's content, but its potential impact on the whole waste policy is a huge wasted opportunity. It does not provide a strategy for all types of waste, which is what the UK really needs. The Government have failed to piece the waste issue together despite their move to commit us to numerous EU waste-related directives. We are fast on our way to missing all our immediate waste targets. We are supposed to reduce landfill to 75 per cent. of the 1995 levels by 2010, but last year approximately 91 per cent. of our waste still went to landfill. The target to recycle 25 per cent. of municipal solid waste by 2005 will not only cause us embarrassment but is likely to cost us more than £180 million a year in fines.
      The Bill is a step in the right direction to compliance with the landfill directive, but it does not begin to address how we can deliver on the waste electrical and electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles, and packaging waste directives, not to mention the encroaching hazardous waste disaster.
      The fundamental flaw in the Bill is its narrow, inadequate scope. I think that the Minister recognises that; he touched on it in his comments. There is no connection between all waste legislation, so the Bill is an inadequate response to all the EU directives that influence different waste streams. Our priority should be the minimisation of waste as well as its final disposal.
      In a letter to me dated 29 April, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) wrote:
      "The overall intention of the Bill and indeed our waste strategy is to move waste up the hierarchy so that resource use is improved and less waste is just dumped."

      263
      The amount of waste produced is growing, which, combined with the fact that the amount sent to landfill is massively more than the amount allowed, makes the reality of fulfilling the landfill directive a mere dream.
      Rather than aiding local authorities in minimising their waste at source, the Bill will penalise them in their disposal. Again, a broader context to waste management and landfilling is needed to come to terms with the complexity of waste policy. The Bill's penalty system will not encourage best environmental practice, but may instead drive local authorities to concentrate on avoiding fines for breaches.
      There is no freedom in the Bill for local authorities to offer households incentives to recycle more and to minimise waste in the first place, and that is a great shame. Exactly the opposite will happen: a system of penalties will prevent local authorities from concentrating on diverting waste from landfill to recycling, as they will have to meet statutory targets in non-target years. Incentives work better, and the Bill neither encourages nor allows for best environmental practice.
      Any money from fines or landfill tax must go straight hack to local authorities to finance recycling schemes instead of lining the Chancellor's pocket. Waste disposal authorities need all the assistance they can get. If the Government insist on waste disposal authorities achieving set targets, even in non-target years, they need capital to afford the required waste management infrastructure. Available funding for local authorities and the necessary expenditure for compliance with waste objectives is unbalanced. The Government must recognise in legislation that the current funding is inadequate.
      Another point of contention is that although there is no attempt in the Bill to deal with the energy from waste, fly tipping or planning procedures, it will inevitably have a knock-on effect on all those issues. Ignoring them by exclusion will not mean that they disappear. We must come to a point in the very near future when the Government have to deal with all waste legislation in a comprehensive way; we have not seen that in the Bill.
      Incineration is undoubtedly unpopular with local people, but is not the reality that it offers the only way for local authorities to meet their stringent targets on time?; The Government cannot have it both ways—setting such targets with penalties but not giving any support or assistance to the local authorities that have to achieve them. Sweden and the Netherlands are examples of countries with large-scale incineration policies, yet both have a serious commitment to the environment. They use only incinerators that recover energy from waste. The Minister knows how strongly I feel about that. A decision in legislation must be made on incineration soon, and I suggest that we take into account the experience and lessons of other European countries with far better waste management track records than our own rather dismal one.
      The Bill fails to consider landfill, recycling and incineration together. Fly tipping should possibly be made a criminal offence, as I suggested to the Minister in Committee. That matter is important, and we need not only to deal with the fly tipper but to introduce a
      264
      duty of ownership of fly-tipped waste. There would then be a duty on people to behave responsibly in dealing with their waste.
      Why does the Bill deal only with biodegradable waste allowances when such waste makes up only 7 per cent. of the total? What about hazardous waste? When will the Government get round to dealing with the end of co-disposal of hazardous waste, which is supposed to happen by 16 July 2004—in nine months? I shall not mention the failure to transpose the new EU hazardous waste list into national legislation. That, along with the WEEE, end-of-life vehicles and packaging waste directives, will add to the duties of local authorities. The Bill does not, in its landfill targets, account for the further costs, rules and penalties that will result from those. Consequently, the assessed regulatory impact is an underestimate.
      Mention of the impact of removing the very high temperature necessary to kill pathogens in composted food was also removed from the Bill, and if another foot and mouth crisis is to be avoided, the Government must realise that they have created a serious risk of food waste harbouring disease being spread on our fields as compost. I hope that if there is any further evidence that suggests that such waste carries a risk, the Government will review that gamble very carefully.
      The implications of the borrowing and banking of landfill allowances in clause 6 are also a concern as they may act as a disincentive for local authorities to make the immediate decisions and improvements necessary. That will reduce the inclination to trade. A longer-term vision is necessary, and a realistic assessment of the cost of implementing the Bill is essential.
      We are concerned about what is omitted from the Bill. The landfill directive is treated in isolation, and other waste management directives and problems are ignored. The chance to provide the best overall waste management policy in the Bill has been lost, leaving waste management as vulnerable, uncertain and unconnected as it was before. Thanks to the Government's piecemeal approach to EU legislation and targets, the Bill is a potential environmental, legal and financial catastrophe.
      6.20 pm
      Norman Baker: I am not quite as downbeat as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), although I do not disagree with the thrust of his comments. It was interesting to see how much common ground there was between Conservative, Liberal Democrat and, indeed, Labour Members in Committee, although they voted different ways on amendments and new clauses.
      I thank the Minister for his conciliatory, helpful and courteous summary, a welcome approach that he nearly always takes. I thank his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who tried to engage with serious issues in the Bill. It struck me that he always wanted to go slightly further than the civil servants wanted, which may be one reason why he is no longer in a ministerial position. I thank the plethora of Conservative spokesmen who have shared Opposition responsibilities with me, including the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr.

      265
      Sayeed). There may have been one or two others, but we certainly got through a few during our proceedings. I thank other Committee members who made the Bill worth while and approached our discussions in a serious but friendly way.
      I will not claim that the Bill is much improved, but it has been helpfully tweaked at the end of its progress. It still has a big fault, which I shall not labour, as it has been referred to by other Members today. It deals with only one strand of the waste hierarchy, and was introduced for no purpose other than to fulfil an EU directive on the implementation of the landfill directive. Another of the Bill's failures concerns the fact that is not possible to change one bit of the hierarchy without considering the effect on the rest of the hierarchy. It gets landfill provisions right in line with the EU directive but goes wrong by failing to ask what will happen to waste that is not landfilled, and whether we should try to encourage particular schemes. The Bill does not discourage incineration, which is now officially a disposal technique. Unfortunately, for reasons that have been given today, it encourages it.
      To return to comments that I made on Second Reading, we shall not oppose the Bill. In fact, we welcome it as far as it goes. It is innovative and right to use financial instruments to achieve environmental ends. The Liberal Democrats are keen on that, and we want to see more of it. The scheme created by the Bill is innovative—let us be honest about that—and the environment will be marginally better as a consequence. We shall therefore support the Bill as we did on Second Reading. However, our criticism is the same as criticism levelled at the Water Bill—as the hon. Member for Leominster rightly said, it is not what is in the Bill but what is not that is of concern to Members. It has been argued that we cannot discuss the Water Bill without looking in parallel at the water framework directive. Similarly, it could be argued that we cannot discuss the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill without considering, in parallel, effects on all parts of the hierarchy. I am afraid that the Government have not undertaken such a consideration.
      The Minister said that the environment remains a high priority for DEFRA, and I believe that. However, in the period of just over a year in which I have been an environment spokesman, there has not been a single oral statement by the Secretary of State on an environmental issue. There has been one on hunting, but not on environmental issues. The Minister may therefore need to think about DEFRA's priorities. He does not need to convince Opposition Members of the need to take action but his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. My honest judgment, as I have told the Secretary of State, is that DEFRA's instincts are, by and large, right, and it tries to do the right thing. However, it is a small player compared with the DTI and the Treasury, which will not play ball. I am keen not to attack DEFRA, which I genuinely want to help, but the Minister must punch above his weight when dealing with some of his colleagues in the DTI.
      Earlier, I discussed printer cartridges in relation to the WEEE directive. All the evidence that I am getting from all sides of industry and elsewhere, and from my contacts in the European Union, suggests that DEFRA is making the right noises, the DTI is making the wrong noises, and the DTI is going to win. That is one small
      266
      example. The Minister must make sure that DEFRA starts winning some of the battles in which the environment should come first, and he must put the DTI and the Treasury in their place, if he can do that, to some extent at least. I say that to the Minister in all sincerity; I want to see him and his colleagues in DEFRA doing it.
      There are a number of omissions from the Bill, but I will not run through them. The hon. Member for Leominster touched on those. Fly tipping is a serious issue and I am not convinced that the Government have got hold of it. The Minister will recall that in Committee we tabled a new clause to deal with that, which the Government did not accept. However, the Home Secretary is to introduce some proposals to deal with part of the problem, and there have been improvements in the sentencing guidelines. I hope that will help. As the Minister knows, 600,000 tonnes of material was fly-tipped in the country in the last year for which figures were given in a parliamentary answer to me, so fly tipping is a big issue.
      I hope that the Minister will—I think that he will—take away the comments made not just on Report and Third Reading, but in Committee. Even if the Government do not want to accept amendments from the Opposition, it is important that they understand why they were tabled and try to find ways of ensuring that the Government's own waste hierarchy is delivered. That is what we all want. We want the Government to succeed with their waste hierarchy. The amendments that we tabled, and those of the Conservatives too, I think, have been designed to achieve just that. They were not wrecking amendments, but supporting amendments.
      I thank the Minister for his summing-up. I hope that he will take these comments on board, that the measures that the Government have implemented will bring about the waste hierarchy that he wants, and that he will consider further measures, hopefully in a holistic way.
      6.26 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: I would call this a two-cheers Bill—one cheer for the fact that it is right in principle, and another cheer because it goes some way in the direction in which we all want to proceed, but it lacks the third cheer because it is rather incoherent. It does not link up with all the other levers of action that are essential if we are to enhance the environmental protection of our country and start dealing with waste as it should be dealt with.
      The real problem is that the Bill is far too narrowly drawn. It does not provide a comprehensive strategy for all forms of waste. I know the Minister said that he intends to introduce legislation later to do that. I regret that, during the exhaustive consideration in Committee, the Government seemed incapable of understanding that a single portfolio Bill would send out signals to local authorities that were much more coherent, much easier to follow and far more powerful. I hope that we can all agree that legislation is at its best when it is formulated as a vehicle to drive forward a vision that is long term, holistic and sustainable. The Bill gets only two cheers because it is a singular, isolated and panic-stricken reaction to a European demand that the UK is unlikely to meet.
      Angela Watkinson (Upminster): Does my hon. Friend agree that one omission from the Bill is that it does not

      267
      deal with developing uses for recycled materials? Would it not be easier for local authorities to encourage people to recycle more if they knew what would be done with the material and could see that there was some point to recycling—that there was an end-product? The markets need to be developed.
      Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is one of the points that I made on Report, which is why I think it is such an excellent one.
      The Bill could have, first, established a system for collecting waste that makes it easier and cheaper to recycle, but it does not. Secondly, the Bill could have included incentives to assist those who use recyclates. There could have been tax incentives or demands that certain products contain a specific percentage of recyclates. The Bill does not contain any such incentives. It makes demands of local authorities and imposes penalties on them, but it does not give them the means to undertake all the expensive work that will be necessary. It also fails to encourage local authorities to take the most environmentally friendly option.
      I am sure that the Minister will have read the record of what occurred in Committee, where I proposed that money that the Government raised through penalties should be hypothecated back to local authorities to enable them to invest in the recycling plants that they would need. The Government ignored that proposal. I also proposed that, instead of going to the Chancellor to assist him in filling part of the £9 billion, £12 billion or £17 billion hole that he and his policies have created, part of the considerable increase in landfill tax should go to local authorities to enable them to do what we want them to do—deal with waste in the most environmentally friendly manner. They also ignored that proposal. That is profoundly regrettable, because we all agree on what we are trying to achieve. We all agree that we produce too much waste, that we do not deal with it properly and that the waste that we produce is poisoning us. The Bill does not give local authorities incentives to deal with the problem, to ensure that we leave behind us a cleaner society and country than we inherited.
      The Minister tried to persuade us that the Government have a thoroughly coherent strategy, but he certainly failed to persuade Opposition Members and probably failed to convince some of his colleagues. There is no doubt in my mind that the effect of the Bill—we have exhaustively explored the reasons why—will be more incineration. I suggest that he read the Friends of the Earth briefing about Norfolk having voted for residual waste treatment for 64 per cent. of its waste. Together with the example in Sussex that I cited, that pamphlet demonstrates that local authorities will not be able to deal with their waste except by incineration.
      As the Minister believes that the Government are operating in a coherent fashion, perhaps he can assist me. The Government have imposed tens of thousands more houses on Bedfordshire. Bedfordshire intends to build some of them on a brownfield site.
      Mr. Morley: Excellent.
      Mr. Sayeed: I agree. The houses will be built at a place called Elstow. However, the intention is to locate a
      268
      landfill site alongside them. The Minister believes that the Government are coherent, the Government have said that they want all these new houses, and he says that he does not like landfill—and I agree. In that case, can I be assured that, when I come to see the Government and complain about the landfill site that is being established next door to a brand-new development of many thousands of houses, they will say no to that site?
      Mr. Morley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the decision on the landfill site and, indeed, the houses, will be taken by the local planning authority.
      Mr. Sayeed: But the Minister knows that a Secretary of State can, if he wishes, take such a decision if it is sent up the system. I trust that the Minister, who tells us that the Government are so coherent, will ensure that we do not have a landfill site that we do not want next to houses that the Government do want. That would be extremely helpful and a genuine example of coherent government.
      The Bill does deserve two cheers. Ministers have, on occasion, been helpful—the Minister's remarks at the start of Third Reading were particularly so. He clearly recognises that this extremely narrowly drawn Bill might have been better had it had been drawn rather wider, although I realise that he cannot admit that. I hope that, in the near future, the ends of the strings will he tied together and we will get a series of measures that send the right signals to local authorities in dealing with waste—namely, that they should follow the hierarchy and encourage less waste to be produced, then deal with it in the most effective, environmentally friendly manner, provided that that is commercially sustainable. If the Minister can promise the House that that is the Government's aim and that they will fulfil it in the very near future, I shall be a happy man.
      6.37 pm
      Gregory Barker: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), particularly as he made such an important contribution in Committee. I, too, served on the Committee and found its proceedings instructive, good-humoured and valuable. Although, sadly, few of the amendments that we discussed found their way into the Bill, our discourse was extremely worthwhile. There was a fair degree of unanimity on the importance of the subject matter, and we heard some remarkably eloquent speeches. It proved to be the swan song of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who will be greatly missed following his departure from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
      Nevertheless, the Bill is a missed opportunity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, it is welcome as far as it goes, but simply does not go far enough. That stores up real problems for the future. Every month, all over the country, serious decisions are being taken on waste, particularly with regard to incineration. Those decisions cannot be lightly reversed in the future. Often, they result in council tax payers or the local community that is responsible for feeding the incinerators being saddled with long-term contracts of up to 20 years.
      I am disappointed that the Government, who, especially in their early years, did a significant amount for the environment, should throw away this

      269
      opportunity because they have lost their interest in, or appetite for, the wider environmental agenda. Having made progress early on, they are willing to rest on their laurels.
      That has been borne out by my experience on the Environmental Audit Committee. We have a Secretary of State who, when she last appeared before us to discuss this subject, seemed at best complacent and at worst unwilling to address the issue. The one bright spot on the horizon is that since the Committee sat the Government have reconsidered, and have accepted a private Member's Bill piloted through the House by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). It is not to the Government's credit that they fought that Bill to the end, and that only all-party pressure—including pressure from Labour Back Benchers—forced them to accept it, albeit in a much watered-down form. Unfortunately, that Bill plugs just one of the holes that are apparent in the Bill that we are discussing.
      This Bill singularly lacks ambition, and a holistic approach to an issue that really does require big thinking. It is ironic that so few of us are in the Chamber tonight, given that waste is an issue guaranteed to fill a village hall or community centre anywhere in the country. Go to a constituency, threaten to put an incinerator there, offer to install a landfill site in an inappropriate place, and you will see the public thronging in. The issue is not obscure, or unrelated to people's everyday lives. In my constituency we are fighting tooth and nail against an incinerator and against an inappropriate landfill site, in order to improve recycling and the waste hierarchy.
      I am pleased that the Minister, in his new role, has grasped the importance of the waste priority. I was encouraged by his reference to the need to minimise and to re-use. That, however, is empty rhetoric if it is not matched in the Bill. not just by a strategy, but by a strategy that is properly resourced and backed up—a strategy with real teeth. What we see in the Bill is no more than a wish list. The Bill has no guts: it is not equipped to ensure that we make the improvements that are so desperately needed. England currently recycles 13.5 per cent. of its household waste, which is one of the lowest rates in Europe. The United States recycles 31 per cent., while just across the channel Germany and Austria recycle 48 per cent. The Government have set targets requiring our rate to rise to 25 per cent. by 2005 and 30 per cent. by 2010—and, rather unambitiously, to 33 per cent. by 2015.
      Mr. John Gummer: Would those targets not be much easier to meet if the Government expressed the targets for local authorities in the same percentage terms, rather than in terms of weight? Authorities often go for the heaviest product, rather than that which is most valuably recycled.
      Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend is spot on. I would expect nothing less from him. Volume is also an important consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned in Committee that
      270
      something that is light in weight may have a large volume in landfill terms. I am sorry that the Government have not taken up his pertinent points.
      Norman Baker: When asked about the weight-and-volume issue in Committee, the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), said:
      "I am pleased to say, without commitment, that we will seriously consider the hon. Gentleman's idea. I will write to him when the Department has had a serious look at the proposal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 April 2003; c. 18.]
      Would it not be helpful if the Minister could tell us what consideration the Government have given to the idea?
      Gregory Barker: It would indeed. I am looking at the Minister now to see whether he will adhere to that commitment.
      Mr. Gummer: Is not it amazing that a Minister should consider it a bright new idea when it has been pressed on the Government for their entire period in office? It is simply a sensible idea that any sane person would implement.
      Gregory Barker: That assumes that the Government are heavy on common sense, but they are not.
      The Government have set targets that are not especially ambitious. It is therefore troubling that it appears that those relatively unambitious targets will not be met. The Environmental Audit Committee stated in its most recent report that the UK "will not come close" to meeting any national targets for recycling. In its view, the targets for 2010 and 2015 will be missed by a "wide margin". Since that report was published, my colleagues on that Committee have seen little to change our minds. The Minister's fine words in the debate, encouraging though they are, are not matched by anything that could be described as a credible strategy backed with resources.
      My greatest anxiety about the Bill is that it pushes waste from landfill to incineration. The Minister said that he does not believe that he is promoting incineration, but such an even-handed policy is not enough. Market intervention is needed to promote recycling and level the playing field because the renewables obligation and other tax breaks make incineration a more attractive commercial option than recycling. Unless we tackle that with market mechanisms to jump-start the recycling industry, we shall simply pour more rubbish into incinerators. The Minister may be equivocal about that, but I believe that it is a bad thing. There is no greater disincentive for local communities than knowing that they are doing their bit to recycle, compost and minimise while their local authorities are signing long-term contracts for huge new burners. The number of planning applications for new burners is disturbing.
      It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he is open minded about fiscal incentives to redress the economic imbalance in the waste hierarchy. He needs to hold urgent talks with his Treasury colleagues and present a genuinely environmental solution that is not simply a back-door stealth tax to raise money for the

      271
      Exchequer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) said, any further revenue that is raised must go back to the environmental economy.
      We urgently need the Minister to confer with his colleagues, because the Bill is not a response to a blank sheet of paper. Communities are already saddled with contracts and more are being prepared as we speak. That requires urgent action. If we are to make the progress that the public ask of us, we must deal with the whole subject and not simply cherry-pick the easy bits and leave the more difficult options for another day.
      Today, we can support only the Bill, not items that it does not contain. It constitutes a wasted opportunity that speaks of a Government who have run out of ambition and ideas. We know that Governments who run out of those qualities are ultimately overtaken by events.
      6.48 pm
      Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, I shall make a few comments.
      A few events have overtaken the House tonight. The competition outside the Chamber might explain why attendance has been a little thin. [Interruption.] I must admit that that applies to all parties—we are competing with other entertainment.
      The entertainment does not detract from the fact that a range of sensible points has been made in the debate, and I do not accept that the Bill constitutes a wasted opportunity. It is important that the issues have been addressed in this way.
      I would like to reply specifically to some of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), but first I shall deal with the concerns about incineration raised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). I quite understand that if there is an application for an incinerator and a landfill site in his constituency, his constituents are bound to be concerned. As we have already discussed, incineration and landfill are not exactly popular measures. They are the kind of provisions that everyone understands we must have, but that everyone wants in some other place. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the way to reduce this problem is to concentrate on the waste hierarchy, on minimisation and on re-use and recycling. He is wrong, however, to say that there are no financial instruments in place to encourage that. The way in which we have reallocated landfill tax credits through the waste minimisation fund is among a range of measures that have brought about changes in relation to the minimisation of waste. We hope to see further progress in that direction.
      Mr. Gummer: Could not the Minister have done much more had the Chancellor not made sure that increases in the landfill tax did not count towards the Minister's environmental aims? Will he have a word with the Chancellor about stealing this money from the environment to pay for other things?
      Mr. Morley: There is clearly an argument about the rate of increase being applied to the landfill tax. I
      272
      happen to think that the rate of increase is an important issue, and that £35 a tonne is about the right level. I would like to see us get there as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman will understand better than most people in the House, however, that the Treasury will want to weigh up the effects on industry of those fiscal measures. Nevertheless, I have every sympathy with his general point.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked about fines. Subject to developing an acceptable system for applying this, the Government will recycle back to local authorities any civil penalties that are incurred as a result of a failure to meet the targets set in the Bill. There will, therefore, be a recycling of money. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Mr. Sayeed: May I just thank the Minister for that?
      Mr. Morley: I hope that that counts as a third cheer to add to the two that the hon. Gentleman has already very generously given us.
      The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made a constructive speech, and I take the points that he made. We need to take a holistic approach to all these issues. I understand his point about printer cartridges, an issue that has come up a few times. One of the problems involved in applying the WEEE directive to printer cartridges is that they are not classified as electrical equipment. There might, however, be other ways of dealing with the issue in terms of European directives. Discussions are under way, and I am not unsympathetic to his point. If we can make some progress on this, I would be only too happy to do so.
      I was a bit disappointed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who has been a diligent member of the Committee and Opposition spokesperson, along with the hon. Member for Lewes. He has generally been constructive and approached the issues in a useful way. I have to say that I think that the hon. Member for Lewes was a little evasive on the incineration issue, but we will not go too far down that road now, as we are in constructive mode at the moment.
      I say sincerely to hon. Members who talk about wrapping everything up into one Bill that I genuinely understand the logic in what they are saying, but there are serious practical issues that I would ask them to consider. Much as I enjoyed my discussions with Opposition Members in Committee, their proposal to wrap up in one Bill the various packaging directives, the landfill measures that we are dealing with here, and all the other work streams that I have emphasised are in progress would produce a Bill that would put the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" in the shade and would lock us up in Committee together for the next two years. Much as I enjoyed our discussion, there is a limit, and there is also the practical issue of how to scrutinise particular issues. We have approached the various directives in different ways at different times, so that they gain the proper scrutiny that they deserve.
      Norman Baker: Let me try once more, just five minutes before Third Reading finishes. The point is that the implementation of the landfill directive will move somewhere else more than half of the waste currently in

      273
      landfill sites. The criticism is that the Government have not planned where it is going. That is the main issue: where is that waste going? The Government should incentivise the waste hierarchy to ensure that it goes to the right place, but they have not done so.
      Mr. Morley: The waste hierarchy is incentivised to a certain extent. We can argue about the level of those incentives and whether we need further ones. I am not averse to that. I have acknowledged that our approach is dynamic. We do not expect the measures that we are taking now to stand still. We expect them, including the targets for waste and recycling, to be reviewed. We shall examine them again in due course.
      We have not disagreed about where incineration is in the waste hierarchy. The Government are not advocating incineration or any particular approach, apart from stressing the importance of minimisation and recycling in the hierarchy, which is where we are putting resources. All I am saying is that we sometimes have to opt for the best environmental solution on environmental grounds, but the best environmental solution may not always be the most popular one. That is an issue for organisations such as Friends of the Earth to take into account if they are serious about environmental issues, minimising the impact on the environment and finding the best solution. As I say, it may not always be the most popular, but people should argue for what they believe is the right solution in the circumstances. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a similar good point about how particular issues should be judged.
      I think that we have had a useful and good debate. Obviously, the Government cannot accept all the amendments, but we have made a big effort to deal with the points that hon. Members have raised. I have already said that not all of them are appropriately dealt with by this particular Bill, but they remain important issues. We are addressing them through such means as the packaging directive, implementation of various EU directives, recycling landfill credits and the waste and resources action programme. We are investing millions of pounds of support through the challenge fund for local authorities. We have made a significant increase of more than £1 billion, I believe, for the application of that fund. All those important measures demonstrate that the Government take environmental issues seriously.
      274
      We have freely acknowledged that waste and recycling in this country starts from a very low base—we have no argument about that—but I genuinely believe that we have made more progress in the last few years than in the previous decade. We have seen heightened awareness from all parties and all sides in the debate of how to apply environmental measures.
      I repeat my thanks to hon. Members for their constructive contributions. The Bill will make a difference. I do not believe for a moment that it represents the only measure that we can put in place. I have demonstrated to the House the various other work streams that are in progress. We will have a continuing debate and I do not disagree with many of the points that have been made during the debate.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (1)(a)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    REGULATORY REFORM
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Gaming Machines) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 17th September, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
  That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 12th November at five minutes to Nine o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Health Professions Council (Registration and Fees) Rules Order of Council 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1572), dated 13th June 2003, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Council Tax (Worcestershire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
7 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to discuss this matter of great importance to my constituents in Mid-Worcestershire and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), whom I am glad to see in her place, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who still has a significant footprint in Worcestershire in the area of Tenbury Wells.
Local government taxation has always been a controversial matter, but recent increases have made it much more so. This debate need not be a matter of party politics. I will say some fairly firm things to the Minister, because, although the problems I am describing began when my party was in power, they have become worse under this Government—we are both guilty men in that sense—and the matter is now becoming increasingly urgent.
Pensioners and low-income householders in Worcestershire simply cannot afford any more significant above-inflation increases. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) agrees with that. He was always going to be detained somewhere else tonight—he had a long-standing engagement. I suspect that something else may have overtaken that long-standing engagement, but he is still elsewhere tonight, so he has asked me to say that he associates himself with the arguments that I am putting to the Minister and the House this evening.
The county precept in Worcestershire has gone up by nearly 80 per cent. in cash terms since 1997. Again, that is not a matter of party controversy, because the recent large increases—nearly 13 per cent. in the current year—were supported by councillors of all parties, albeit with some reluctance, because they recognised that it is the only way they can protect services in the county. The police precept has risen by about 50 per cent. in the last two years alone—another very significant increase. These increases have been made until the pips squeak, but sadly it is not the pips of the rich but the pips of the poor that are squeaking, and that is the problem.
Service delivery is also very vulnerable in the county. For example, the gap is growing between Worcestershire's schools and those in neighbouring authorities—Birmingham spends an average of about £700 more per pupil—and head teachers in Worcestershire are at their wits' end. Forty-one schools currently face deficits, and unless something is done the situation will be worse next year as balances put by for projects, or prudently for contingencies, are exhausted. We are grateful to the Minister for School Standards for the attention that he has given to the situation in Worcestershire, but, as he knows, head teachers in the county are dignified in their protests but increasingly convinced that something must be done to correct this growing divide.
The problem that we have in debating this subject is that local government finance is notoriously complex, and that complexity has enabled the Government, I
276
think, to hide a huge increase in taxation—or to hide it until recently. The problem I have in talking to constituents is trying to explain gearing in less than two or three sides of A4. It is a difficult problem, and the result—I think the Minister will admit this, and of course it happened under the previous Government, too—is quite often that county councils get it in the neck from central Government's policies.
I still fondly cling to the hope that everything, when properly understood, is simple, so I think there are three simple truths about Worcestershire's council tax. The first, a very important one, is compound interest. That means that discrepancies increase over time. The rules of compound interest are clear. If the same percentage increase is applied to a small sum and a larger sum, the gap between the two sums widens over time. The trouble is that Worcestershire has seen an increase in central Government education spend per pupil of only 39 per cent. since 1997, compared with a national average of 47 per cent., so that 8 per cent. discrepancy has magnified an already large gap and made the rules of compound increase even more cruel.
The second truth is that if the Government reduce the share of local expenditure that they finance, council tax must rise to fill the gap. That has also been happening in Worcestershire.
The third truth—and it is a matter to which I shall return at the end of my remarks—is that if the Government keep the promises implied in the public expenditure White Paper and elsewhere, the county's council tax increase next year need "only" be around 6.5 per cent., although that is still a large sum. As it is, the average Worcestershire council tax payer—that is, a band D council tax payer—is already paying more than the average Birmingham council tax payer, and more than people in Dudley, Solihull and Walsall. The amount paid in Worcestershire is about the same as the average paid by the English council tax payer, but it is more than what is paid by the average unitary authority tax payer. To be fair, the amount paid in Worcestershire is very slightly less that than the amount paid by the average county council tax payer.
In other words, it would be wrong to look to Worcestershire council tax payers to put right the discrimination against schools and other local services by paying more in council tax. I qualify that assertion in one way: if the Government agreed to give us a fairer deal, to narrow the gap between us and similar authorities and to make a bigger contribution themselves to council services in Worcestershire, I would consider supporting a matching increase in council tax. However, I cannot argue that council tax payers in Worcestershire should bear all the pain for central Government's failure to fund those services.
Council tax in my constituency is divided into four elements, and there will be five next year. The county council takes 75 per cent. of the total, and the district councils—in my case, that is Wychavon—account for about 12 per cent. The police account for some 11 per cent., and the parishes for around 2 per cent. When the fire authority becomes a precepting authority in the coming financial year, it will receive a separate precept.
A brief look at the police shows that there are 300 more officers, but that is no thanks to the Government. We in West Mercia now pay more for police—£119.80

277
on average—than people in Birmingham, who pay £71.16. The Home Secretary cannot rightly boast of any achievement in that respect. The local council tax payer has paid for those officers through the massive increase in police precept—50 per cent. over the past two years.
The prospects for the coming year are very bad, as the Association of Police Authorities confirmed in a briefing yesterday to all hon. Members. West Mercia faces cost pressures of 5.8 per cent. to maintain current levels of policing—that is, to meet pension and pay requirements under the Police Reform Act 2002, and to cover other variables imposed by the Government, such as DNA testing, and so on.
If the Government grant increases by 3 per cent., as they did last year, gearing—the proportion raised by local council tax payers—would mean that the police precept would have to rise by 11.5 per cent. just to stand still. Is the Minister able to assure me that the increase in Government grant will at least match the extra costs imposed on West Mercia under the Government's reform programme? There is also speculation that a 2.5 per cent. floor in the Government grant would apply to West Mercia. That would have a disastrous impact on council tax and service levels.
I shall make a few brief remarks about the district council. Wychavon district council is a very well-run administration. It has more flexibility than others, as there are no large budgets for fixed costs such as education and social services. That means that it has managed to keep its council tax increase in line with inflation and the retail prices index, while maintaining and improving services. The planning department, in particular, has received a pat on the back from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister's own Department, for spectacular improvement in output over the past year.
We do not know what will happen with fire, for which there will be a precept for the first time in the coming year. I assume that the precept will be relatively modest, but it is a matter for concern, given that Worcestershire always spends significantly more than the standard spending assessment or the formula spending share. The parish precept of 2 per cent. is ungeared and no large increase is expected, so it is not really an issue.
The big precept is the one for the county council, which accounts for 75 per cent. of the total. I want to dispose of two myths about the county. First, there is little room for efficiency savings. Worcestershire is an efficient council. Central costs at county hall are about 75 per cent. of the national average, and efficiency savings have recently exceeded all Government targets. The Audit Commission has said that no other council in the west midlands offers a better quality of service. The commission went on to say that the council needs more money to improve further.
The second myth that I want to dispel has to do with money passported to schools. Worcestershire county council has not sat on money that it should have passported to schools. It spends 2 per cent. more than the Government formula suggests it should, and it passported 103.5 per cent. of last year's increase.
There are two reasons for the massive increases in Worcestershire's council tax in recent years. First, Government policy is to reduce the amount of expenditure obligations funded centrally—out of
278
general taxation—and to shift the burden to the council tax. That policy was in place before 1997, but it has accelerated since. The second reason is the continuing and increasing discrimination against Worcestershire in all the funding formulae.
The first reason to which I have referred is Government policy for all of local government. However, we should not blame councils for increases in council tax that flow directly from central Government policy. The second matter is more specific to Worcestershire, and is an accident of history that urgently needs to be corrected. The Government claimed to have changed the funding formula this year, but they merely seemed to rig the criteria so that the new formulae mirrored the outcome of the old ones. There were remarkably few changes.
I have a practical suggestion for when the Government reconsider the issue. Sadly, I think that it will be two years before they do so; I wish it could be sooner. We should learn a lesson from the health service. It, too, has complicated means of distributing resources throughout the country, but I have never heard the criticism that Worcestershire receives an unfair share of health service funding. The formulae are complicated—had I more time, I might have expounded them at length to the House—but I hope that the Minister might consider them as an alternative funding mechanism for local government.
That brings me inevitably to the question of area cost adjustment. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that he spent recently with a delegation from Worcestershire. The delegation was so large that the numbers had to be rationed and I could not join it myself, although I should have liked to take part. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) who initiated an interesting debate on area cost adjustment, a highly technical subject, earlier this year. However, the debate missed a vital point: national pay scales and national teaching costs mean that there is no intellectual justification for applying the area cost adjustment to education at all, and it should be phased out.
If we have to keep the area cost adjustment—I hope that we do not—Worcestershire deserves it. The vice-chancellor of Birmingham university, the chief executive of South Worcestershire primary care trust, the artistic and musical director of the English symphony orchestra, all the county's councillors and MPs, and even the Bishop of Worcester, all agree. God, the arts, industry and education are all on our side: area cost adjustment is needed for the county. Adrian Hardman, the cabinet member for resources said:
"The unfairness of the situation is highlighted by the fact that I can look from my house to my neighbours across the river in Gloucestershire and know that they receive this valued top-up, living in virtually identical surroundings."
I shall not rehearse the arguments at length because the Minister is familiar with them, but most of Worcestershire falls in the travel-to-work area of towns and cities in other authorities that receive the ACA. Teachers live in Worcestershire, but work in Birmingham, Warwickshire or Gloucestershire; they live in a local education authority area that does not get ACA, but work in one that receives it.

279
We compete in the same labour markets. Strangely, despite the high costs of living in Worcestershire, which count against us on resource equalisation, we are second from bottom of a table for county council funding per resident. We are almost unique in not receiving area cost adjustment, but we are penalised by resource equalisation.
House prices in Worcestershire are relatively strong, so Ministers judge that the council tax base can support a higher proportion of spending, which means that Worcestershire receives less than its fair share of grant aid from the national Exchequer. Ministers have decided that grant can be switched from Worcestershire through the resource equalisation formula. At £13 million, that is quite a switch.
Set against that, Ministers judge that Worcestershire has low wage costs and so should not be allowed area cost adjustment. That decision by Ministers is worth £10 million in lost income to the county. Ministerial decisions seem to defy mathematical gravity: high house prices supported by low wages—an economic miracle. It is no miracle, however; the statistics are wrong. It is wrong-headed to unhinge Worcestershire from the greater west midlands labour market. Ministerial decisions to do so cause real damage to those relying on services and those who pay for them. The result is that my county is out of pocket to the tune of £23 million.
Indeed, only 64 per cent. of our costs are met by central Government, down from 67 per cent. last year and compared to a national average of 73 per cent; that old friend, gearing, comes back to make up the difference—painfully—for my constituents.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend as he is making a fantastic case for Worcestershire and I hope that the Minister has been listening. May I add another fact to all the relevant facts that my hon. Friend has given? In Bromsgrove, I feel acutely the problems relating to the funding gap between schools. Last year, the gap between Bromsgrove schools and those in Birmingham was £560 per head per year; the figure is now £720.
Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is right. The gap is growing yearly in both absolute and relative terms. That cannot continue indefinitely; the process must be ended, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Indeed, I am a practical man, so I have a suggestion to make. I am running out of time, and as I want to hear the Minister's response I shall offer three short-term solutions.
First, we should phase out the area cost adjustment and consider the health service model to which I referred. Secondly, we should end resource equalisation, which certainly cannot be justified for Worcestershire. Thirdly, at least this year—and possibly in future years—we should increase per pupil funding in cash, not percentage, terms. We should start to narrow the gap to which my hon. Friend referred and give every school in the country, say, £100 per pupil, rather than 3, 4 or 5 per cent.
To meet service delivery obligations, the county's budget has to go up by 5.9 per cent.—about £25 million. If central Government grants to local authorities rise in
280
line with those obligations and with Government expenditure forecasts, all of which are published by the Chancellor, the county could keep its council tax increase precept at only—only—6.5 per cent., which is still too high, but half this year's rise of nearly 13 per cent. If the Government give us any less than they have hinted—say, 4.5 per cent.—council tax will rise by 8.6 per cent., or services will have to be cut by about £3.3 million.
But, worse than that, the Department for Education and Skills insists that all the increases in formula spending share are added to school budgets, so any shortfall in total grant for the county will fall exclusively on the other services. County social services, in particular, will be put under pressure, as demographic trends are against us with an ageing population in the county, and the road repair programme might also have to be slashed. Roads in Worcestershire have improved dramatically in recent years, but we do not want that progress to be curtailed.
I have made some practical suggestions for a way forward, but I conclude with a key message: the buck for any increase in council tax above 6.5 per cent. for Worcestershire or any cut in services stops with the Government, and the Minister has it in his power to prevent that from happening.
7.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing this debate about council tax increases in Worcestershire. He has been busy writing letters just lately, and he has obviously been drawn away from other business—pressing discussions—but he has made good use of the time in making what I can describe as a very sound leadership bid this evening.
The Government have high aspirations for local government. We are continuing to match those aspirations with proper investment, as demonstrated by this year's generous local government finance settlement. However, council tax continues to engender debate throughout the country—including Worcestershire—and has taken on a significant profile this year after some high increases. I shall return to that issue shortly, but before doing so, I want to put the debate into a wider context.
It is worthwhile reminding hon. Members of the good increases in grant that we have been able to provide local authorities generally. This year's settlement provides an overall increase in general grant of 5.9 per cent. It has allowed us, for the first time ever, to ensure that all local authorities receive a grant increase that is at least above the rate of inflation. It has enabled us to continue the considerable investment that we have made in local government since we took office. That investment involves a 25 per cent. real-terms increase in grant since 1997. That compares starkly with the 7 per cent. Real-terms cut in grant that councils experienced in the last four years of the previous Government.
Some local authorities have expressed concern at the pressures that they face this year. I understand those pressures and I am aware that many councils still face difficult decisions. However, we have increased total Government grant, including special and specific grants,

281
by £3.8 billion. That is an 8 per cent. increase. That increase takes account of the work that we undertook with local government during the spending review to identify the pressures that they would face in the coming years. The additional £3.8 billion includes funding for the effects of inflation on local authority budgets, the 1 percentage point increase in national insurance contributions and recent pay awards.
Authorities in Worcestershire have benefited from that extra money. Worcestershire county council has received a grant increase of £15.5 million or 6 per cent., which is above the average for county councils. Two district councils received grant increase at the 12.5 per cent. ceiling that we set for such authorities, and one district council benefited from our guarantee of a grant increase at least above the rate of inflation. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman made generous reference in his contribution to some of the real-terms increases for education and in the number of police officers that have resulted from that increased funding.
It is, however, for local authorities in Worcestershire to decide how much council tax their people should pay. We do not tell local authorities what level of council tax they should set. We do not tell them what they should spend the money on. Such decisions are for individual local authorities, but local authorities are answerable to their local electorates about the council tax. We believe that they should take into consideration the views of local taxpayers on local authority spending and how much council tax they would be willing to pay.
This year, we have given all councils above-inflation increases in grant for the first time ever. The average increase is 5.9 per cent.—Worcestershire county council received a grant increase of 6 per cent. and West Mercia police received an increase of 3 per cent. In addition to the cash, we have given local authorities more freedoms and more flexibilities. In return, we expect all councils to behave responsibly and not to impose excessive increases on their council tax payers.
Mr. Luff: As I understand it, education costs rose this year by some 8 per cent., so although a 6 per cent. increase appears generous, it is below the rate of inflation for that part of local authority expenditure.
Phil Hope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I said earlier that we took into account in the spending review, in negotiations with local government, such cost pressures, including the 1 per cent. national insurance contribution increase and pay increases.
The average council tax increase in England this year for a band D property was 12.9 per cent. The increase in Wychavon was 12 per cent., and Worcester city council increased its council tax by 12 per cent. Knowing that we would be debating the hon. Gentleman's concerns this evening, I visited his website, on which he has already put elements of his speech. His comment in it that
"we are paying more than Birmingham residents for our local services"
is not the case. Band D council tax is lower in Wychavon and Worcester than it is in Birmingham.
Mr. Luff indicated dissent.
Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman indicates from sedentary position that it is not. Perhaps he would like to write to me later. I assure him, however, that I have been given sound advice.
282
We are therefore extremely disappointed that despite the generous grants that we have given to local authorities, some local authorities have chosen to set large increases, which we recognise is causing hardship to the most vulnerable members of society. The hon. Gentleman mentioned pensioners in particular. To ensure that pensioners on lower incomes are not unfairly affected by council tax rises, we are encouraging take-up of council tax benefit and housing benefit as part of our roll-out of the pension credit. We have changed the benefit rules so that even pensioners who are not eligible for the minimum income guarantee may benefit from council tax benefit and housing benefit. Indeed, if we take into account above-inflation rises in the basic state pension, free television licences for over-75s, the winter fuel payment and the pension credit, on average pensioner households will be more than £1,250 a year better-off in real terms, which is around £24 extra a week. The poorest third of pensioners will have gained an average of £1,600 a year since 1997. Therefore, while I recognise his point, there are some important points to be made about the extra support that we are giving to pensioners.
One issue to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer was the question of capping as a solution to the problems. As the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire made clear on 15 September, we have decided not to take action about council tax increases this year. However—I share the hon. Gentleman's view on this—the current trend in year-on-year increases in council tax is simply not sustainable. We will look very carefully at all the council tax rises next year, and we will also look at the trend in the increases over more than one year. If necessary, we will use our targeted capping powers in 2004–05. If necessary, in exceptional circumstances, we will use our powers to cap authorities categorised as "excellent" or "good" in the current and future comprehensive performance assessments.
The hon. Gentleman did, however, raise the more fundamental question of gearing, and the problems that that creates in terms of the ratio between the amount that the Government give to local government and the amount that can be raised through local council tax. He makes a very good point. I draw to his attention the fact that the Government have established the balance of funding review to look specifically at that problem. The review is looking at issues relating to the current balance of funding between council tax and Government grant, and at a range of options for change in the light of that analysis. The final report of the review will set out the pros and cons of various options rather than making recommendations. I emphasise that the review is about the balance of funding, not about increasing the overall tax burden. The balance of control between local government and central Government, and the amount of money that local authorities receive, are distinct issues that are outside the scope of the review.
We have had more than 200 responses, and we had a meeting on 21 October. As I mentioned websites earlier, I must also mention the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website—I am the Minister with responsibility for e-government, so this is an opportunity to raise the value of electronic technology in increasing participation. The findings, the work that is being done, the papers that are being commissioned

283
and the research that is being produced and analysed are on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website for all to see because we recognise, in a non-political way, the difficulty of the existing system. Part of the reason why there is a problem with the current gearing ratio dates back perhaps to the poll tax, as the hon. Gentleman generously recognised, and perhaps before that. Some £4.8 billion of central Government money had to go to local government to compensate for the poll tax fiasco, and that money had to be taken from a massive increase in value added tax, as I am sure that he remembers.
The hon. Gentleman raised other issues, and specifically the area cost adjustment. Worcestershire county council believes that the area cost adjustment impacts on the council tax that it must set. As he said, I met a large delegation from the area that made powerful points in favour of its case.
Let me explain the situation a little further. The area cost adjustment is the element of the funding formula that directs extra resources to local authorities with higher wage and rates costs. We calculate the ACA using the best available evidence on wage and business rates costs. The hon. Gentleman suggests simply abolishing the ACA but that would have a huge impact in different parts of the country and would make it difficult for local authorities to cope with problems of higher wage and rates costs. We made major improvements to the way in which the ACA is calculated this year. We previously used simple average wages to calculate it for crude concentric circles radiating from London and throughout the south-east. That method took no account of the way in which wage pressures varied in each ACA area and, as he realises, provided no extra funding for authorities outside the south-east of England with high wage costs. We now calculate the ACA at a much finer geography, which allows us to reflect local wage pressures better.
One of the most frequently raised questions in the ACA debate is about geography, by which I mean about the authorities that receive an adjustment and where boundary lines are drawn. Some authorities, such as Worcestershire, have complained strongly about being grouped into their pre-reorganisation counties for the calculation of the ACA. Worcestershire also complains that the geography of the ACA does not reflect the part that it plays in the much larger west midlands labour market. However, it is fair to say that the new ACA geography is a vast improvement on the old system. Until this year, councils outside south-east England did
284
not receive an ACA, no matter how high their wage pressures, and authorities in the south-east were all treated the same, despite the wide range of pressures.
When calculating the ACA, we now look at wage pressures throughout England and Wales. Outside London and its fringe, we calculate the ACA for every pre-reorganisation county. We have split the counties neighbouring London into fringe and non-fringe areas, which reflects higher wage pressures. In that way, we have extended the coverage of the ACA beyond the artificial confines of the south-east to areas such as Cambridge, the west midlands and Greater Manchester, the wage pressures of which previously went unrecognised.
I know that Worcestershire would like us to calculate an ACA value for it alone—the hon. Gentleman did not talk about that but I have been pressed on it—rather than combining the area with Herefordshire. However, we had to make a judgment on geography. If we had treated Worcestershire as an ACA area in its own right for this year's settlement, the area would not have had sufficiently high labour costs to lift it out of the lower limit floor mechanism and its ACA would have remained unchanged.
We have reformed the system to influence not only the areas that get cost adjustment but how the top-up is calculated. We use detailed information from the whole labour market and new earnings survey data as the basis of the calculation because they are the largest sources of information on wage levels throughout the UK and contain the information that we need on each person who takes part in the survey.
We have heard suggestions from Worcestershire that we should use the labour force survey as the basis of our calculations, but that would mean that we could not calculate the ACA with such fine geography. It was also suggested that the ACA should be based on who lives in a county rather than who works there. However, I am clear that the best way to assess the extra labour costs faced by local authorities is to base that on what local employers are actually paying. Having examined Worcestershire's case closely, I know that as it benefits from the lower limit threshold in the ACA, it has received an increase of £800,000 in the formula spending share for its social services formula alone, which it would not receive if that was not the case.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned resource equalisation. Resource equalisation is about fairness—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Pension Provisions (Younger Women)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Vera Baird: We cannot address the issue of future pensioners—the subject of today's debate—without considering current women pensioners. As the Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" says, women pensioners have far less income on average than male pensioners. The average is £153 for a single woman, compared with £194 for a man.
Sadly—but, it appears, soundly—the Green Paper concludes that much of the improvement in the position of future female pensioners will come from labour market improvements, higher employment rates and better pay. It records rightly that there has been progress in both the latter elements. About 70 per cent. of women between 25 and 34 are working, compared with 52 per cent. in 1979. The proportion of women returning to work after having children has risen to almost 70 per cent., and thanks to better child care options and better maternity and paternity provision, the impact of having children on a woman's working life can be less overall.
Since the Labour Party came to power, the employment rate among lone parents, who are predominantly women, has risen above 50 per cent. for the first time—a great achievement for such a hard-to-reach group. That has not only taken many children out of poverty and encouraged a phalanx of women who might well have not done anything at all until much later in life; it has started to make the point for much of the working population that having a child need not be a bar to outside work or learning.
The minimum wage has increased the pay of about 700,000 women, and working tax credit makes work pay for about the same number of women who are main earners. That is progress indeed. However, there is a high rate of female part-time employment—about 45 per cent. according to the Green Paper—and that is at ages that reflect the fact that women still take primary caring responsibilities, which is bound to have an impact on their future pensions. There are other differentials in gender working patterns; there is segregation into poorer paid work, and there is still some sex discrimination.
About 40 per cent. of women have a weekly income of £100 or less. Full-time male earnings are on average twice those of women, and when part timers are included, women's average wages are £200 a week less than those of men. Given the Green Paper's thesis that much improvement in pensions will come from improving the labour market position of women, it accepts, on that clear evidence, that
"the pension position of women will still lag behind that of men for some years to come".
2WH
I do not feel very sanguine about that, and I doubt that this progressive Government truly do, either. The Green Paper says "some years to come"; how many years? How much further can rates of participation in employment be increased by better paternity pay and more child care? One may guess that that would, at least for the next few years, be the faster rising curve than pay.
The Fawcett Society, to which I am indebted for much of the information that I will use this morning, has calculated that, at current rates of pay change, it will be another 80 years before there is equal pay for women and men. That means that we should tell our daughters who are coming up to working age that, although they are sugar and spice and all things nice, they are also doomed to poverty in old age. It means also that we should tell them to tell their daughters, who will start work in about 2025—the year that I predict Brooklyn Beckham will sign for Real Madrid—that they, too, will retire poor. Our great-granddaughters will start work in 2045, the year that we—or rather they, by then—celebrate the centenary of Paul McCartney's birth. We should tell them that in retirement they, too, will be poorer than their brothers.
There will be yet another generation after that where women will be poorish, because only women who start work after 2083 will do so on equal pay for the whole of their lives; and they will still have to participate in the labour market for 50 unbroken years on the Beveridge model to get a pension equal to that of men. My great, great-granddaughter might then get what my mother thought she had got in 1970—equal pay, according to the Green Paper. Some 50 years later, women might get an equal pension. That is the miserable prognosis, unless further special measures are taken to improve women's interests.
I want to consider a few possible measures. I make no bones about the importance in my thinking of the campaign, "Make Pensions Work for Women", that is being conducted by the Fawcett Society and Age Concern. I make no apology for the fact that many of my proposals are familiar to the Minister. I want to know whether she can cost them, and make it clear whether they are being favourably received in Government, as they are increasingly supported far and wide as the campaign grows. If they are being received well, what action can we expect? If they are not, what alternatives do the Government have in mind? I do not want my great, great-granddaughter—she might be called Vera the Fifth in a more dynastic familyߞto be the first Baird after me, with my adequate parliamentary pension, to benefit from a good pension. We cannot leave it to higher employment rates, better pay and labour market factors.
I acknowledge that the entitlement of the younger generation to the basic state pension is set to increase, albeit at a time when the value of that entitlement is falling relative to general living standards. Government projections suggest that by 2025, 99 per cent. of women will have some entitlement with an average amount of about 89 per cent., although the Department for Work and Pensions has made slightly less positive predictions.
The first proposal that would help would be to replace home responsibilities protection with a system of carers credit. HRP is little known about and fairly difficult to understand. It supports women who are off work caring for their children. However, it works to reduce eligibility

3WH
requirements rather than actively crediting caring work. It is also inflexible and provides protection on a whole-year basis only. Thus, a woman who has a baby at the end of April does not receive HRP for that year as she has only 11 qualifying months. Further, if a woman combines caring and employment within a particular year, she cannot add HRP to her national insurance contributions to make a full year or to fill up gaps. To add to the confusion, HRP works alongside a system of credits—for example, those for unemployment and for receipt of invalid care—and although a qualifying year for the basic pension can be built up through a combination of credits and earnings, those cannot be combined with part years of HRP. Earnings and credits can never be combined within the second state pension, so that an individual who is in receipt of one type of credit for part of the year and another for the rest does not qualify.
In place of that confusing system, surely there could be a single system, perhaps called the carers credit, although, to distinguish it from our successful tax credits, perhaps it should be called a carers national insurance premium. That would actively recognise and support all forms of caring by providing credits. It would operate in a consistent way across the basic state pension and the second state pension, and reflect today's reality of changing status throughout the year, allowing individuals to combine entitlement based on earnings and caring. Such a system is crazily long overdue. We talk about motherhood and apple pie, as if that defines everything that is desirable and good, and I am not advocating credits for baking, but it is long overdue that we stop penalising women who are off work caring for their children. The rigidity of HRP penalises people for motherhood.
As long ago as 1989, I worked on a case in the judicial side of the House of Lords, which, hon. Members might find hard to believe, is even more conservative than the legislative side. Their lordships accepted the importance to the economy of having proper provisions in labour and benefits law for motherhood and supporting women when they are off work. Even though those depths of conservatism have been penetrated for more than two decades, we do not have a proper way of supporting women while they fulfil that important role.
1 cannot imagine that such support would be expensive, because it would be a rationalisation rather than fresh provision, and it would ensure better accrual of pension rights. I would be interested to know what the costs might be. A poll conducted by the Fawcett Society showed that 78 per cent. of people of both sexes thought that those caring for children should qualify as carers for the full pension, which shows clear support from both men and women for such a step change. A further advantage of recognising all forms of caring through a credit is that it would become possible to consider whether a state credit could be used in a non-state pension scheme. I will return to that.
The second potential help to accelerate the process of increasing fairness in pensions would be to reconsider the level of the lower earnings limit and ensure that women fully understand its impact. In 2002–03, about 1.4 million women and 500,000 men
4WH
were earning less than the £75 a week lower earnings limit. That is a point of concern, as the Government acknowledge, and they have undertaken to continue to consider ways of ensuring that everyone understands that they can earn entitlement to contributory benefits.
Research published by the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1998 found that 63 per cent. of people with earnings below the lower earnings limit have dependent children. If the position is similar now, that means that about two thirds of those with earnings under the LEL are building up entitlements to basic pension, but they will qualify for the second state pension only if they have children under the age of six. Further EOC research concluded, worryingly, that both employees and employers colluded to keep earnings below the LEL. Presumably, employers want cheap labour while those on such poor pay do not want to pay out the national insurance contribution. However, it is clear that they are seriously damaging their future rights by colluding in that way. It is obvious that more information is needed, but structural change would probably be advantageous and, again, not very expensive. At an absolute minimum, those working 16 hours on the minimum wage could and should be building up pension and benefit rights.
We also need to consider those who earn more than the LEL through a combination of part-time jobs. The most practical way of doing that could be a system that gives individual employees the option of declaring earnings from a number of jobs to contribute to their benefits.
I have never truly understood the 25 per cent. or its point. It means that to get any state pension, someone has to qualify for at least 25 per cent. of the full pension. Women with fewer than 10 years of full contributions receive no pension at all. That seems unfair and unnecessary, and there can be little argument against the abolition of the rule as soon as possible.
I have already mentioned the state second pension. It is clearly difficult for many people with low or no earnings to build up a privately funded second pension, so the S2P provides a valuable role in second pension provision. The Government should be congratulated on that good move. However, eligibility criteria mean that S2P does not provide sufficient coverage for those on lowish earnings and those with caring responsibilities or disabilities. The range of options that I have mentioned improves coverage, but additional issues include the rate of accrual of S2P.
S2P was introduced in April 2002, and it seems that it will take about 40 years for someone to build up a full S2P entitlement. It provides income of about £1 a week pension for one year of contribution. Again, I am indebted to the Fawcett Society for that calculation. It will be many years before in its current state S2P has any real impact on women's income levels. Can the date at which S2P would be fully in place be brought forward by introducing greater rates of accrual for those currently contributing?
If the current pension model continues so that the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit remain linked to earnings while S2P and the basic state pension remain, broadly speaking, linked to the retail

5WH
prices index there will be issues in the longer term about the relative value of state pensions, on the one hand, and income-tested supplements on the other. It would appear desirable to make a commitment that by that time the combined level of a full basic pension and S2P will be in excess of MIG. Such a commitment would ensure that the contributions that individuals will have to make a great deal of effort to make were rewarded and would offer an incentive to make additional savings.
I have already indirectly alluded to an anomaly that would not be very expensive to change. Again, I should be interested to hear how the Minister sees that. HRP for the basic pension covers caring until a child's 16th or 18th birthday but S2P rules recognise only time spent caring for a child under the age of five.
I return briefly to the possibility of any carers credit or carers national insurance premium being portable. If carers credit were introduced, it would allow for an actuarial calculation of its value and, along the lines of a national insurance rebate, could allow for the possibility of payment of that value into alternative pension vehicles.
Although many women are best advised to remain within the state system, caring has an impact on earnings for all women regardless of the pension system they join. It is particularly important to consider this as recent reforms in maternity leave mean that, while employers will be obliged to continue making pension contributions through the six months of ordinary maternity leave, coverage will be discretionary for the six months of additional maternity leave. Consideration should therefore be given to adopting a carers credit that is portable across schemes and takes the form of a rebate calculated on an actuarially fair basis.
As I understand it, and again I look to the Minister to help me with this, the Government's policy is to try to encourage people to move from S2P into a privately provided pension. The Government as a whole are keen to shift the current financing of pension provisions from 60 per cent. public and 40 per cent. private to the other way round. In that policy context it seems particularly important to look for a way for credit carers to move into a private pension scheme, or they will remain perpetually disadvantaged.
That brings me to the issue of occupational pensions. The Green Paper states that
"well-funded defined benefit schemes are more flexible and suit the career patterns of many women".
There is much to be said about the lack of "well-funded" defined contribution schemes, particularly in the sorts of jobs that many women have. Many women do not have the career progression that enables them to gain most from final salary schemes. More information about the advantages and disadvantages of different types of types of scheme for women with different working patterns would be helpful. How would schemes based on career average revalued earnings compare with the more common type of defined benefit or defined contribution scheme?
The Government have said that they intend to introduce a reform to the current vesting rules. More women than men leave work before two years because of family pressures, and they are then entitled only to what they have paid in and no more. That could and should be changed relatively quickly. Because of different overall
6WH
life expectancies women get lower annuity rates than men. At today's rates, to receive an annual income of £10,000, a woman retiring at 65 must pot about £156,000, compared with about £139,000 for a man. Despite that obvious inequality, according to the Green Paper,
"The Government is not attracted"
to unisex annuities, saying that
"it would result in lower aggregate retirement incomes…and only marginal—if any—benefits for women."
The Green Paper also states that
"it is difficult to impose a single annuity rate for men and women on a disaggregated market"
of pension providers. If more people take out stakeholder pensions, and the move from defined benefit to defined contribution occupational schemes continues, more women will rely on annuities. Will the Minister consider re-examining annuities? Distinctions can be drawn about life expectancy across socio-economic classes and geography, but those factors do not feature; only gender is taken account of in annuities, and that is a major problem.
The Government must try to address the problem, primarily because we must encourage women to provide for themselves. They are much less likely to do that unless the pension system enables them to receive a fair return for their money. It is difficult to make women consider paying into their own pension schemes. The Fawcett Society polling found that women do not invest in pensions, and that, even if they were given an extra £100 a month, only about 10 per cent. of young women would put that into a pension. One in four of them would spend the money on children, or already existing debts, so little is the importance of provision for the future appreciated. That is also testament to how hard up a large number of women who have to consider future provision are.
I have made a raft of requests, with which I hope the Minister will help, at least in terms of information, but perhaps also in terms of movement or progress. However, I could not end without saying that it is clear that, since being in office, the Government have done a great deal for pensioners generally, and female pensioners in particular, and I exhort them to realise that there is still a great deal to do.
9.52 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate and on the diligence with which she has pursued women's pensions issues. This is not the first debate that she has initiated on the subject, and we all note the authority and rigour with which she puts her case. I hope that the Minister will respond with factual answers on the costs of some of the proposals.
Like the hon. and learned Lady, I congratulate the Fawcett Society, Age Concern, the Equal Opportunities Commission and others on trying to bring women's pensions to the fore. The Liberal Democrats have been involved in that effort, and, until we read the Green Paper, we regarded it as a success that the Government had included a chapter on women's pensions. Then we realised that it was a list of the problems, with no solutions offered. The hon. and learned Lady proposed some detailed responses, and I will discuss those before stepping back and examining the big picture of women's pensions, in particular younger women's pensions.

7WH
Of the detailed proposals that could make a difference in the short term, replacing home responsibilities protection with positive credit is an attractive idea. Home responsibilities protection reduces the number of years in which one has to have contributed, but does not put a year's contribution on the books. A carers credit would have that effect. It seems odd that we reward motherhood by giving a year off of the "sentence"—a year in which it is not necessary to contribute—but we do not think it is good enough to count as a year's worth of work. A year spent stacking shelves in Tesco, for example, would lead to a year's pension entitlement, but a year spent bringing up a young child would not. Those are not the values that we should espouse, so I think that a carers credit is a good proposal.
The hon. and learned Lady pointed out the problem of the lower earnings limit. Sixteen hours work a week on the minimum wage should entitle someone to a year's pension right, although 16 lots of £4 something is not far short of £75, or whatever the lower earnings limit is. Conceptually that has to be right. However, 16 hours' work a week is the definition of full-time work used in various parts of the system. If 16 hours' work at the minimum wage does not get a person pension rights, something somewhere is wrong. I absolutely accept that. The cost of addressing that must be pretty minimal, but it would be interesting to hear that from the Minister.
The hon. and learned Lady makes a good point about multiple part-time jobs that do not reach the lower earnings limit individually, but reach it collectively. If somebody earning enough over the week to reach the lower earnings limit is doing enough hours to be deemed to be working, it is arbitrary that the system does not give that person pension rights because they work in two places instead of one.
What the contributory system tries to determine is whether a person is a worker. As I shall remark more fully in a moment, the arbitrariness is born of the fact that the national insurance system is focused on the model of the male full-time breadwinner; it still has not recovered from that model. The 25 per cent. rule is also arbitrary, as the hon. and learned Lady says. I guess that that is supposed to be a proxy for whether a person was a worker or not. However, why should a person get pension rights for having paid contributions in 26 per cent. of years, but not for having paid contributions in 24 per cent. of years? That seems a pretty arbitrary cut-off.
I agree with the hon. and learned Lady that there are a lot of arbitrary features in the national insurance system in relation to the basic state pension that are hugely detrimental to women relative to men. Many of those features could be addressed relatively straightforwardly, to the benefit of women in particular.
The hon. and learned Lady started to get to the core of the problem when she pointed out that the accrual rate of the state second pension is so excruciatingly slow that it will take 40 years to build up and that, even when it has built up, a full basic pension and a full state second pension will not be enough to lift a woman—or a man—above the pension credit level. She asked
8WH
quite properly whether the state second pension could not accrue more rapidly. That would be one way around the problem.
The critical point is that even if we could make all those tweaks, those desirable small changes, and get women full entitlement to the basic pension and to the state second pension, that would still be rubbish. A full basic pension and a full state second pension are not worth having if a person still ends up on pension credit. In that case the pension credit, not how much basic pension or state second pension a person has, determines a person's income in retirement. The value of the basic pension and the second state pension entitlement becomes irrelevant—certainly for most women—in a world where two thirds of pensioners are means-tested or income-tested.
The fundamental point that must be addressed is that the state system will always be critical to women, particularly if women continue to take career breaks and have lower post-career break salaries. As the hon. and learned Lady says, regrettably, that may continue to be the case for a long time to come unless effective action is taken. Yet the Government's strategy is to link the basic pension and the state second pension to the prices index and to move to a world in which the contribution of the state to income in retirement falls from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. So the two bedrocks of income and old ageߞthe state pension and the second state pension—are being devalued every year relative to average earnings, and the state contribution to income in retirement is falling from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. at a time when the pensioner population is rising.
The tweaks to the system that have been outlined might result in marginal improvements, but unless the big picture is sorted out, women will get gradually better percentage entitlements to pensions that are not worth having. That does not seem a good long-term solution to the problem. The hon. and learned Lady illustrated effectively and cleverly the long-term nature of the problem. Pensions and pension reform have a huge legacy problem. People—women, in particularߞare reaching pension age with pathetic pension entitlements of pennies a week because of a system that was designed in the 1940s and the fact that they earned most of their entitlements in the 1970s under rules that treated women as dependants of their husbands. Even though such attitudes no longer prevail, they will probably take two generations to work their way out of the pension system. There are women today—granted, not many—who pay the married woman's stamp. According to the Government Actuary, more than a million women in their fifties have at some point paid the married women's stamp and are heading for inadequate pensions.
My concern, which to an extent echoes the hon. and learned Lady's, is that we must recognise the urgency of addressing the issue. We cannot say that we will let it work its way through the system gradually. When I criticise the state second pension for its poor value and the fact that it takes 40 years to build up, the ministerial reply is always, "Well, new pension schemes take 40 years to bed in. We cannot bring in a pension scheme overnight." However, as the hon. and learned Lady pointed out, we could introduce a pension scheme in less than 40 years, by accelerating the accrual

9WH
rate. If we did that, more women in particular—they will be the principal beneficiaries of S2P—would stand a better chance of being able to stand on their own two feet financially in retirement.
I cannot help wondering why, rather than make the detailed, complex tweaks that we have debated so far, we do not simply say that national insurance in its present form has had its day and that national insurance is now about exclusion, not inclusion. The panoply of national insurance contribution rules is about how we can keep people out of pension entitlements. Those rules say, "If you're a man on a decent salary or a woman on a decent salary, you're in; if you're a mother, you're half in or half out; but if you're low paid or you do irregular work, you're out."
I understand that national insurance includes 90 per cent. of the work force and excludes 10 per cent., most of whom are women. Why do we have a complex system of rules and regulations, accounting for pages and pages of legislation and billions of pounds in administrative costs, that are all about excluding a small number of people, predominantly women? Why do we not change to a citizenship-based entitlement to pensions? We could not do that overnight, because we would suddenly end up paying every married woman over pension age a full pension, which would be extremely expensive. However, rather than plugging this gap and that gap, trying to spot one group and changing the rules for another, why not say that from D-day, or from tomorrow, people will build up a year's pension rights each year that they are a citizen? There would be issues about immigration and what we meant by "citizen", but we could sweep away all the questions about how many hours someone worked, how many jobs they had, whether they were above or below a particular earnings limit and whether they had home responsibilities for part of the year. That would constitute a huge simplification. If people accrued a year's pension rights as citizens, that would benefit women hugely. That is the direction in which we should go.
The hon. and learned Lady mentioned annuities, and properly so. I am intrigued by that point. I have been somewhat sceptical about unisex annuities, simply because they involve an actuarial calculation in a market. If the Government want to achieve redistribution, they should do it through the state system, rather than by trying to tweak a market, which only reflects the fact that the same pot of money has to last longer. However, the hon. and learned Lady made the valid point that we allow annuities to discriminate on the basis of gender, when other, arguably much more powerful, differentials affect what should be actuarially fair annuity rates for male manual workers in Glasgow and male executives in the home counties or whoever. Annuities tend not to discriminate much on those grounds, yet we allow them to do so on the ground of gender, which is perhaps on average a smaller distinction. I may return to that issue, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for making that point.
The Government could tackle another issue about the way in which annuities act to the detriment of women. Many women in defined contribution schemes end up with small pots of money, but pension providers are not interested in small pots of money,
10WH
because providing annuities based on those pots is not economic for them. Therefore, many women who build up a stakeholder pension or are in a DC occupational scheme find that providers will not offer them an annuity at all, because their small pot of money simply does not offer good value. I understand from the financial pages that some companies that provide pensions do not offer annuities, so such women have to go elsewhere for an annuity and are told, "Sorry. We're not interested in you, because the pot of money is too small."
The Government could offer a sort of National Savings annuity product that is not necessarily a best buy in the league tables, but that offers the guarantee that however small someone's pot of money, they will be sold an annuity, perhaps at a market average rate. The state would not be in unfair competition with the private market. The state would simply say to anyone, but typically a woman, who came along with a £5,000, £15,000 or perhaps £10,000, "We will guarantee that you can buy a pension at a decent rate of return." The rate would not be chart-topping, but it would probably encourage women to feel that it was worth saving, because they would get better value for money for their annuity. The Government could probably deliver that with economies of scale, whereas private providers think that it is not worth the bother to provide such products and do not have to do so anyway. That would be a small change, and the Government could discuss whether National Savings could offer such a product, which would be beneficial to women.
Divorce is another big issue for younger women when it comes to pensions. The historical model was that women did not need pensions because they would rely on their husbands'. That attitude is changing, but it still exists in the system in many respects. A woman who brings up children and separates from their father may have trashed her own pension rights and have no other rights because of divorce.
The antidote to that problem is individualised pension rights—a system based on the individual rather than on inherited rights—but it will take a long time to introduce. as we cannot do away with survivors' benefits in the short to medium term. The system must be structured so that each individual builds up good rights, which is another reason why mothers with caring and other responsibilities should build up a substantial pension in their own right and not have to rely on the pension contributions of their husband, who may become their ex-husband.
The Government have legislated for pension splitting on divorce, but few cases have gone through, although that is not a criticism of the legislation, which had all-party support. In practice, I know what most women with children who split up from their husbands would choose when given the option of taking the house, the car or the pension. It is difficult to rely on derived pension rights from a male partner. More must be done to ensure that women have their own pension rights.
We must act in the short term. Age-related additions to the state pension would be hugely pro-women, because most poor and elderly pensioners are women, and because age additions to the state pension are not contributions-tested. Whereas the level of state pension depends on one's contribution record, and women in

11WH
general have poor contribution records, age additions are paid in full, regardless of the contributions. Admittedly, the amount is only 25p at present and it would be daft to try to scale it down. If it were, say, £10, payable in full regardless of the contribution record, it would do something positive for women that would not take 40 years to sort out. It could be done now.
Joined-up government is needed to tackle the matter of young women's pension rights. While we are having this debate about what women might put into their pensions, another arm of Government is about to introduce top-up tuition fees. That is absolutely central to the discussions about how much women can afford to save. A typical woman student will graduate with a debt of £20,000 and she will not have much disposable cash, if any, to put into a pension. It will take her a generation, until she is well into her 40s, to pay off that debt, especially if she has children, and she might fancy moving out of the parental home before then. However, she will be told that the state will do less and she is expected to do more to provide a pension.
How are those factors to be reconciled? It is beyond the scope of this debate, but in my judgment tuition fees must be tackled. Young people, especially young women, who graduate with huge debts will have no spare cash to save for a pension in a future in which the state provides less—40 not 50 per cent. Who will fill that gap? I am heartened to think that the Minister will tell the Department for Education and Skills that it is undermining her Department's goal of persuading more people to save for a pension, and that the Government will change their thinking on the matter.
The Liberal Democrat approach to these matters is to argue for a simple and substantial state pension system, which will gradually free people from the contributions rules and benefit women, and which will be supplemented by compulsory contributions from those who are in a position to make them. As I said, that will be difficult if people have huge debts, but if that problem can be dealt with, compulsory contributions would pick up women in particular, because many men are already members of occupational schemes by dint of their employment. I am talking not about women on the lowest incomes who have not got the spare cash for pension saving, but about women on higher incomes. If compulsory pension saving was phased in, so that people could get used to the idea, such women would build up pension rights in their own name, so that they were neither dependent on their husband or potential ex-husband, nor wholly dependent on the state. Instead, they would have a foot in both camps, which would bring them greater security.
The big picture is that if the state pulls back from universal pension provision, that will be a problem for women, because private pension provision is, almost by definition, earnings related. It reproduces and carries into retirement the inequalities in earnings that are present in the work force. The heavier our reliance on the private sector, the more detrimental it is to women—for as long as women are at a disadvantage in the labour market. Rather than just plugging the
12WH
gaps, we need a good across-the-board state system that provides generous levels of benefit and better entitlement for women to a good pension. We need women to build up entitlement in their own right so that they are not dependent on a man in old age, or at any other stage if their life. That is the direction that we must go in. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar has done a huge service by raising these issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
10.10 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. I normally declare an interest on these occasions, because I have some private pension provision but, given the title of the debate, perhaps I do not need to do so.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on initiating the debate. It is the second such debate that she has secured this year. I assume that that is because she feels that last time the Government's response was inadequate. As the same Minister is responding today, we might hear a bit more.
Vera Baird: The earlier debate was about women and pensions generally, and principally covered current pension recipients. Nothing was inadequate about the Minister's response on that occasion, and neither will there be today.
Mr. Waterson: That outburst of loyalty is very welcome in an era when loyalty is at a premium. Let us wait and see whether the Minister's response is more adequate this time.
I join the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) in commending Age Concern and the Fawcett Society on their campaign. The problems of women pensioners are familiar to me not only as a constituency MP, but as a Front Bencher and co-chairman—with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of the all-party group on ageing and older people.
This issue will not go away. As the hon. and learned Lady graphically pointed out in her excellent speech, single women are among the poorest pensioners in the land, and they make up the majority of the pensioner population. The reasons for that are fairly obvious and boil down to five basic causes. Women have a longer life expectancy than men, although that gap is rapidly closing; they are more likely than men to take on caring responsibilities, and therefore to take time out of the labour market; they are more likely to be low paid or working part time; the welfare system has historically been geared to men's patterns of lifetime earnings; and the welfare system has assumed that women would be able to rely on their husbands' pensions to support them in old age. We live in a fast-changing society, and a lot of those assumptions are no longer valid.
What are the Government doing to address the problem? I assume that one of the main features of the pension credit that is now in operation is that it tackles not only the problem of all poor pensioners, but of women pensioners who—as we have established—are

13WH
among the poorest pensioners in the land. It is fair to say that the pension credit has got off to a shaky start—I am sure that even the Minister could not disagree with that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Of course I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. The pension credit has got off to a good start.
Mr. Waterson: I was about to explain why it has got off to a shaky start. There are two major criticisms of the pension credit: it is complex and there is a problem with means-testing. We know that the poorest pensioners—women are often to be found in that category—are precisely those who tend not to apply for means-tested benefits. I do not think that anyone can gainsay that. Mervyn Kohler, the head of policy at Help the Aged, has described the byzantine complexity of the new system.
At departmental questions the other day, the Minister, perhaps in a slip of the tongue, described as a target the 1.4 million pensioners who it is assumed will not claim pension credit by 2006, albeit they are entitled to it. Her fellow Minister referred to that 1.4 million as a planning assumption. Either way, the Government are working on the basis that 1.4 million pensioners will not get around to applying for pension credit. A large number of poorer women pensioners must be included in that figure.
Let me deal with the Minister's assertion that pension credit has got off to a good start. The Department announced the other day in a great blaze of glory that 1.9 million pensioner households—around 2 million peopleߞ are receiving pension credit. However, the reality is that a large percentage of those people were already on the minimum income guarantee. They have been transferred by a flick of a switch from one to the other. Only about 100,000 households have signed up as new claimants to the new pension credit. The Minister is not in a position to gainsay that. Nevertheless, if she wants to deal with that in her concluding remarks, it would be helpful. I stick by my earlier comment: the pension credit has got off to a shaky start.
Women outnumber men as members of occupational pension schemes and will be even more affected than men by the collapse in the occupational pension system. The Government have been too slow in tackling that problem. Their own measures are likely to be subject to the law of unintended consequences. Some hon. Members may already have seen "No Nest Egg", a recent publication by the National Consumer Council, which describes the chilling results of research into the attitudes of young consumers to pension provision. The high levels of distrust of the financial services industry and of the Government shown by young people, and their disenchantment with the subject of pensions, will come as no surprise to many of us. We are seeing a whole generation of young consumers and workers who are simply not interested in making their own pension provision. However, according to the conclusions in "No Nest Egg", they might be receptive to new saving mechanisms that appear more relevant to their needs and situations.
My party—the official Opposition—is trying to deal with that question as it affects young consumers, and women in particular. The lifetime savings account is
14WH
designed to be attractive to women. It would give people flexibility in getting their money out when they need it and putting it back again, without being penalised. Would it not be better to have a system of saving for the long term in which people did not have to pledge to leave the funds untouched until they reach retirement? Would it not be good if there were the real incentive of the Government making a contribution alongside that of the individual, which is available on retirement? That would allow everyone, including women, to build up their own personal pot of savings to draw on as they wish.
Mr. Webb: I have always been slightly hazy about how that lifetime savings account would work in one fundamental respect. The hon. Gentleman said that people would be able to take money out if they wish. Could he clarify the position of someone who takes their money out and who ends their lifetime with a lifetime savings account with nothing in it? Would that person be able to claim the full range of benefits because they have no income?
Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to one of the practical questions. That is why we are consulting widelyߞin the industry and elsewhere—on the proposals. However, the basic concept will form part of our next election manifesto and will have particular relevance to women, whose provision is, after all, the subject of the debate.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar made the point very well that at present there is an unfairness in the value of annuities for women, although perhaps that is balanced by the fairness of them living longer. We would like to encourage the use of unisex annuities, which would certainly be of benefit to women. We have also said that we would legislate so that there would be no absolute requirement to purchase an annuity, whereas the Government have set their face against that.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman referred to the law of unintended consequences. Has he thought whether such a law might apply to making annuities unisex? If so, how does he intend to deal with some of the unintended consequences that might follow from unisex annuities?
Mr. Waterson: The pensions world is one of unintended consequences. The Minister is not in a position to quiz us on our proposal unless the Government start to take seriously the genuine unfairness to many people—including a number of my constituents—who feel cheated because, having worked and saved all their lives, they get a miserable return on the annuity that by law they must purchase when they reach a certain age.
The main issue in the debate is that of the state pension. Age Concern and the Fawcett Society have waged a strong and effective campaign on that issue. They are at one with the Conservative party in wanting to eliminate means-testing as far as possible. In their joint report, "Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement." they state:
"A non-means-tested state pension, paid at a level that would cover basic costs, remains the simplest way of addressing women's access to a decent income in later life and would provide the clearest incentive for people to build up additional private pensions and savings."

15WH
That is why my party has recently announced that it wishes to restore the earnings link for the state pension over one Parliament, and to roll back the means-testing and the complexity that often deters people from claiming. We know that the take-up of the state pension is, as near as makes no difference, 100 per cent. However, we know that many pensioners do not claim many other benefits, either because they are put off by the complexity or because they do not wish to go down the demeaning road of means-testing—to go cap in hand to the Government and answer a lot of intrusive questions. I suspect that the pension credit will be no exception—indeed, the Government's figures reflect that assumption.
Our proposals would have two other benefits. As well as significantly increasing the basic state pension over a four-year period—by £7 a week for a single person and £11 a week for couples—they would take 1 million pensioners off means-tested benefits by 2006, thus restoring the dignity of pensioners which the Government are threatening. The proposals will also do much to reverse the disincentive to save that is a result, unintended or otherwise, of the Government's policies.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by talking about how poor some single female pensioners are. Does he accept the figures produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that indicate that the proposals that he has just outlined will cost poorer single pensioners, many of whom are women, £9 a week?
Mr. Waterson: No, I do not accept those figures because they make certain assumptions that I do not think are valid. We want to ensure that all pensioners get a better deal, and we are particularly keen for women pensioners to benefit. I am firmly of the belief that the proposals will do a great deal for the poorest pensioners, a large proportion of whom are women, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar has rightly made clear.
Vera Baird: Does the hon. Gentleman feel able to list what the Conservative Government did during their lengthy period in office for women pensioners, who were much poorer then than they are now? He has ample time to tell us that list—it will not take him very long.
Mr. Waterson: I do not think that I have ample time, and I might incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I gave that list.
The single most important thing that the Conservatives did for all pensioners, particularly women, as is shown by the figures—some of which, in fairness, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar quoted—was to encourage the massive expansion of occupational pensions. By the time we left office, our country was the envy of the rest of Europe because of that growth. One reason why women are beginning to catch up in the pension stakes is because of occupational pension funds. The Labour Government
16WH
are, in effect, dismantling many of those occupational pension schemes. I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady will not deny that great numbers of women in occupational pension schemes are finding their pension rights threatened by the closure of such schemes across the country.
To conclude, it seems that the reason why the hon. and learned Lady had to have another debate on this subject only a few months after the first is, as I said, that the Government's and the Minister's response last time was inadequate. Let us hope that since then the Government have given more thought to the serious issues raised, particularly by Age Concern and the Fawcett Society. Let us also hope that the Government will start to recognise that, as the hon. Member for Northavon said, simplicity in pensions is the ultimate answer to poverty, whether it affects women or male pensioners.
Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waterson: No, I will conclude my remarks.
At the end of the day, simplicity is the surest way of getting help to the pensioners who need it most.
10.27 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): First, I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), not only on her success in obtaining the debate, but on the care that she has taken and on her detailed analysis. Even though there is more time than expected in which to conclude this debate, I fear that it might not prove possible for me to deal with every point raised, although, of course, I will do my best.
I cannot promise to satisfy the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who appears to think that we are having this debate because of an inadequate former response. My view is that the Fawcett Society, Age Concern, and those such as my hon. and learned Friend, who have raised the subject on more than one occasion, do so simply because this is a vital issue with many facets and aspects. It cannot be dealt with in 30 minutes or an hour and a half in Westminster Hall. It is absolutely appropriate that the issue is returned to time and again, and it is appropriate that my hon. and learned Friend, who has shown an assiduous and detailed interest in the issue, should have come to this Chamber on more than one occasion to discuss various aspects of it.
Vera Baird: Did it seem to my hon. Friend the Minister that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) talked about pension provision in a general sense, only tacking on women at the end of what he said from time to time as an afterthought? Is that at all typical of the Tory party's attitude to women?
Maria Eagle: I hear what my hon. and learned Friend says, but I do not wish to be particularly ungenerous to the hon. Gentleman, who was not present at the previous debate and is relatively new to his Front Bench duties on this subject. He is walking into an extremely complex set of issues, problems and interrelations that no one can hope to master in a short period. However,

17WH
I had the distinct impression once or twice while he was making his remarks that he had forgotten the tradition in this particular Chamber of being ultra polite. Perhaps he got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning—it happens to us all.
I was grateful that my hon. and learned Friend fully accepted the progress that has been made by the Government. It is easy for those who are passionate about advancing the interests of women, in particular with regard to pension provision given the potential problems, to forget to say, "Well done," or "Keep at it." There has been progress, and I was grateful that she took the time to deal with that, and to say, "Well done-where she thought that progress had been made.
My hon. and learned Friend still made several sharp and significant criticisms, and I shall deal with some of them. She would accept—certainly she has done in the past—that pensions policies are time capsules. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) fully accepted that. The current distribution of income in retirement, if we consider today's pensioners, is inevitably a reflection of pension policies past. As much as we, as new Ministers, want to bound into office and sweep everything away to start anew, that is perhaps least possible when it comes to pension policy. What we have at present is a reflection of past social mores and social policy, and past assumptions about society and gender roles. We must bear that in mind as we consider how to deal with the issues raised by my hon. and learned Friend.
My hon. and learned Friend, the Fawcett Society and Age Concern have rightly perceived the unequal position of women in income distribution among today's pensioners. The figures that my hon. and learned Friend quoted from various sources show that the average man earns £194 a week, and the average woman earns £153.
If I had to encapsulate what my hon. and learned Friend said in a couple of sentence, I would say that her main concern is primarily that, without further change to pensions policy, the gender gap in retirement will continue. She said that it will continue until Vera Baird the Fifth—I did not realise that she was of such grand lineage, but I should have done. Those who are of working age—she talked about her daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters—might face the same problem that we all perceive in the current distribution of income.
I want to provide hon. Members with some reassurance by detailing in part how some policy changes that we are implementing will help to tackle the problem. I mercifully have a little more time than usual, so I also want to respond to points made by others.
I shall briefly set out what we are doing to help women of working age—those who we are talking about in today's debate—to have better pension provision. I shall take a broad-brush approach, for which I make no apology because it is important first to take a quick look at the framework. Employment is key to ensuring that the private or occupational side of provision can be made more adequate. We are helping women gain employment through the new deal, which makes work possible, and which has so far helped more than 200,000 lone parentsovercome the barriers to working life that child care and being alone with children can present.
18WH
We have also helped to make work pay through the tax credit, and put additional resources into child care to help remove one of the major barriers to work for lone parents and women who have caring responsibilities for children. That was acknowledged by my hon. and learned Friend and others, although not by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. We have one of the highest levels of female participation in the labour market in Europe: 70 per cent. and growing.
We are helping women improve their future pension provision by use of the state second pension and the introduction of stakeholder pensions. The stakeholder pension is a low-cost, flexible and portable option, which was not previously available. Its introduction plugs a gap that excluded all but full-time working women from a sensible occupational private pension option suitable to their needs. Its impact should not be underestimated.
The state second pension will revolutionise the pensions position of lower-paid workers, many of whom are women, carers or disabled women. About 5 million such people will build a second pension provision, worth at least twice as much as that provided by its predecessor, the state earnings-related pension scheme. Seventy per cent. of the beneficiaries will be women and a further 2.5 million carers will have access to the same pension rights as those who have been earners. That measure is wholly equitable—I was pleased that my hon. and learned Friend recognised that it is particularly good for women—yet the Opposition, the party of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, are pledged to abolish it. That policy, on which he did not concentrate so much, is a particularly pernicious part of a wholly anti-women policy recently announced by the hon. Gentleman's party.
In addition to removing the beneficial impact that S2P represents over time—I realise that there are some points about how long—the Conservative party's policy would affect women in other ways. It would abolish the new deal for lone parents, which is the main, most effective means of helping women who have to look after young children, into the labour market. The new deal policy has seen participation in the labour market by young women with children above 50 per cent. for the first time. It seems to me—I do not lay this at the door of the hon. Member for Eastbourne but at his party's—that Conservatives have decided to restart their war on lone parents, 94 per cent of whom are women, after we thought that they had called a truce. They have spread that war to all women, rather than just lone parents. The hon. Gentleman does not accept the figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on how the policies that he outlined would penalise in particular the poorest single pensioners. I would be interested to know what assumptions he thinks have been made that are wrong; no doubt he can write to me on that.
The Government are helping existing pensioners through the pension credit, which provides a reward for having saved, as well as a guaranteed minimum income to top up help to those who need it most. That means an average extra payment of about £400 a year, most of which goes to those who need it most at the poorest end of the income scale, many of them women. Although that policy leaves pensioners £1,250 a year better off on average, the poorest are £1,600 a year better off. That is

19WH
why there are 400,000 fewer pensioners living on a relatively low income against the backdrop of rising prosperity.
Mr. Waterson: The Minister's target is the 1.4 million pensioners who are not claiming pension credit, although they are entitled to it, including about 2,000 of the poorest pensioners in Redcar, for example. How many does she think will be women?
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Government's aim is for all pensioners who are entitled to take up the pension credit to do so. Claiming it is significantly simpler than claiming minimum income guarantee was. All it requires is a 20-minute phone call once every five years. Most pensioners can manage that. To encourage take-up, there is a provision to enable face-to-face interviews, including home visits, for those who cannot make such a phone call. I refute the assumption that the number of people whom we want to ensure as a minimum are entitled to claim pension credit represents some sort of ceiling. Of course, it does not. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has made it clear that he would like to see 100 per cent. take-up; so would we all. If Opposition parties—I do not so much blame the Liberal Democrats for this—would stop characterising a 20-minute phone call once every five years as akin to the Poor Law means test, we might have a better chance of ensuring that people were not put off from claiming. Some of the comments that we received from people who have claimed have been extremely complimentary, and that is as it should be. We want to make claiming easy, and we want people to claim their entitlement and enjoy the full effect of having done so.
Equally importantly, we are also improving pensions information to ensure that individuals are aware of their own pension position, rather than just having a general awareness that saving for the future is good but not knowing what that means to them. It is critical that women have regular access to good information and can make plans about the level of income that they want and need in retirement. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar quoted a survey that found that only one in 10 young women who had extra income would put it into a pension. I sometimes think that that is a reflection of the selfless nature of many women. My hon. and learned Friend suggested that it might have something to do with being hard up, and I am sure that an element of that is involved. There is no doubt that if women get extra money, they like to spend it on the kids.
The Green Paper consultation indicated strong support for making informed choice a reality. In its response, the Equal Opportunities Commission commented that evidence suggests that women have lower awareness of pensions than men and endorsed the need for greater awareness among women. That backs up the survey evidence that my hon. and learned Friend read out to us in her speech.
As a Government, we are committed to making a success of the balanced approach of both targeting state support on those at the poor end of the income scale and developing the right framework and information for individuals to make informed decisions about further
20WH
private or occupational provision. We are working with the Association of British Insurers, which has agreed to lead a consortium from across the pensions industry to help us develop a pensions information pack that employers can give to their employees.
We are also working through the employers' taskforce, with human resources and employee benefit specialists, to develop a strategy for encouraging the wider use of communication tools such as the total benefit statement. When women take a break from work, the automatic pension forecast should ensure that they still have the information that they need to plan their retirement. We hope that with the flexibility of measures such as stakeholder pensions, which were designed with women's employment patterns in mind, they can make contributions when not working. That will mean that when women take a break from work, it does not necessarily mean that they take a break from pension contributions.
I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate. I hope that Members will forgive me if I do not get through them all, but I will do my best to answer the main ones. I will start with the points made by my hon. and learned Friend, whose debate this is.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to home responsibilities protection and the lower earnings limit, but she started by talking about the pay gap. As a woman, it is always difficult to read about the pay gap, because we know that our female colleagues may suffer from it. When the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed, the gap stood at about 37 per cent. Since then, it has closed to about 18 per cent, and although that is still a major gap, it is significantly less than it was.
The gap is influenced by a range of different factors, many of which are outside Government control. Men and women still make different choices about who cares for children, and we do not want to interfere with that. Families must make such decisions, and we do not want to take action that will end up penalising particular choices. The latest Office for National Statistics figures suggest that the pay gap has narrowed during the past year by a further 1 per cent. to its lowest level since the 1970 Act, so progress is still being made. The figures show that women now earn 82 per cent. of men's earnings, despite the fact that they work on average three and a half hours less a week. Average female wages rose by almost 3.5 per cent. while average male wages rose by just over 2 per cent. The hourly wage—this reflects the minimum wage—of the bottom 50 per cent. of women rose by 3.5 per cent., the comparable male figure being 1 per cent. Progress is still being made.
My hon. and learned Friend also referred to home responsibilities protection and the inflexibility of some of the rules such as the 25 per cent. rule, the fact that it goes from April to April and that it represents a year off the sentence, as the hon. Member for Northavon rather depressingly put it, rather than a more positive year's credit. It was introduced in 1978 to help to protect the basic state pension for people whose opportunities to work were limited because of care and responsibilities at home. It is salutary to realise that it is not until then that caring for children at home was recognised at all in the credit system of national insurance. That shows those of

21WH
us who assumed as we were growing up that things would just get better and better that the process can sometimes be slow.
In any event, HRP helps millions of women who receive child benefit for a child under 16 and who are not doing paid work to have their responsibilities at home recognised in some way in the system. It also helps women who are caring for a person getting attendance allowance and disability living allowance—but not carers allowance as there is a different system for that—to get some credit for their work. It works by reducing the number of qualifying years rather than by crediting, but it means that a woman can get a full basic state pension if she has 20 years of qualifying years and 19 years discounted through home responsibilities protection. It can provide significant assistance.
The complexity of the system and the fact that people do not always understand it is not necessarily a bad thing. We do not require people to work out their own entitlement to basic state pension, or we would all be in trouble. That is one of the reasons why I do not take too seriously the comments made about the alleged complexity of pension credit. We do the calculations. We do not require those who benefit from it to do the calculations but simply to phone us. There is no evidence that people are missing out on the chance to protect their pension in this way. I know that my hon. and learned Friend did not so much allege that as suggest that the system could be improved.
Credits are slightly different. They are intended to protect benefit entitlement for people who are unable to work rather than to provide a recognition of those who have some shorter-term care and responsibility at home that might extend over a number of years. Credits are intended to protect benefit entitlement for people who cannot work for short periods due to circumstances outside their control, perhaps illness or disability. There is a difference between the longer-term nature of home responsibilities protection and the shorter-term nature of credit.
My hon. and learned Friend asked whether we could have a carers credit. We take the position of carers seriously. If one looks at the social security system since the war, it is clear that only more latterly has the role of carers been recognised in the welfare system. It was only relatively recently in benefit terms that carers allowance was even introduced. There are improvements through the state second pension, which my hon. and learned Friend recognised in respect of the requirements of pensioners. I will come on to the accrual rate in due course. There is certainly more recognition of the needs of carers in state pension provision in the state second pension.
We have also extended home responsibilities protection to foster carers for the first time. While that is a small issue, it is particularly important to foster carers. That builds on the existing help that is available through home responsibilities protection.
Mr. Webb: Is there not an issue of principle about how much value society places on different activities? After a week of shelf stacking at Tesco, someone has built up a full pension right. If someone spends a week caring for an elderly relative, they build up a year's full pension right. However, if someone spends a week with
22WH
a new-born child over the course of a year, they do not build up pension rights. Why is that a second-class activity, compared with the other two?
Maria Eagle: It is not. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the system was established at one time and in a coherent way, but he knows that it has not been. Things have grown up for different purposes over different periods, and consequently there can be incompatibilities and differences between them that do not necessarily reflect a conscious decision to take one thing more seriously than something else. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that.
I move on to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend about unisex annuities. It was also raised by the hon. Members for Northavon and for Eastbourne. The Fawcett Society has suggested that unisex annuities should be considered. My hon. and learned Friend was particularly exercised by the fact that gender discrimination was allowed in annuities but that other types of discrimination were not. The hon. Members for Northavon and for Eastbourne expressed an interest in this, although I think that the hon. Member for Northavon was less convinced than the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who called for unisex annuities.
I made a point to the hon. Member for Eastbourne about the law of unintended consequences. There is a concern that introducing compulsion into unisex annuities could result in there being lower aggregate retirement incomes for the population as a whole, and in only marginal—if anyߞbenefits to women. Recent research by the Association of British Insurers suggests that that would be the case. It shows, on an actuarial basis, that the savings for women of purchasing a unisex annuity would be minimal. According to an ABI example, the sum would be about £3 a month for a woman with a typical pot of £10,000, and that any advantages would be far outweighed by starting to save a bit earlier. That suggests that we might do better by aiming our propaganda at enabling people to make informed choices, and at trying to get them to take savings more seriously earlier in their lives.
The consultation that we recently conducted revealed that insurers would be likely to respond to such a requirement by starting to collect new information—for example, in respect of occupation—with which to segregate their customers, as an alternative to gender, and that that would not necessarily benefit women any more than would the straight gender information that they now use.
As is often the case in pensions, this issue is not as simple as it sounds with regard to both the analysis of the problem and the potential solutions. The Government do not want to spend their time in coming up with policy solutions that are circumvented by new proxies for gender discrimination, and for other things. I am sure that all Members agree with that. Therefore, we are not convinced, although it sounds like a good thing.
My hon. and learned Friend made a point about the state second pension applying to those with children under 16, rather than under six. There is an issue here. When home responsibilities protection was instituted, it was not generally the case that women with children went out to work. We are now trying to encourage such

23WH
women—even lone parents, for whom it is harder to go out to work—to enter the work force at an earlier stage in their child's lives. Therefore, we again have to be careful that by creating an equal age at which women are expected to do something, we are not providing disincentives to work for those who are showing that they want to go out to work. Consistency across policies, some of which date back 20, 30 or 40 years, is not necessarily what we are looking for. The newer policies that have been introduced, with lower ages at which women are expected to do something, might encourage them to do it—go to work, for example—in a way that policies from 1978 would never have done.
The hon. Member for Northavon spoke about pension sharing on divorce. It is important that women get the full value of the partnership on the breaking up of relationships. Such circumstances are increasingly prevalent. We use the cash equivalent transfer value, which is a method of defining what the pension share should be. However, there is no easy answer. That method attempts to create the value of the benefits to which a member would have been entitled, had he ceased his service at the point at which it is calculated—at the point of divorce.
There is no way of knowing whether a scheme member might leave early due to a job change, go off to do something else, or retire early. This is, to some degree, a guessing game. There must always be a balance between achieving fairness when a divorce occurs and requiring employers, or scheme providers, to do ever more complex and administratively difficult calculations, which will increase the cost of the general provision of occupational pensions when we are trying to simplify and reduce the costs. Many hon. Members have talked about what is happening to occupational pensions. I think that there is some common ground between us on that matter. Putting more costs on to such schemes will not ensure better coverage or more access to schemes for young women.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked how we could persuade young people to become interested in pensions. If anybody has an answer to that question, I should be pleased if they would write to me as soon as possible and set it out in full. One of the conceits of youth, if I may put it that way, is that one is immortal and the last thing one needs to consider is pensions. If I had talked to any of my friends about pension provision when I was young, which was a long time ago, I would have been considered a pretty boring person. I suspect that most young people still feel the same way today. Getting people to save from an early enough age is one
24WH
of the most difficult things for a Government to do. Young people are not inclined to listen to Governments, but when they start talking about having to save for retirement they probably switch off entirely.
This is a problem for us all. As the figures in the Green Paper show, there is no doubt that whether we are talking about young men or women, people do not start saving early enough for their retirement. If they started saving just a few years earlier, things would be a lot easier for them on becoming a bit older. Of course, they start thinking about that when the position is already not as good as it would have been if they had started sooner. We must try to tackle that problem by providing information and making savings easier and more flexible. However, there is no sensible, ready-made answer that will definitely work if we just apply it.
I realise that we are running a little short of time, but I want to deal with some of the points my hon. and learned Friend made about the lower earnings limit, and awards on credit to people with earnings below that. The current system of credits relies on clearly identifiable triggers. To deal with earnings below the lower earnings limit would pose administrative and evidential difficulties. Evidence of earnings at lower levels may not readily be available, so there would be a problem with verification.
My hon. and learned Friend said that it would be desirable to extend the state pension to those earning below the lower earnings level, but our current basic state pension system is based entirely on the contributory principle. That raises the question about whether it should be a contributory benefit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northavon, who proposed his citizen's pension, would agree with me about that. We must protect the contributory principle and administer it fairly to all those who are in it, or would like to be. The contributory principle has underscored our basic state pension provision for as long as it has existed. Moving away from that to any great extent would create much wider problems than the small issue to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. That is another example, perhaps, of the law of unintended consequences and of the fact that, when we talk about pensions, it is almost impossible to propose a simple solution to what often seems to be a simple problem. As we all realise, this is a complex, intergenerational and long-term matter to which there are no simple solutions.
I am fast running out of time and must respond to the other points by writing to hon. Members—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has run out of time.

Walsgrave Hospital
11 am
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also thank Mr. Speaker for granting this debate at short notice. It has to be appreciated that this is a short debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) will pick up any points that I fail to make. He is quite adroit at that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is also here today, is lending his support on the issue, which centres on the suspension of a doctor at Walsgrave hospital some two years ago. It is worth noting, as I hope the Minister will, that this is the second time that we have had to have a debate on suspensions at the hospital.
There has been a range of problems at the hospital, but we should start by recognising that progress has been made in several areas during the past 12 months—we would not want to take that away from the new management. That progress includes an improvement in patient care, a new trust chairperson and a new chief executive of the trust, an improvement in terms of the practice of bed blocking and a tremendous effort to reduce waiting times. There has also been tremendous progress over the building of a new hospital, the final cost of which may be £380 million or more. It is also worth stating for the record that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West and I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) as a link between us and the national health service to secure that hospital.
One outstanding issue remains—that of Dr. Mattu. He was appointed on 1 May 1997 to establish a new medical school and to help to improve standards. He also joined the cardiac department. In February 2002, he was suspended after he raised concerns about overcrowding in some wards, in which five beds were placed in four-person bays, which was interesting. There was quite a lot of controversy about it. From 1999, he raised at a series of meetings other concerns about standards and the level of care. As I say, he was employed to help to improve standards.
There have been two inquiries to investigate some of those concerns. The Commission for Health Improvement carried out an investigation and expressed several concerns. In fairness to the trust, it acted on the report and put those matters right. A further inquiry is to be held because of allegations that the first two inquiries, which were separate from the CHI report, did not appear to cover all the concerns regarding five beds in a four-bed bay. We believe that this inquiry should be independent, as that would show transparency and encourage the public again to trust the management of the hospital to deliver adequate services.
It has been estimated that the suspension and resulting legal expenses are costing the NHS about £50 million a year—a considerable sum that could be used for other purposes in the health service. Suspensions and over-long disciplinary procedures cost the NHS a great deal of money. In previous cases, the disciplinary procedure has taken two years and run up costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The personal cost to Dr. Mattu includes not being able to practise his skills, the emotional cost to him and his family and the cost of
26WH
long disciplinary procedures. At what stage does whistleblowing become a disciplinary matter? We need guidance from the Minister on that question.
In the past three years, there have been at least three suspensions for very long periods. One case had to be resolved by the courts, one was settled out of court and now there is the case of Dr. Mattu. The new management have had the chance to wipe the slate clean as most of those cases, including that of Dr. Mattu, occurred under the previous trust management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West and I are calling for Dr. Mattu to be reinstated or, failing that, for an independent panel to examine the case, or the Minister to set up an independent inquiry. We want to let the past stay in the past and get everyone to work towards one aim—the provision of a better health service for the people of Coventry. In outlining our concerns in the Dr. Mattu case, we make it perfectly clear that we do not want a quarrel with the management. If that is what we wanted, there would be no reason for us to call for arbitration.
There have been problems at the hospital, but we recognise that there have been slow improvements and that there cannot be any major improvements until the new hospital is completed. However, we acknowledge the valuable service of the staff in providing for the health of the people of Coventry and we would not want anyone to think that we are disputing that contribution. There can be a new hospital, but if staff morale is low there is a problem.
The way to lift staff morale is to treat the staff fairly, consider their grievances and try to resolve them. As a gesture in that direction, at the very least there should be some conciliation between the trust and Dr. Mattu and his advisers. It is Dr. Mattu now, but who will it be next week because the management happen to disagree with the staff on the issues that they raise?
We must bear it in mind that one of Dr. Mattu's functions on appointment was to improve standards and, in doing so, the onus was on him to raise issues about which he was concerned. Five beds being placed in a four-bed bay is a serious issue, and as that and other issues have not been resolved and there has been no independent inquiry, there are grounds for mistrust in the public mind over how the hospital is managed and for a lack of confidence in the services. I do not say that that has happened, but there is a real danger that it could.
This is a short debate and we want to give the Minister adequate time to reply. We appeal to her to consider the situation objectively. I know it is difficult for her to intervene, but where there is a will there is a way. At the very least, she should push for conciliation, if not an independent inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will make further points about the hospital and Dr. Mattu's case. The people of Coventry are watching that case, as they did the previous cases, as what has been going on is very frustrating for them and the situation cannot continue. At some point, the past must be buried so that we can move on to the future and deliver what the people of Coventry deserve—a new hospital and the best services that can be provided. If that is done, staff morale will improve and, more important, the people of Coventry will have confidence in a first-class health service.
11.8 am
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), I thank Mr. Speaker for granting permission for this important debate at short notice. I also thank my hon. Friend for securing it. I am grateful to the Minister for being present, and I look forward to what she has to say.
As my hon. Friend said, this is the third debate that we have had on the problems of Walsgrave hospital. I had hoped that this Adjournment debate would not be necessary but it is, despite the fact that there is a new broom, and a new start, for which we thank the previous Secretary of State. We have a new chairman and new chief executive, and for the last year and a half the problems of Walsgrave had more or less disappeared from my radar screen, until now. As MPs, we are close to our constituencies, and we measure that by the postbag and representations that we receive and by the general feeling in the city about the hospital, which is probably its most important institution.
My hon. Friend said that progress has been made. The new hospital is going up, the private finance initiative project has been agreed and there is every chance that we can sustain that new start if we deal with the remaining problem. I am not sure why it has flared up again in recent weeks. Perhaps it has to do with the National Clinical Assessment Authority letter, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on. Perhaps the situation has simply gone on far too long. It is now 20 months since the suspension and we are no nearer a resolution of the problem.
For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and I felt that the matter had to be raised in Parliament again today. It is indeed time to do so because this very week a Reader's Digest press release again identified Coventry's Walsgrave hospital as one of the principal areas for concern about suspensions. Highlighting an article in the Reader's Digest published today, the press release states:
"One example of a trust throwing its weight around is the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust"—
of which the main hospital is the Walsgrave—
"who are at the centre of three high-profile suspensions. The most recent case concerns Dr Raj Mattu, one of the world's leading heart specialists."
The press release says other things, which I shall come to, but it is a strange situation in which one of the world's leading heart specialists—those are the words of a well informed Reader's Digest article, not mine—is suspended for 20 months. People should think of the cost—not only the hundreds of thousands of pounds to which my hon. Friend referred, but the loss to the people of Coventry. At the heart of the matter seem to be nothing more than bickering, rivalry and allegations of confrontation, and perhaps harassment or bullying, made by one consultant against another. It has taken 20 months to get nowhere but deeper into confrontation and aggravation for the whole city of Coventry.
The issue will not go away, and it needs to be confronted and resolved in the very short term. The people of Coventry are fed up to the back teeth with bickering, rivalries and allegations of harassment between consultants. It is much worse than what takes
28WH
place in the Oxbridge common rooms. Heaven knows, people who have served in them are aware of the bickering, fighting and confrontation that goes on there. The alternative to a settlement now is another year of the same. We will go through the procedures, which will take at least a year, and be no further advanced.
I intend to leave the Minister plenty of time to reply, but I want to say that Dr. Mattu, whom I know personally and with whom I have recently discussed the situation, as I did many months ago, was unwell for four months this year with an illness that has clearly been aggravated by the stress that this incident has caused him, and one should never overlook that. Previously, other factors delayed a resolution, but we are through those now and, as I understand it, the representatives on each side are ready to engage.
One story came to my attention just last week. Although Dr. Mattu is suspended, he still comes to Coventry and he holds three surgeries there. I am told that the fact that he does very little private work may be one issue that is causing friction between him and the other doctors. I do not know about that and cannot comment on it, but Dr. Mattu is doing voluntary work in Coventry and, I think, in Kenilworth or Leamington, where he holds three clinics. This incident took place not as a consequence of one of those clinics, but because of a chance encounter in a local pub, where he met a gentleman who has allowed me to mention his name. That gentleman is one of my hon. Friend's constituents, not one of mine, and I have told my hon. Friend that I shall be mentioning this man in the debate.
The constituent's name is Jim Brown, and he told me the following story. He was twice admitted, very recently, to Coventry Walsgrave hospital as an emergency case. On the first occasion, he was kept in overnight and discharged the next day. On the second, he was not admitted to specialist coronary care, but held for two nights in the normal emergency wards and discharged on the third day. Dr. Mattu bumped into Mr. Brown in a pub in Coventry and said to him, "You are not looking very well. Jim. What's the matter?" He knew that he had a history of coronary complaints. Mr. Brown explained to Dr. Mattu that he was suffering from something similar to what the Prime Minister had—an excessively fast heartbeat.
Raj Mattu, because he knew the person and knew about the condition, said that what he needed was electric shock treatment—precisely what the Prime Minister had. Dr. Mattu said to Mr. Brown, "Why don't you go to your GP tomorrow? The condition is very serious and if it continues it can cause long-term damage." He told him to tell his GP that he had that condition and to ask him to get him admitted to the coronary unit. He said that the people in the coronary unit were very capable and would administer the treatment that Mr. Brown needed.
Mr. Brown did just that. He went to his GP, who phoned the hospital, saying that the case was not an emergency, but that he had identified the problem—subject to hospital confirmation—and that he believed that such treatment was necessary. The treatment was administered and Mr. Brown is fine. I spoke to him on the phone and he confirmed every aspect of that conversation. He said that he is fine, and he could not understand why it took the intervention of Raj Mattu to get him that treatment.

29WH
There is no doubt that we are dealing with a competent doctor. The Walsgrave may want to ask itself some questions about why, in Mr. Brown's case, there was no coronary investigation after his emergency admission, but that is not the main point that I want to make. The point is that Dr. Mattu was, and is, by any standards, an outstanding doctor. It is not just Reader's Digest that believes that to be the case—it is recognised in Coventry. Dr. Mattu was recruited in 1997 for the specific purpose of redressing what was seen as an inadequate situation in the hospital. There were two incidents—one in 1999 and the other in 2000. In the 1999 incident, in which there were five beds in a four-bedded room, a young man was admitted—I do not know the details of what happened—and it was not possible to get the equipment on to him quickly enough. He died. Both incidents were investigated, but I do not know what the judgments were. It would be nice to see the results published, although I am much more interested in the future than in the past.
What have the present chairman or chief executive to fear from an inquiry? They were not in post when those incidents took place, and the practice of putting five beds in a four-bedded room has stopped. However, if the Minister could make the results of those investigations available, it would be very interesting to see what happened.
It is no good pretending that Dr. Mattu created waves for no reason. He did so because he wanted to improve an inadequate situation and because he thought that not enough attention was being paid to what he believed was improper practice. Five beds in a four-bedded room might have been acceptable if all the patients were recovering from heart operations, but it should never have been allowed when the patients were in a critical condition, such as that of the patient who died.
I think that Dr. Mattu was a whistleblower, although that may not be universally accepted. He set very high standards and expected others to reach those standards, but that is nothing less than patients would wish. If he was difficult in that respect, that is all in the past. The question now is what should be done to resolve the present situation.
The NCAA has been contacted. The Minister will remember that the NCAA was set up with the precise purpose of accelerating the process of suspensions. It limited the number of cases in which hospital trusts should seek to suspend and set a target for the time it should take to process those suspensions. Neither of those has been observed in this case, but it predated the setting up of the NCAA.
I am told that the NCAA has written a response, and, although it says that disciplinary hearings should proceed, it is not standing in the way of a compromise or negotiated settlement. A compromise settlement must now be reached, and that could be achieved through an intervention from the Minister or arbitration by a jointly-appointed, independent party. We must cut through this process, which is dragging on—costing us millions or at least hundreds of thousands of pounds—and denying the people of Coventry the care that they need.
What is the essence of a compromise agreement? The trust should not expect to humiliate Dr. Mattu in any way or to reach an agreement that wholly supports its
30WH
wishes. The essence of a compromise agreement is that each side should drop its claims against the other and no blame should be apportioned. If we start from that point, I am sure that a compromise can be reached, and I urge the Minister to set about resolving the problem on our behalf. If she were to say that procedures must be followed, we both know that the situation would continue for another year, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of extra costs, and we would be denied the good services of an outstanding doctor.
11.20 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): First, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) in his congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on securing this debate. I am aware of the local concerns regarding this issue and that there is considerable disquiet over the length of time taken to resolve the situation.
Before I discuss the suspension of Dr. Mattu, I want to say a few words about the progress being made locally at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. My hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), will be aware that, in 2001, the Commission for Health Improvement awarded the trust a zero star rating. That was coupled with the fact that, in the Dr. Foster report into cardiac surgery, published in November 2001, the trust was highlighted as having one of the worst cardiac mortality rates in the country and given three months to improve.
Following a number of interventions, including by the Modernisation Agency, a review by the Commission for Health Improvement in 2002 found that satisfactory progress had been made. Issues such as the high death rates, the practice of putting five beds in four-bedded bays, and strategic planning were all found to have progressed satisfactorily, but more work still had to be done. As a result, the decision was taken to franchise the trust and, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, the then chief executive, David Loughton, resigned in March 2002. The new chief executive, David Roberts, assumed the post in May 2003. He implemented a plan sustainably to improve performance at the trust.
I should like to pay tribute to the hard-working staff at the hospitals in the trust, who have turned round performance to the extent that the CHI awarded the trust two stars for 2002–03 and concluded that overall it is performing well, although work must still be done before the trust is one of the best in the country. The super-hospital for Coventry and Warwickshire is also being built, at a cost of about £359 million.
I will now turn to Dr. Mattu's case. I am aware of the issues surrounding the case, especially the long time taken to sort it out. There have been allegations that Dr. Mattu has been suspended because he is a whistleblower. The Government expect a climate of openness and dialogue to exist in the NHS, a climate that encourages all staff to be able to raise concerns about health care matters reasonably and responsibly, without fear of victimisation.
In August 1999, the Department of Health issued stronger guidance to all NHS trusts and health authorities on whistleblowing. That guidance is in line

31WH
with the requirements of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which gives strong statutory protection to employees who disclose information in the public interest and are victimised for doing so. National health service employers should ensure that all staff are aware of local policies and procedures, and their responsibilities for raising genuine concerns in a responsible and reasonable way. The Department's view is that concerns raised should be dealt with locally and in accordance with those local policies and procedures wherever possible. In. luly we issued an updated policy pack to support organisations reviewing their policies on whistleblowing.
Dr. Mattu has been employed at the trust as a consultant cardiologist since May 1997. The then joint medical director at the trust suspended him from duty on full pay on 21 February, following allegations of serious bullying. The act of suspension was—and still is—neutral, pending investigation of the allegations, and was in accordance with the trust's disciplinary procedure, which states that
"where, in the Medical Director's opinion, a practitioner's continued attendance at the workplace is or would be prejudicial to an investigation or good working, or is not in the interest of patients, the public or other staff, the practitioner may be suspended from duty on full pay pending the outcome of preliminary enquiries or the full investigation."
In each case, the consideration and the implementation of the suspension should be in accordance with the health service guidelines set out in HSG (94) 49.
Following Dr. Mattu's suspension, a further allegation was received that corroborated the original complaint. There was a formal investigation into the allegations, conducted in accordance with the trust employment procedures relating to clinical staff, which had been agreed by the local negotiating committee. That committee comprised senior consultants and so forth. The procedures are recognised as being fair and appropriate. The investigation methodology consisted of taking statements and interviewing people. Dr. Mattu has remained suspended during the process; his suspension is reviewed fortnightly by the joint medical director of the trust.
In January, an independent panel meeting was held, in accordance with trust procedure and agreed with the parties, to review the evidence and to consider what further action, if any, was necessary on the ongoing suspension. The panel undertook a preliminary investigation assessment and found that the prima facie case of personal misconduct needed to be answered. Dr. Mattu has engaged the services of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association and a solicitor. The trust has also engaged a solicitor. Progress on the case has been slowed by the lengthy and complex disputes between the trust and Dr. Mattu and his
32WH
representatives. As a consequence, Dr. Mattu is unfortunately unavailable due to sickness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West mentioned.
West Midlands strategic health authority representatives met the trust on 30 July 2003 to review the processes employed by the trust to date, and in particular to ensure that the fundamental principles of due process and natural justice have been complied with.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I know that technically the suspension is, or is said to be, a neutral act. However, the consultant concerned has been suspended and left in limbo, with all the stress that that involves. There is no countervailing pressure on the others involved. I want to raise another point; is there not something wrong with those processes, which can go on for 20 months, even allowing for the four months of Dr. Mattu's indisposition? Cannot the Minister see that the processes are not working? What will she do about the matter?
Miss Johnson: I assure my hon. Friend that the process is genuinely neutral. I appreciate that it may not feel like that, but it is. That is how the matter must be regarded by all parties. My hon. Friend presses me on the length of the duration of the case, and I share his concerns about that. It is of concern that it has taken so long and we do not want cases to take so long. Dr. Mattu wrote to Sir Nigel Crisp, who suggested that the National Clinical Assessment Authority should look into the handling of the case. The NCAA provides a service that deals with doctors and dentists on performance issues and gives advice about local handling and how difficulties can be resolved. Ian Stone, the chief medical officer's adviser on long-term suspensions, is also an employee of the NCAA
A group was convened and met on 3 September. As a result, options for concluding Dr. Mattu's suspension and the implications of each of the options for the trust, its employees, its employees and the wider NHS were considered. The group also agreed to provide an expert opinion on how the trust should move forward and on the support required by the trust and, if appropriate, its employees. Ian Stone wrote to the trust's chief executive on 23 October to advise him on the steps that it should take to bring the case to a conclusion. The trust will consider that advice, but the final decision on the course of action to be taken rests with the trust.
As a result of my hon. Friends' comments, I am concerned about the amount of time that the case has taken and undertake to see whether there is anything further that we can do to speed it up. However, I cannot give my hon. Friends any assurance that that will be the case. It is very difficult to resolve such long-running disputes as rapidly as everybody would wish.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Dairy Industry
2 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: It is a pleasure to see such a good turnout from both sides of the House for this debate, which comes at a very appropriate moment for the industry. I am delighted to have secured it.
I was interested recently to see the controversial moment that boosted the ratings of "Coronation Street", when Sarah asked in the corner shop, "Is it really 37p a pint?" for the milk that she was collecting. That pays tribute, perhaps, to the sentiment felt widely across the UK that this is an industry whose value has been hidden for too long. The UK pinta has a special place in Great Britain.
Obviously, dairy is a 24/7 industry. When I visit my constituents on the farm, or when they visit my surgeries, I recognise that it is not a job or a business that can be done part-time, or that can be undertaken for two or three days a week. It is a full-time commitment and the industry has experienced a rigorous decline in recent years. In Scotland, 50 years ago, there were five herds for every one that remains. Galloway's prosperity was built on the industry and many constituencies represented in this Chamber today have witnessed a similar decline in prosperity, in direct proportion to the number of herds in the industry.
As I was discussing before the debate, the average age of a dairy farmer is now 59 and I hope that my constituents will not mind my pointing out that, when one is speaking to members of the industry, it seems higher. It is an old industry, and there is little prospect of the Government taking action to return it to its historic prosperity.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and share all his concerns for the future of the industry, but is not this an issue less about Government action and more about the attitudes of the large supermarkets and dairy companies, which seem to be driving my constituents—and hisߞinto oblivion?
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is right. It has to do with the balance of market power and I shall discuss that shortly. That is the issue raised most often by my constituents. It is the balance between retailers, processors and producers that seems so out of kilter and that is putting a brake on the industry.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman does not have the benefit of the Western Morning News, the regional newspaper for our part of the country. Perhaps I could draw his attention to an extremely useful diagram. It shows that the average shop price of a litre of milk is 42p, but the farmer gets only 18.3p—their costs on average are 20p, processing costs are 11p, supermarket handling and cold storage are 2p, and the supermarket profit on that figure is 10.7p. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that is disastrous?
Mr. Duncan: I certainly acknowledge the clarity of the Western Morning News on this issue. The hon.
34WH
Gentleman will want to retain his historic good terms with that local media, but I would like to progress by suggesting some direct measures that the Government could take to ease some of the industry's pains.
The president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, John Kinnaird, recently met Dairy Crest's chief executive, Drummond Hall. Mr. Kinnaird said:
"No-one begrudge: Dairy Crest making a profit, it is key to any successful business. However, our members cannot accept processors and retailers increasing their margins at the same time as producer prices fall through the floor. The major retailers have committed to pay more for cheese on top of earlier commitments on licpid milk. At the very least, Dairy Crest should commit to passing that increase back to producers in full."
That is the essence of the price problem: however much is promised at the retailer end, very little gets back to the farm gate.
Mr. David Drew: Price is at the root of the issue, but there is another factor, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded at the start. This is a declining market, and one reason why we need to restructure it is so that all sectors can pull together to try to return it to a state in which the demand for milk is increasing, which would make many other things fall into place. Does he agree?
Mr. Duncan: I do not necessarily agree if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that milk is a terminally ill industry. I see dynamic things happening in the dairy sector. In recent years, consumption has stabilised and all the evidence is that that situation could continue. I was pleased to be asked to open a new production hall recently by my local processor, Express Dairies. That is exactly the type of innovation that can show the way forward in the industry. It is taking the Nesquik brand into liquid milk. That is a significant investment, securing local jobs in Kirkcudbright, so I am delighted to welcome it. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism that the. UK dairy industry is in terminal decline. It is rescuable, and if nothing else I hope that this debate provides an opportunity for hon. Members to point the way forward.
Mr. Adrian Flook: As we see if we compare 2003 with 1997, we are still not being helped as a nation, particularly in Somerset, Devon and, no doubt, south-west Scotland, because the Government have in effect undermined the dairy industry by forcing us to import a lot of milk. That was not the case before 1997.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, importing milk causes particular resentment in the industry. There is a paradox, though, to link that to the price debate. The 10 per cent. appreciation of the euro in recent years has not fed through into prices at the farm gate. It is a particularly strange market when that does not happen.
The supermarkets obviously have structural control over the retailing side of the industry. They sell milk cheaply and have done so for many years. The challenge, then, is.. to achieve two things: first, the consumer pays a fair price for milk and, secondly, a fair proportion of that fair price is transferred back to the farm gate.

35WH
The UK industry has proved to be very efficient. The yield has risen by almost 1.5 per cent. every year since 1987. That has happened through innovation and the commercial nous of the industry with its breeding, feeding and management systems. Those real commercial gains have been achieved through the hard endeavours of people at the coal face, but the return has been precious little.
The net farm income figures have recently shown a return to the dark days of a couple of years ago. Farm incomes are now at a third of their 1995–96 level. The industry has to tackle those price problems. They are the background to the understandable protests by Farmers For Action and others whereby farmers have sought to take their legitimate complaint to the processing and retailing sectors.
Some strong rural areas of the UK are represented on the Back Benches today. The UK countryside owes a great debt to the dairy industry. l understand that 230,000 farm holdings is the UK total. Unfortunately, the number of registered dairy production holdings in the UK has fallen from 35,000 to 25,000 in recent years. That trend affects all rural communities in the UK and the Government must take it very seriously. In my constituency, there has been a significant decline in the number of farmers, and a trend away from the small family farm.
I am anxious that rural communities should continue. They suffer most when 1he smallest farm units prove unsustainable and they are anxious that the common agricultural policy reforms will put a brake on small farms.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which has created much interest in my constituency where there are strong feelings on the issue. He will be pointing out the relative strength of the supermarkets and the prices that they fix for farmers. We should also consider Ministers' inaction following the problems of the foot and mouth crisis, which decimated rural communities, especially the small family farmers that he mentioned.
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to concerns about an outbreak of these diseases. My constituency was badly affected by the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 and people are worried that that may be repeated. It is an uncertainty that is holding back the industry. I am worried that there may be a repeat of the foot and mouth outbreak and that the potential problems of tuberculosis, which have blighted the industry in many constituencies, may spread to my constituency.
The farmers in my constituency raise reform of the common agricultural policy with me as often as they mention prices. At a recent National Farmers Union meeting in Kirkcudbright, there was a wide-ranging discussion on the complex issues that affect the dairy industry, which is bearing the brunt of uncertainty about a negotiated settlement of the CAP reform package. There was particular concern about the prospect of decoupling, which was sold to the industry on the basis of a substantial reduction in red tape and
36WH
form filling. At the early stages of CAP reform, that was, understandably, an enticing prospect for farmers. However, given the practicalities of modulation and ensuring that farms are linked to environmental schemes, the prospect of reducing the burden of red tape appears to be disappearing over the horizon. Farmers are worried that decoupling is no more than a smokescreen that will involve a reduction in their incomes.
Modulation is a prospect that often seems to mitigate worst against the UK, especially in rural areas. In the past, modulation has meant income evaporating from my constituency to elsewhere in Scotland and Europe. There is great concern that modulation and its expansion in the CAP reform package will continue that trend.
Mr. David Kidney: Conservative Members often demand reform of the common agricultural policy. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that we do not take the opportunity of earlier decoupling than everyone else?
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I was not advocating that, but I do want us to take a close look at exactly what we are getting involved in. The industry was sold decoupling on the basis that it would remove the vast swathes of red tape and bureaucracy that have built up over many years and replace it with a simple system. What started to emerge was a removal of many of the schemes, but in terms of the modulation of red tape, they are being replaced by a new form of bureaucracy that has the potential to be even greater than that which it purports to replace.
The industry is concerned about the effect of CAP reform on farm incomes. Early estimates of the probable effect of the package suggest lower profits for dairy farmers, although many uncertainties remain. Estimates by Richard King of Andersons suggest that, as the new dairy premium arrives on farms, a 150-cow herd producing 1 million litres of milk might see an initial income gain of about £6,000 in 2004, which will be very welcome. However, from 2007 the price cuts agreed under the reforms will start to bite and compensation will decline as modulation rates increase and the EU exerts further financial discipline. That uncertainty in the longer term is proving to be a significant worry for all family businesses involved in the dairy sector.
I am particularly conscious of how technologically advanced the industry has become: even the smallest farmers in my constituency are no longer the cottage industry that they once were. They are high-tech, high-capital investment businesses that require certainty. That lack of certainty is proving to be the biggest burden that those businesses must overcome in very short order, before the business evaporates before their very eyes.
Ann Winterton: This morning, I took the wife of a local dairy farmer round the House. She told me that they have to consider an investment of either £18,000 to lease milk quota, or £50,000 to buy it, at a time when they do not know what the value of the quota will be. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises what a tremendous problem that is for dairy

37WH
farmers, if they are to try to survive at this particularly difficult time. Does he believe that part of the problem is the milk quota system, which was introduced in 1984 and had an adverse effect on the UK compared with other European milk producers?
Mr. Duncan: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. She is right to point to the financial commitment that quotas require small businesses to make and to the fact that the capital in a business is often not only the fixed capital but a substantial investment in quotas. Families and local communities are greatly concerned about how the industry will move from that system to a system without quotas.
Given that margins are so incredibly tight in the dairy sector, I am particularly worried when I hear reports that dairy businesses in my constituency are seeking to expand their way into margin and profit. It is a risky strategy for those businesses to double their production because their margins have been halved. Although I am delighted to see any investment in the industry, I am concerned that the environment in the industry is so uncertain that businesses feel that such drastic measures are necessary to secure a fair return on their investment and work load.
I shall conclude by proposing some things that the Government could do to pave the way for a return to prosperity for the dairy industry, although I accept that there is much that is not within the gift of the Government. I know from experience that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality is a talented man, but he does not have a golden hand in much of this. However, the Government can make a difference in a number of significant areas—although those do not all fall within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and I wish to draw the Minister's attention to them.
In particular, the formation of farmers' co-operatives is an important way in which the businesses in my constituency could start to make money again. The potential for the competition rules in the UK to interfere with that natural development must be examined carefully. Can the Minister tell me what position his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry adopt on that matter?
Mr. John Burnett: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the Competition Commission exonerated the dairy retailers some years ago. Does he not agree that one successful retailer with 20 per cent. of the retail convenience food market can almost impose conditions that others have to follow?
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman may be correct. However, my concern is that, if farmers want to get involved in small co-operatives, which I see as a key to breaking out of the cycle of decline, they are potentially prevented from doing so by the rigour of the Competition Commission.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The hon. Gentleman is making a serious and important point. In the dairy sector there is understandably a fear,
38WH
particularly following the break-up of Milk Marque, that there is a bias against co-operation. That is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons why the Monopolies and Mergers Commission found against Milk Marque. The commission's adverse finding in that case was made not because Milk Marque had a monopoly position, but because it abused that monopoly position through its selling system. Events since then have shown that the competition authorities are willing to allow the creation of large dairy co-operatives and processors, as demonstrated by the creation of First Milk and Dairy Farmers of Britain.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point that out, as he was talking about the industry's confidence in being able to proceed with such an approach.
Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for the Minister's observations. That is another area of great uncertainty in the industry, and uncertainty is proving to be a barrier to progress.
There are two further areas in which the Government could make a difference, the first being labelling. Labelling of all agricultural products is a major disincentive to developing the UK, Scottish and Galloway brands that command respect and a premium price. The UK rules on labelling are an appalling abomination. We are doing our industry no credit and must do more to give it an incentive to build up local brands. For the dairy industry, the branding of non-UK milk as being from the UK sticks in the throat.
Will the Minister ask his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to reconsider market power and in particular the supermarkets' voluntary code of conduct?
Mr. Russell Brown: I wholly agree that the industry has serious problems, for example the issues of additional yield and good husbandry throughout the country on many farms. However, the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the economic aspect and supply and demand. Does he agree that, despite the fact that we have not delivered a full quota in recent years, there is still over-supply in the marketplace? As long as that is the case, supermarkets can clearly beat prices down at the farm gate.
Mr. Duncan: There is also a failure to develop potential milk products and a serial failure to develop specialist products in the dairy industry, which could drive returns into the industry and the farm gate.
The Minister has the opportunity to re-evaluate the supermarkets' code of conduct. It was a voluntary scheme and I understand that the offer of that scheme was gratefully accepted by the industry at the time. There is great scepticism that it is not working as it should and I ask the Minister to implore his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to seek the Office of Fair Trading's involvement in monitoring that agreement. There is considerable concern in the dairy industry that it is being forgotten about again, and that the prosperity of past years will not be repeated unless urgent action is taken and a fair price given for a fair product.
2.23 pm
David Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on initiating the debate. This is a crucial stage in the life of the dairy industry, and I am pleased to contribute briefly. I am particularly pleased to see so many Conservative Members at a time when they have their own deep trauma.
In its briefing for the debate, the National Farmers Union points out that the key issues on which we should focus are milk prices and bovine TB. Unless and until dairy farmers get a fair return, they will continue to contract in number. Until bovine TB is controlled, more and more farmers will be forced to leave an industry that has become enfeebled in less than a decade.
I shall focus initially on milk prices. As the hon. Gentleman said in his admirably measured introduction to the debate, the dairy industry is in a dire state. Processors and supermarkets take an ever higher proportion of the retail price, leaving farmers with continuing and growing losses. Clearly, that cannot continue. With prices at 18p a litre at the farm gate and a production cost of about 20p a litre, a typical 1 million litre per annum dairy farm is losing £20,000. With milk production nationally standing at about 14 billion litres, that is equivalent to 14,000 farms with hundreds of millions of pounds in losses, which is not sustainable.
Is it not the case that a higher proportion of the delivered milk price—to the doorstep or the chiller cabinet—has to be paid to the farmer? That has been true for 50 years. In 1945, the then Ministry of Information—I do not believe that it was located in Millbank—talked about the least pleasant aspects of farming:
"In winter, you are up long before sunrise. In calving time you are often up all night. You milk twice a day, dawn and afternoon. You have to wash down each animal, feed it, milk it, clean down the shed, clean yourself and ensure the purity of the milk, over and over again, day after day."
Apart from the major efficiencies of mechanisation, 58 years on, one is tempted to say that little has changed. Farmers milk the cows and everyone else milks the farmers.
Mr. Dawson: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that UK farmers could assist themselves by embracing fully the concept of fair trade and recognising that they are in exactly the same powerless position as producers in developing countries in relation to the power exerted over them by large companies? Is it not time that we had a fair trade campa gn for quality UK produce?
David Taylor: There is an awful lot in what my hon. Friend says. A proportion of World Trade Organisation discussions and negotiations revolved around that very issue, so there is some potential in what he says. The situation is not fair. The proportion of the delivered price retained by the farmer is not sustainable, and it is unfair. The work involved in producing milk is immense compared with that involved in selling the product. Farmers have to have high standards of welfare for livestock and full traceability, and adhere strictly to the dairy farm assurance scheme. They have to care for the land, with all the environmental aspects that that entails.
40WH
Almost the first thing that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale said was that the job is 24/7, and it is. Dairy farmers are dealing with living creatures and when they are not working with cows, they are usually thinking about them and are concerned about their welfare. Although new Labour is said to be reluctant to intervene in markets, like its predecessor, it has to when markets are failing as seriously as this one is.
Early-day motion 1803 is garnering a substantial number of signatures from throughout the House. It was tabled by my my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) and amended by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I encourage hon. Members in the Chamber and those who may read the debate to consider that motion carefully. It points out that the Government must be an honest broker in bringing together powerful dairies and multiple retailers to enter into a full and proper dialogue with dairy farmers and their representatives. Unless they get larger returns and a surplus, dairy farmers will never be able to reinvest in the industry and it will continue to decline in the way the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale described.
Like many other rural areas, North-West Leicestershire is seeing dairy herds decline. One of the most shocking closures in the past few weeks was referred to by another farmer in a letter to me just two days ago who wrote:
"As you may be aware John and Pat Stanley sold their entire dairy herd this week. It was a shock to all of us in the industry because they were considered one of the most efficient high production herds in the country, and they enjoyed what they did.
It is a sad reflection on the industry when families like that have to give up milking. The animals which were all outstanding went for very little money, as buyers have little confidence in the future of dairy farming."
The farmer is absolutely right. A family with a high reputation has left the dairy industry, so things must be seriously wrong.
I speak to the local National Farmers Union regularly and, prior to this debate, I contacted and received comments from people such as John Adkin of Belton, Clive Spalton of Isley Walton and Chris Timmis of Swannington. The mood is profoundly pessimistic. I shall cite one further quote:
"It is of grave concern to us that we have suffered a very depressed milk price over the last three years. This we cannot absorb any longer. We are a long established mixed family run farm and our main source of income…is from milk sales.
We have slashed out costs to the bare minimum, the effects of this are that there is still no surplus cash to reinvest or even maintain the farm and buildings that are required. Effectively we are producing milk at below the cost of production".
That is a depressing state to get into.
We have been in this situation before. Those who are running family farms and who are the second or third generation will be able to reflect on the farm records, which show that there was a similar period in the 1930s, when low and volatile milk prices effectively brought about the creation of the milk marketing boards, which saved the milk industry when it was on its knees. The boards created some stability in farm-gate prices. The days of the milk marketing boards ended in 1994, after legislation from the Conservative Government. One of the successes of that scheme, which died with it, was ensuring that farmers, processors and retailers took a fair slice of income from the production of milk.

41WH
How on earth have we arrived at the present commercial chaos in less than a decade since the end of the old milk marketing boards? I ought to declare that my wife worked for the milk marketing board for some time. We need a proper regulatory board to handle the present three-way negotiation between farmers, processors and retailers, because the negotiation is unequal. The farmers are not collected together in groups that can exercise the leverage that they ought to be able to exercise as an industry.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. However, I was on the Committee that dealt with the Bill relating to the milk marketing boards and I wonder whether he recalls that his colleagues on that Committee joined with the Conservative Government to destroy that system.
David Taylor: I was not aware of that and I am sorry to hear it. I shall look at the names of those people and see whether they have recanted. It is a serious point.
Mr. Eric Martlew: My recollection is slightly different. I do not think that that was the case at all.
David Taylor: Some interesting research in the Library this evening will show whose memory is more accurate.
I believe that there is a way back. Many people want to speak so I will confine my remarks to a further two minutes. My way back is through a co-operative of some kind, or groups of co-operatives. The Minister said that the Government have not looked unfavourably on the development of a number of co-operatives that have emerged in the post-Milk Marque era. Well, that is fine, but co-operatives in the dairy industry in the European Union achieve much more than co-operatives have been able to in this country. Co-operatives are biased towards making commodity products. They make value-added products, set a floor on the milk price and require public and private retailers to pay a reasonable price to obtain milk at the farm gate.
I hope that the farming industry, dairy farms in particular, will not base its action too much on a few disappointing co-operative failures. [Interruption.] The failure of the Amelca co-operative in west Derbyshire, to which the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was about to refer, was a failure not of co-operative principles, but of the business plan, and it was created at a time of difficulty in the industry.
I hope that there will be a way back for the dairy industry through the formation of co-operatives, and that the Government will play their part. The industry needs more stable milk prices, a higher floor price and greater security for dairy farmers. All producers need better prices. There is no single villain in the piece, but I hope and expect that in the last two years of this second-term Labour Government we can help to turn around the dairy industry, which is looking over the
42WH
edge of a precipice. Many hon. Members who represent rural seats are fearful of what the future may hold.
Several hon Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Hon. Members may wish to note that we have just 24 minutes until the Front-Bench responses must start at 3 o'clock.
2.36 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate because, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) pointed out, the fact that early-day motion 1803 is already gaining signatures from hon. Members of all parties shows the very real concern that is felt about this issue throughout the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on initiating the debate. The dairy industry will be listening to it and to what the Minister has to say at the end.
The dairy industry is vital to the physical and economic health of the nation. The simple fact is that prices must improve or it will disappear. As the largest single agricultural sector, the dairy industry provides jobs for tens of thousands of people. It contributes 22 per cent. of the value of agricultural production. The UK dairy industry provides 95 per cent. of the dairy products that form an essential part of our diet. The 30,000-plus dairy farmers in the UK help to maintain and protect our countryside and there is no doubt that the countryside feels under threat from this Government.
By taking for granted the availability of milk and the vital role that it plays in our diets, we could be contributing to the demise of the industry. More than 10 billion pints of milk are sold in this country every year, providing a mixture of vitamins and calcium—which are essential for good health—that few other foods can rival. The industry is vital for the health of not only our nation but our children. The Government are complacent and I hope that the campaign that is being launched forces them to take action.
Six years of poor prices have forced the milk-producing industry to contract alarmingly. Since 1997, farm-gate prices have steadily dropped. They are now more than 5p per litre less than in 1997, despite the fact that retail prices have remained relatively steady. Low prices are forcing farmers out of business. In England alone, there are 5,000 fewer dairy farmers than in 1995. In south and west Derbyshire, there are only 574 dairy holdings, compared with more than 700 in 1995. Year after year, the number of dairy farmers is being reduced. How long will we let that continue?
There is no good explanation for why farm-gate prices for liquid milk are so low. Prices should have moved in the dairy farmer's favour in the past nine months. The pound has weakened against the euro, world commodity prices for butter and cheese have strengthened and Britain maintains a strong market for fresh milk. Indeed. the large supermarkets agreed to raise by 2p per litre the price paid to the dairy processor with the undertaking that that would be passed back to

43WH
the producer. Yet prices remain among the lowest in the EU because most processors are passing back less than 1p. Farmers are now receiving only 39 per cent. of the price that consumers pay for milk. In 1996–97—I do not know quite why I have those figures—they were receiving 58 per cent. People should reflect on that.
David Taylor rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, he spoke for 13 minutes and a lot of people want to contribute.
There continues to be unwillingness by some to ensure that profits are shared throughout the industry. The futures of remaining farms are undermined by the lack of investment and the general exodus from the industry. Many dairy producers simply cannot see a way to continue, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to predict a decline in net income. I wish that the Department would take its responsibility to agriculture a little more seriously. Agriculture seems to be what it cares about least; it is amazing that it does not even appear in the Department's title.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is developing powerful arguments, not least with the staggering price difference that he quoted. Is he aware that another major factor now rest restraining investment and confidence in the industry is the great threat of the ever-expanding bovine TB problem and the appalling delay that it causes?
Mr. McLoughlin: Indeed. That is a big issue in Cheshire, as it is in Derbyshire. I had an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter z(Mr. Bradshaw), on the rise in TB cases in my area of Derbyshire, and the figure was staggering. The fear that that causes for farmers is yet another burden for the industry.
With prices so low, farms are being starved of cash for future investment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale said.
Mr. Flook: Does my hon. Friend agree that an extra cost will be that of implementing nitrate-vulnerable zones?
Mr. McLoughlin: Yes. That is another regulation, another demand, another thing for farmers to spend time on among so much else.
Few young people are interested in entering the industry when the average income of a dairy farmer is only £2.90 per hour for a 70-hour week. There is no minimum wage for the dairy farmer because he simply has to work longer and harder to achieve his return. Many farmers with experience are considering leaving. If the industry collapsed, that would have major ramifications for the whole United Kingdom. Dairy farming is the single largest agricultural sector in the UK and the industry accounts for 22 per cent. in value of agricultural production. Its destruction would see
44WH
considerable increases in imports and the loss of significant exports. Tens of thousands of jobs in the supply and support industries that rely on the cow would be at risk. If dairy farming is to continue, larger returns must be passed back to enable reinvestment. The average price to a milk producer is 17p per litre, but the average cost of production is estimated to be more than 20p per litre. Those are the crucial figures.
I have the privilege of representing one of the most beautiful constituencies in England, and the Minister was there just a few weeks ago. There is no doubt that many people visit my constituency, which contains some of the Peak District national park, partly because it is farmed, maintained and looked after. If we do not look after the dairy farmers, the countryside that many people enjoy week in, week out will, sadly, disappear.
2.44 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the previous speakers. I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on securing the debate, not least because it was precisely the debate that I called for in business questions a week or so ago. It is long overdue if we are properly to represent the people who are attempting to make a living from dairy farming in our constituencies. If I needed persuading of the difficulties that the Somerset dairy farming industry faces at the moment, and I do not because it has been that way for some time, I could have done no better than listen to those who attended the south-west industry dinner at the Royal Bath and West show. However they were involved in the industry, whether as farmers, processors or whatever, everybody said the same thing: the industry faces a dire future.
I shall be brief so that other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak. I represent a constituency that may contain more dairy cattle than any other and is certainly one of the finest dairy lands in the country. On behalf of dairy farmers, I want to express the cries of pain and anger that, if they were here today, they would express. I do not want to repeat arguments that have already been made, but if we do not get the farm-gate price of milk or milk produce right, we will not have a viable dairy farming industry in years to come.
We have skated around the central issue, which is the power of the supermarkets. They have an oligopoly that destroys any attempt at a free market in milk. Until somebody faces down supermarkets and says, "We want an indigenous dairy industry and we want our farmers to continue to lead the life that they have done over the years, producing milk and milk products in this country," we will not make a difference. The issue is the difference between the price of production and the price that is available through the retail system.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, as many other Members want to speak.
We cannot sustain a position in which a loss is made on every pint of milk sold. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is right to say that there should have been an improvement in the past three

45WH
years. There has not been because of the power of the supermarkets. They could not care less about this country's industry because they can always import products.
Milk is not a price-sensitive issue for the consumer in the supermarket. People do not base their purchase of milk on price; they go in, pick up the container of milk and pay the price at the checkout. The supermarkets cannot see that unless they produce a sustainable ladder through the industry that makes a proper return on investment and capital at farm, processing and supermarket level, they will destroy the industry.
I see so many smaller farmers who face a very uncertain future and are coming to the conclusion that to sustain the losses that they are sustaining while retaining their farm as an asset of huge capital value is a nonsense that no accountant would advise them to continue. They also face the fact that they cannot make the essential investment needed to improve and modernise their farms because they cannot demonstrate to the banks that their businesses have a viable future.
When farmers wrestle with the continuing knock-on effects of foot and mouth and the difficulties of bovine tuberculosis, which we have still not properly addressed; when they consider that some agricultural sectors are beginning to come out of depression; they are told that other farmers are doing better but they know that they are not; and when they cannot feed their families on the return from dairying, they will of course consider whether it makes sense to continue.
As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire said, if we do not have dairy farms in the best dairy farming areas, whether in Somerset, Derbyshire, Cheshire or wherever, we will not have the areas of outstanding beauty that people come to visit—there will be a wilderness. Nobody wants that to happen.
I beg the Minister to take a strategic view of what is best for Britain, its farmers and the British countryside. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) may well be right: until we have some form of intervention or bargaining process that levels the playing field on behalf of our farmers, we will not give them a fair deal.
Our farmers are desperate. They are getting to the point where they are prepared to take desperate measures. I want to avoid that, but we can avoid it only if the House is seen to be speaking up clearly for the industry and the Government are seen to be doing something for it.
2.50 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on the dairy industry in west Wales. I shall not exchange facts and figures about which part of the country has the most dairy farmers. There is, however, certainly a strong dairy tradition in west Wales and my constituency and a strong tradition of innovation in the dairy industry there. Some award-winning cheeses were introduced in west Wales, the first organic dairy was started there and there is an increasing amount of co-operative working in the industry in that area.
I am certain that the dairy industry in west Wales and throughout the UK has been at the forefront of innovation, reacting to customer demand, trying to
46WH
introduce new products and developing new ways of adding value to the milk supply chain. That activity must be supported as much as possible by the Government as part of the solution to the current crisis in prices.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said. He made a measured and important contribution to the debate, and I congratulate him on that. I agreed with much of what he said and I shall not bother repeating it, because many hon. Members want to contribute.
It is important to recognise the scale of the decline in Wales. We have lost nearly 500 dairy farms in just two years. That is a significant blow to the dairy sector. We need some sort of critical mass in that sector, especially in terms of forming co-operatives, working together and adding value to products. If we do not intervene now and take some action, when the industry comes together and starts working it will not be of a sufficient size and strength to challenge the supermarkets and the processors, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said.
On talking to dairy farmers in my area, I find that they do not always come down hard on the supermarkets. They ask some hard questions of the processors, such as the creameries, which are the intermediaries in the chains and are aho taking a lot of money out of the process. We are aware that in the last couple of years at least three price increases by the supermarkets were made in the name of the farmer. If we were to work out what the price should be per litre, we should be talking about 26p being passed on to the farmer at the moment—if we take into account what the supermarkets tell us they have been doing with the price increases. If the supermarkets have passed the price increases on to the processors, who has been holding on to them? The farmers have certainly not been receiving them. An average farmer producing milk in Wales receives around 8p per pint. We know that milk sells on the doorstep at about 43p, and for a little less than that in the supermarket.
Many hon. Members have talked about what action could be taken. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about what could be done, including some sort of intervention, or arbitration. I hope the Minister takes my suggestion seriously, because it is a new Labour suggestionߞI know it is, because the Government did something similar about two weeks ago.
When Carlton and Granada came together, the Government said, "There's a problem here." They said that there was too much weight in the marketplace in the hands of one big company and that they were not sure about it. They allowed the merger to go ahead, but established an independent watchdog to limit the company's ability to raise the price of advertising slots to ensure that there were no adverse effects on those who bought advertising time from that huge company. The milk industry is crying out for just such an independent watchdog. There could be one person—perhaps a regulator empowered by the Government—to undertake those tasks, looking at the price paid by supermarkets, processors and producers and trying to come up with equality in that regard. I commend that idea to the Minister.

47WH
We need to know from the Minister today what further action he intends to take on bovine tuberculosis. As we know, the Krebs trials will drag on until 2006. There will be an effect not only directly on dairy producers but on consumer confidence. If bovine TB increases as it has done—it has been increasing by 20 percent. a year in Wales so far—the effect on consumer confidence will be something to be concerned about. In particular, there will be an effect on the cheese producers. Think of all the cheese producers using raw, unpasteurised milk. It makes the best cheese, but how will they maintain consumer confidence if there is rampaging TB in the cattle population? The Government must take an interest in that and must take action.
My final point—I understand that time is short—is on compensation payments to milk producers under common agricultural policy reform. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering a compensation payment with a decoupling based on the quantity and not quality—that is to say, the butterfat or protein content—of litres held under the quota. I would like the Minister to reconsider that.
If we accept that there is over-supply in the market, why are we rewarding it in the payment of decoupling following CAP reform? Why are we not considering supporting producers such as those on Guernsey and the Channel islands, and organic producers, who are aiming at specialised markets and aiming to protect and deal directly with consumer demand? We could be in danger of rewarding the acknowledged over-supply in the market.
I hope that those are useful suggestions for the Minister to consider. There is more that can and, in a sense, should be said, but other hon Members want to speak in this important debate and I understand why.
2.56 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on securing a timely and critical debate. The subject is of vital interest to farmers and milk producers in my constituency, which, coupled with that of North Shropshire, is claimed to be the largest milk field in Europe. However one defines such matters, a lot of milk producers are represented in this Chamber. That is why there is such interest in the debate, and such urgency to impress on the Minister the action that needs to be taken and is within the gift of DEFRA. For the sake of the national interest, it is not something that the Government can afford to ignore or dismiss lightly.
Economically, there is a background of ever-commoditising a raw material for so many value-added products against an over-supplied European market. Because of that over-supply, we have some distortions in the market.
Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole annual EU surplus of milk is supplied by Germany and France? Germany consumes less milk than the United Kingdom, has twice as many cows and
48WH
is allowed to produce 28 million tonnes. France produces three times what it consumes—24 million tonnes. We are allowed to produce just 13.9 million tonnes and we consume practically all of it.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is why I emphatically say that the industry is not declining—not only does the UK need it, but it has market demand to sustain it. What the industry really needs is a level playing field. That is why, in the four years that I have been privileged to be a Member of the House, I have twice, under the private Member's Bill ballot, introduced a Food Labelling Bill. That Bill demands the display of the country of origin and standards of production. I know that high standards are shared by so many, including the organic and specialist producers. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made an absolutely vital point about Channel islands producers, and the fairness of compensation under the intended schemes.
I plead with the Minister to impress the importance of the issue on his colleagues in the Government and, particularly, on the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I had a constructive meeting with Cheshire farmers and the Minister for the Environment about bovine TB, but because there has since been a transfer of responsibilities it is critical that those farmers get to meet the Under-Secretary. The Cheshire farmers did not criticise DEFRA, but said, "Here is a positive opportunity for the Government to take the appropriate action." We recommend, and it was well supported—the NFU endorsed it in a briefing that I know all hon. Members received—a MOT test certificate for cattle, so that when transfer movements take place, those cattle that have been able to take TB tests have a higher qualification and can go with their passports.
Secondly, we need to ensure that an isolation ward is provided at the farm of receipt so that the rest of the herd is not put at risk. That would be a practical solution. On the front line of the spread of bovine TB—whether or not it appears in clusters—the vectors appear to be badgers and perhaps other wild animals. The Krebs inquiry is hopelessly delayed and under threat as a genuine process to address an admittedly difficult political issue. In Exeter in Devon, there are genuine pressures caused by bovine TB as well. That proposal is not special pleading; it is something for the dairy industry, in the national interest, that is within the Government's gift, and it could speed the process up and do so accurately and scientifically.
I urge the Minister to help us to secure a delegation to meet the Under-Secretary so that we can make those points yet again, because nothing is happening yet. We have to see progress in the interest of our dairy farmers, who are crying out for help. They are doing their best in the national interest and they are not getting the support that they need.
3 pm
Andrew George (St. Ives): I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on his measured opening remarks, which hit the nail on the head. He explained that dairy farming is

49WH
a way of life, rather than a job in the countryside. I have to declare an interest: many of my family are engaged in the dairy industry and I have worked in it myself.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Government need to take on board the effect of competition rules on mergers between farmers' co-operatives in the future. In his earlier intervention, the Minister showed that he is aware of the likelihood that the only way forward for dairy farmers is for farmers' co-operatives to have greater muscle in the market to negotiate and secure a far better farm-gate price than they can at the moment.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) explained and reflected what I have found to be the case among dairy farmers not only in my constituency but, I am sure, throughout the country: they are all fundamentally and profoundly pessimistic. He said that he more or less regretted the loss of the milk marketing boards, and knowing what we know now, many of us look back to the stability that they were able to provide the dairy industry. There was a climate in which farmers could plan for the future, which they clearly cannot do now.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) argued well that prices have increased due to the strength of the pound against the euro, the stronger world price for cheese and the agreement—among some supermarkets at least—to pass on a 2p-per-litre price increase on liquid milk. During the past year, all those factors should have been working towards improving dairy farmers' circumstances. However, it is clear that the one fundamental factor that has worked against even that is the strength of the supermarkets and the fact that they can dictate market conditions as they have done. In my view, the bulk of any farming subsidies seems to be siphoned off to middlemen, processors and supermarkets. The hon. Gentleman hit that nail on the head.
Mr. Drew: To be fair to the processors—I have the biggest dairy in my constituency—there has been a huge reduction in capacity. That has come at a cost. One thing that I said earlier, which was slightly misconstrued, was that we need to rebuild the relationship between the processors and the producers. That can be done only if the processing industry is reasonably efficient.
Andrew George: That is true. The Dairy Trade Federation called in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as it was in those days, to consider the impact of Milk Marque because farmers wanted to integrate vertically into the market. It is appropriate that farmers are able to do so, and to add value to their products and engage in processing themselves. I am pleased that they are doing that, and I hope that we learn from those areas where they are doing it successfully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) expressed the passion and human emotion behind the current situation, and, along with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), repeated the theme of the impact of supermarkets on farmers. The hon. Gentleman also asked, who is making the profit? Someone clearly is, and it sure as hell is not the farmer.
50WH
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned the impact of bovine TB. Certainly, those areas that were restocked following foot and mouth have seen further outbreaks, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that points in the direction of having health clearances attached to cattle passports as cattle are being moved around the country. The Government must take on board such positive initiatives because, as the dairy industry tries to recover from its current doldrums, it does not want to be hit by the further effects of bovine TB outbreaks.
Matthew Green: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effects of TB on the dairy industry are set to be even more significant? The average cost is £36,000 per affected farm per incidence. Although the Government provide compensation for the value of the slaughtered cattle, they fail to cover the cost of loss of milk sales, halt to the trade of live animals, disruption to breeding plans and the loss of pedigree lines, all of which add up to that loss of £36,000, which is devastating for farmers.
Andrew George: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that although there is 100 per cent. compensation for: he animals themselves, the overall impact on the holding is significant—he articulated that far better than I could.
I come from a farming background. Earlier, I was speaking to one of my cousins, who is a dairy farmer in the parish of Mullion. When I was being brought up in that parish, there were nine dairy farms; now there are two. People have talked about the significant reduction in the number of dairy farms in the country. It is a question not just of economic sustainability, but of social sustainability. We are losing rural traditions and the lifeblood from the countryside, as, frankly, the countryside is being turned into prairie and ranch. We cannot afford to allow that to continue. The contribution that farming makes is not only to the economy itself, but to the whole way of life of the countryside. People need fully to understand that.
British dairy farmers are among the most mechanised and efficient, and they operate in some of the most favourable climates, especially for pasture and growing. Yet, to my knowledge, they are more firmly on their knees than those in any other European dairy industry. On the impact of the MMC report in 1999 and the Government's response to it, which we debated in this House, it was a critical error by the Government to accept the MMC's interpretation of the place that Milk Marque had in the market. Since that critical point, we have seen a significant decrease over a long period, ending where we ar;, today. We do not know what will happen as a result c f the break-up of Milk Marque.
Mr. O'Brien: As I forecast in 1999, the problem was not only that the MMC made a misinterpretation. The Minister at that time, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), made an overruling that prevented localised vertical integration, which could, on a value-added basis, have been the rescue. Instead, all the power was given to the distributors and yet more pressure was put on the farm-gate price.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The vertical integration point certainly needs to be looked at.

51WH
Dairy farmers are going out of business in this country at breakneck speed. Prices are at rock bottom. Families I have spoken to today, and other farmers mentioned during the debate, are clearly producing milk at a rate that can hardly achieve break even; some are making a loss. That is, of course, a loss to the Treasury because it is collecting no tax from dairy farmers at the moment. At the same time, processors and supermarkets are clearly making profits. It is evident that we cannot simply sit back and allow that to happen, and limp on from crisis to crisis. The milk price should be the basis not simply for establishing that fact; it should be the basis for special pleading. We should recognise that this is a dysfunctional market. There are still quotas. The Government have a role to play: they should intervene in the market.
The Government must answer some questions. What assessment has been made of the impact of the conclusion of the Competition Commission report of 1999 that Milk Marque had been exploiting its monopoly and should be split up? What do they believe is the break-even price for dairy farmers? Do they believe that the code of conduct operated by the Office of Fair Trading should be toughened to give farmers more muscle in the marketplace? Have they assessed what will be the impact on our dairy farmers of the European Union's eastward expansion, and if so, what will it be? Will the dairy premium that will be introduced simply be siphoned into the coffers of the processors and supermarkets, although it should be used to support our dairy farmers? Crucially, what will the Government do to protect our dairy farmers in the marketplace in future?
3.10 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on securing the debate, which is indicative of his passionate commitment to the dairy industry. That passion has been replicated across the Chamber, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Congleton (Ann Winterton). I note that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is present, which illustrates his personal commitment to this subject and to the plight of our dairy farmers.
Measured in any terms—farm incomes, the number of people leaving the industry, borrowing—there is no doubt that the industry is in decline. That has been repeatedly stated in the debate. According to a wide range of indicators, dairying is in deep crisis. The National Farmers Union claim that
"unless the price paid to milk producers improves there will be no dairy industry left to worry about".
There cannot be a more stark warning than that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire pointed out, milk products account for 22 per cent. of agricultural production. The decline and collapse of the dairy industry is more than just a narrow sector issue: it is about the welfare, benefit and maintenance of our
52WH
countryside, as he described. As hon. Members have said, dairying is now barely viable. The Minister knows that milk producers need about 19p to 20p per litre to be viable, and they are not getting that. Raw milk production is almost beyond viability.
The problem is even more complex. Whereas our European competitors have much greater capacity to add valueߞthey have much better processing at farm level—in our country, processing is concentrated in the hands of a few organisations. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) pointed out, the ability of dairy farmers to trade their way out of problems is limited by their inability to add value to their products. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to look at collaboration and co-operation—at ways in which we can encourage dairy farmers to add value to their products.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Is my hon. Friend aware that Yeo Valley is now the predominant organic yoghurt supplier and that although it set itself up as a co-operative, it is finding it hard to compete?
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is a champion of the industry in his own part of the world, and he is right about that. That point was also made by a charming Member for a Welsh constituency, the name of which I will not attempt to pronounce because I will get it wrong, who said that it is vital that we help people to develop vertical markets that allow them to add value in the way that has been described. That is not happening at present, and I hope that the Minister tells us how he will help to make it happen.
The situation is not helped by the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton made the position clear. A newspaper article of last weekend contained the following statement about milk production:
"The UK is only permitted to produce 14 million tonnes a year, slightly more than we consume. Germany, which consumes less milk than Britain—only 11.2 million tonnes—has twice as many cows and is permitted to produce 28 million tonnes. France, which consumes even less (8 million tonnes) is allowed by Brussels to produce 24 million tonnes".
That is neither fair nor right and it cannot be allowed to continue.
Mr. David Curry rose—
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Hayes: As my right hon. and hon. Friends may have different views, I shall give way to them in turn.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Would he acknowledge that at the time of our entry to the European Union the UK was concerned to

53WH
safeguard New Zealand exports to this country? Low British production is the price we paid to do that and we are still paying that price.
Mr. Hayes: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who may have a different perspective.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to reform the common agricultural policy and ensure that it comes back to the UK on satisfactory terms?
Mr. Hayes: The views expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends are widely held among dairy farmers. Far be it from me to add more in the short time available than to say that I agree about the need to reform the CAP. Other issues need to be amplified here.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, it is unacceptable for supermarkets to take the lion's share of the profit that is to be had in the production of dairy products. The relationship between the farm-gate price and the retail price is simply unfair. It is unreasonable to have such distortion and imbalance in the food chain. We need a Government who are prepared to face up to that and do something about it.
Labelling is vital too. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has been notable in this respect. He introduced two private Member's Bills to bring fair food labelling to this country, both of which were blocked by the Government. That is scarcely believable given the palpable reasonableness of his proposals.
There is also the dreadful business of bovine TB. Coming on top of all the problems that have been highlighted in the debate it is the icing on the cake. It is the last straw for many dairy farmers. Hon. Members will know that the disease is spreading rapidly. It is making its way across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who is recognised as a champion of dairy farmers, has highlighted the matter in his area and in the House. Yet, as was pointed out, rather like the Liberal Democrats' capacity for being politically capricious, the Krebs report and tests are seemingly endless. The Krebs tests go on and on and yet dairy farmers face the problem of bovine TB unabated. The Minister needs to tell us what specific and urgent steps the Government will take to deal with the spread and severity of bovine TB.
I will end with a series of questions that farmers would put to the Minister if they were here today. Do the Government agree with the president of the Scottish NFU, who is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, that the decision of suppliers not to pass on to farmers the extra 2p per litre that they receive is "abhorrent"? What specific measures will the Government put in place to allow farmers to add value to their products? Do the Government accept that because of the current price per litre of liquid milk paid to producers the average net profit of dairy farms is falling to the point where those farms are no longer viable? Do the Government accept that under CAP reform the plight of dairy farmers is likely to worsen?
Have the Government sought to amend EC regulation 2597/97 in the manner that the milk taskforce report recommended? Do the Government accept that
54WH
the uncertainty is greatly damaging to the industry and will they state clearly today whether the UK will go for earlier decoupling of the dairy sector in 2005 rather than in 2008? What is the Government's strategy to help the dairy industry? What are the notional targets in terms of production and the number of producers or is there no strategy? Will we be entirely reactive, reacting to the imperative set by cur competitors in Europe? What is the Government's policy on aiding dairy farmers affected by breakdowns to their herds caused by bovine TB? We want new information, new ideas and new proposals from this Minister today.
The Government must know of the profound difficulties faced by the dairy industry in the United Kingdom. The Minister will have heard the concerns expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber—from the Government Benches, the minor parties and Her Majesty's Opposition. He will understand that many of the points go well beyond political knockabout and reflect genuine concern and a real passion to support our dairy industry. There has been enough wringing of hands; let us hear from the Minister specific, persuasive proposals to deal with the matters. They must be persuasive because, if he does not introduce such proposals, there will be no British dairy industry.
3.20 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on choosing such an important subject, which has not been debated in the House for some time. I want to respond tc the specific issues that he raised and his particular request for Government action.
The hon. Gentleman's website shows his long-standing interest in the topic, including legislative burdens on industry, to which he referred. However, I must confess to having been led astray and to reading his doomsday diary, in which the saga of the leadership of the Conservative party accelerates towards chaos on 5 November, with bonfires blazing across Britain. I commend to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members a reading of his contribution. We have seen an excellent turnout by all three main parties today, and only a cynic would suggest that some might be here to gain an alibi if the last of the 25 letters trickles in this afternoon.
The dairy industry has national importance, and the debate is timely. I can confirm, as I was asked to do, that I have read the early-day motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), which recognises the nature of the milk market but, as hon. Members have done today, calls on the Government to intervene in the interests of the future. We at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, together with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, need to examine the market carefully and objectively, and I shall refer to the study commissioned by the Milk Development Council and undertaken by KPMG.

55WH
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred to regulation, and the Government's view is that the voluntary code should be made more effective. It is reviewed from time to time within the context set by what was the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: No, it is important that I respond to points made by Members who have been here throughout the debate and made contributions. If there is time at the end, I shall give way to others.
I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale about the full-time nature of dairy farming, and he was right to say that the past few years have been particularly difficult for the industry. I am not sure that his statistic about the average age is right, because I have been told that the average age of 59 has been quoted year after year for several decades. However, he is right to say that farm-gate prices have been depressed and that many dairy farmers have not received sufficient returns to sustain their businesses in the long term.
Dairy farmers have also had to adapt to new burdens, and they are now faced with having to adjust to the new conditions that will be created by the reformed common agricultural policy. Although the Government recognise those difficulties, and we will help when we can, we also believe that the UK dairy sector has a sustainable future. The hon. Gentleman gave examples from his constituency of how farmers are being imaginative and finding new ways of doing business, and I have seen many such examples throughout the country in the past two years.
Let us consider the market situation. The reasons why low farm-gate prices have been such a burden to the industry are complex and cannot be reduced to a single factor. At different times and in different combinations, exchange rates, the prices on world commodity markets, and domestic supply and demand have all played a role. For example, in spring 2002, when the average farm-gate price fell below 15p per litre, an unusually large seasonal peak of milk production meant that there was insufficient capacity in the UK to process it. Unfortunately, that occurred when demand for dairy commodities on world markets was low due to economic difficulties in some key importing countries, such as Brazil. That led to the retention of dairy products that would normally be exported on to EU markets, which were already in a position of structural surplus. That forced down prices throughout the Community to intervention levels when the strength of sterling meant that the intervention price was insufficient to provide a floor to the market at a level at which UK dairy farmers could cover their costs.
We need to ask why farm-gate prices are still low today, when world markets are reasonably buoyant and when the euro has strengthened against the pound, leading to increased prices for many commodities.
Imports of liquid milk represent less than 0.5 per cent. of the UK market. The UK's exports are considerably more, and we export more, mainly to Ireland, than we import. I should also point out that there has been an improvement in farm-gate prices.
3.25 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.40 pm
On resuming—
Alun Michael: I was pointing out facts relating to recent improvements in farm-gate prices. The latest official data, for milk delivered in August, show an average farm-gate price of 18.70p per litre, nearly 2p per litre higher than the average farm-gate price for August 2002. That does not include any recently announced increases. Nevertheless, several hon. Members have quoted figures that appear to show that the increase has reflected fully neither the market situation nor the effects of the major multiple retailers' price initiative in June.
Considering the retail initiative first, it must be noted that liquid milk sales by the major multiple retailers use only about 25 per cent. of raw milk in the UK. The 2p per litre increase announced by the supermarkets would therefore, if distributed to all dairy farmers, result in an increase in the farm-gate price of 0.5p per litre. Without an improvement in the underlying market situation, the effects of such an initiative would be short-lived. Although the liquid milk market normally commands a premium over other outlets, if the premium grows too large, companies will naturally compete for it. As most liquid milk is sold through supermarkets as an own-brand commodity, any competition is likely to be on price, which will quickly erode the premium. While supermarket price increases are not unwelcome, we should not underestimate their effect.
Considering the market for other milk products, there have been price increases for butter and skimmed milk powder that might support those for liquid milk. However, for cheese—particularly mature cheddar—the situation is not so good and as the manufacture of cheese accounts for a quarter of the UK's milk production, that is significant. Furthermore, commodity cheese—unlike liquid milk—is open to competition from other member states. There are signs that cheese prices may soon rise, which may lead to further increases in farm-gate prices.
Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale mentioned, that does not explain why farm-gate prices in the UK compare so unfavourably with the EU average, taking currency into account. As hon. Members will be aware, the Milk Development Council commissioned KPMG to consider the issue and its report, published earlier this year, makes interesting reading. Some hon. Members have acknowledged that there is no single factor that would produce a solution. The report found that there are several reasons for the unfavourable comparison, including the low value of the dairy product mix compared with that in many other member states; the relatively low level of innovation and new product and brand development in the UK dairy industry; and the structure of the industry and dairy co-operatives.
KPMG's report suggested that there was room in the supply chain to improve efficiency through better co-operation. Its conclusions are very much in line with

57WH
those of Sir Donald Curry's report, which found a need across all agricultural sectors to improve returns through adding value and improving supply chain efficiency. We have addressed that assiduously since the publication of the Curry report. The industry itself must address most of those issues, such as the structure of the sector and new product development. However, the Government can and have—
Several hon Members rose—
Alun Michael: I said that I would try to answer the questions raised in the debate; if there is time, I shall take interventions.
For example, my noble Friend Lord Whitty has been chairing meetings of a dairy supply chain forum, consisting of senior figures from all parts of the supply chain, which has been considering co-operative solutions to improve supply chain efficiency, among other issues. As a result of discussions in that group, the industry has already begun to act to address the problems of seasonal milk production, which reduces prices for all dairy farmers in the spring. Furthermore, under the auspices of the forum, the Milk Development Council has initiated an innovations workshop to examine barriers to innovation in the sector and how to overcome them, which is the point made in the KPMG report.
For their part, the Government have granted nearly £500,000 to the Food Chain Centre to examine how to improve dairy supply chain efficiency. We have also established English Food and Farming Partnerships to encourage co-operation and collaboration across all agricultural sectors—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must turn our attention to the closure of post offices in south Portsmouth.

Post Offices (South Portsmouth)
3.45 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted to have"been given the opportunity to hold today's debate arid to bring to the Government's attention the strongly held views of the people of Portsmouth, and in particular Portsmouth, South, about the proposed closure of six more post offices. Those six offices—Highland road, Fawcett road, 4 Albert road, Old Portsmouth High street, Winter road and 249 Milton road—comprise nearly 50 per cent. of the sub-post offices in Portsmouth.
The irony is that the existence of the Milton road office was used to justify the closure of Langstone road post office some months ago on the grounds that it is quite close to Langstone road and that the people affected could use that. Less than six months later, it is also being closed.
Public reaction has been significant and many thousands of people have made representations. The strength of feeling is such that my office has passed on well over 500 objections to the closure of one or other of those offices. On top of that, we have submitted petitions containing more than 1,000 signatures in support of the Highland road office and some 1,500 signatures in support of the post office in Old Portsmouth High street.
Many Members have been involved in discussions and debates about closures, and my mind goes back to what Ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister, have said. In November last year, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would do everything in his power to enable all post offices to become Government general practitioners. How right he was that most people would support that aspiration; how sad it was that he did not follow it through by introducing the very things that would offer alternatives to closure for many of those post offices.
I would be the first to admit that many offices in cities such as Portsmouth have struggled to hold on to their business, but they have had little or no encouragement to grow their business from the Government. In fact, obstacles have been placed in their way. It is interesting that more than 50 per cent. of the elderly people in Portsmouth—this statistic is much greater than the national average for pensioners—get their pensions through their pension books and post offices. My constituency is unusual because it must be one of the few where the percentage of the elderly who still want to obtain their pensions in that way is greater than 50 per cent.
The Post Office is reluctant to answer the question whether it is prepared to see a viable post office close. Its failure to supply information supporting its case is a significant point in today's debate and has been a notable feature of past debates. Obviously, it has done individual deals on compensation with sub-postmasters. One cannot blame individuals for settling on the bird in the hand rather than trying to work out what the future might hold. If imaginative measures to galvanise support for sub-post offices along the lines promised by Ministers and, in particular, the Prime Minister had materialised, perhaps some threats of closure would not be happening.

59WH
I wanted to assess the viability of the High street post office in Old Portsmouth. I asked the Post Office's consultation team leader whether, in principle, any of the decisions could be reversed, and I was assured that they could. I therefore mentioned commercial viability and whether that had been taken Alto consideration. The High street post office in Portsmouth is interesting. The postmaster who holds the franchise lives in Somerset and does not operate the business. He has a manager there. The post office is well supported, and the manager claims that it is a viable proposition. A group of residents is willing to buy that business and take it on, but the Post Office told me that it would not seriously consider that.
I find it strange that the Post Office, as on a previous occasion, would not even entertain the idea of meeting the people and discussing those issues face to face. When there were closures in Portsmouth previously, the Post Office agreed to come to meetings after the closures were announced, not during the consultation period. The Minister on that occasion seemed somewhat gobsmacked by that, and felt that it should not be repeated. Once again, however, the Post Office has agreed, but only this morning, to attend a meeting later this week, after the consultation period has closed.
The point that Post Office representatives made to me very robustly was that they did not want to have to talk to the people in a public meeting. They were prepared to meet only a select few, such as local councillors and perhaps one or two other interested people. That was the only basis on which we could get a meeting. That is highly regrettable and it does not suggest that public consultation will be a vital part of deliberations. It also appears that the decision has already been taken. I would be surprised if any of the post offices were allowed to remain. I should like to see them stay open, but I fear that the decisions have been made because the Post Office has announced that it intends to close some 3,000 post offices in the current round of activity.
We will lose nearly 50 per cent. of the sub-post offices in the urban area of south Portsmouth. To say that that is a good thing could not be further from the truth. In most instances, it will encourage the one thing that the Government have said that they do riot want: more car journeys. It is not easy in a big city such as Portsmouth to walk a mile comfortably. For some, particularly the elderly, a journey of a mile across urban roads is not as easy as one might think. Certainly, some proposed closures will lead to difficult and hazardous journeys for the elderly if the journeys to alternative post offices—I have walked three of those—are made. In at least two cases it would take a fairly fit elderly person the best part of an hour in each direction if they wished to continue to use the services of a post office. Others have made it quite clear that instead of walking to the next post office, they will drive. That will defeat the object of trying to get people to reduce their number of car journeys.
That returns us to the question of what a post office means to a local community and how important it is. In a city such as mine, there are a significant number of places that one could describe as urban villages, and I expect that the scenario is the same in many other constituencies. The post office is located at the centre. It
60WH
is convenient and useful for many reasons. It is on the way to school, close to other shops and close to where a large number of people live.
If the Government had been a little more courageous in their attempts to encourage businesses in post offices, rather than doing everything they could to persuade people to find alternatives, we might not have seen the closures and some post office business might have been more successful. I shall quote from a constituent's letter. Relating to Old Portsmouth, it says:
"I am 77 and have a naval disability pension. I am unable to drive, I am entirely dependent on a wheelchair … I view the future with considerable apprehension if we are going to lose our Post Office … Old Portsmouth no longer has a bank and the post office is regarded as the bank and 'village' financial centre. Its loss (especially to pensioners) would be an enormous deprivation. It is not overstating the case to say that this Post Office is the hub of the village and an integral part of people's lives. Its loss would lead to disruption and a serious devaluation in the quality of life. To many pensioners it is a lifeline".
Some people might think it bizarre that a post office could mean so much to a pensioner, but two or three post offices lend themselves to such a scenario. They are meeting points—he focal point of the place, where people meet regularly and enjoy the facilities. Many hundreds of houses are going to be built in Old Portsmouth, but the Post Office said that it was not sure that that expected growth would be "deliverable" to the post office. I hope the Post Office is prepared to test that over time to see whether it materialises.
I was disappointed by Ministers' lack of response when I wrote to them on the matter. They sent back the Government line and did not engage in the debate raised in the correspondence. My letter to the Department of Trade and Industry on 14 October asked specific questions, none of which was answered satisfactorily. I wrote on similar lines to the chief executive of Postwatch; its approach to the Post Office on the situation in Portsmouth was received in a very negative way. I hope that this debate gives us an opportunity to ask the Minister, the Department and the Post Office to reconsider in respect of the difficulties that the closures present.
It is not easy to take difficult decisions and I understand that the Post Office has problems, but many are of its own making. It has not gone out of its way to engage the public and encourage them to use the post offices. Indeed, the post office in Fawcett road was subject to a temporary closure. The Post Office wrote to me saying that it would open the post office on a specific date last November, but that day came and went. I followed up with letters and received a reply saying that the intention was to reopen the post office. Sadly, when the list of six was announced, Fawcett road was on it. I wonder whether there was any intention to reopen it. This is a sad reflection of the dismissive way in which the Post Office and, to a lesser extent, the Government have ignored what people said in the past.
Thousands of people tried to save the Langstone road post office, but they lost the argument. I hoped that the Post Office would learn a lesson from that and not repeat its mistakes, and that a consultation exercise would mean a dialogue with the people of the city of Portsmouth. I greatly regret that the Minister did not take serious note of what was said when I raised the issue during the previous debate on the subject in this

61WH
Chamber. More important from the point of view of the people of Portsmouth, the Post Office disregarded the matter too.
People take time and effort out of a busy life to fight such a campaign. Pensioners do not readily take to the streets and motivate others to support the retention of a building or a business unless they genuinely believe that something bad will happen unless they do something. They have fought their corner and made their case, so it is disappointing that the Post Office has not had the courage to come to the city of Portsmouth to make its case transparently and, if necessary, forcefully. It has chosen not to do so. Indeed, it seems to be willing only to rehearse the enormous problems it faces and the financial burdens it carries nationally.
The Post Office is not prepared to consider the upheaval and disruption as well as, in some instances, the undoubted deprivation that removing a facility such as a post office will cause. That cannot be right and it should be opposed vigorously by Members representing constituencies such as mine. That is why I was keen to join in a debate here a few months ago, when about 16 Members took part—record for this Chamber. All those Members were affected by closures in one way or another.
I hope that the Minister's reply gives hope to people who have campaigned on the matter, asking for their case to be listened to and to be able to take part in a dialogue—not a one-way slog against a brick wall. They want an open dialogue on the issues that they face and ways forward. I would also be interested to know whether closures are Government policy. The Prime Minister said that they were not and that he did not want to see viable post offices closed. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to make the debate more transparent and provide the necessary figures to support, or otherwise, the closures. I also hope that when there is a viable alternative to closure it will be explored and developed.
I assure the Minister, her colleagues in the Government and the Post Office that people's support for that organisation will wane considerably. No effort was even made to test whether the post offices that will be expected to absorb the people displaced from the closing post offices will be able to cope. Do they have the physical capacity to take perhaps several hundred more transactions over a busy two days when people are collecting their pensions? It is disappointing that, once again, none of that has been properly explored. Sadly, when questions are asked about such issues, the Post Office does not want to give too much information.
I hope that the plea from the people of Portsmouth, South on the six proposed closures and the closures that have already taken place has taught the Post Office and the Government a lesson about how not to go through a consultation exercise. I would be interested to know whether the Government have given instructions to the Post Office not to enter into a public debate on the closures.
Interestingly, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said in a debate that a public discussion finally took place only after he forced the issue on to the Floor of the House, put the Minister behind the black ball and said, "Are you afraid to have this debate?" I have tried everything possible to have a reasoned debate
62WH
with the Post Office, but, sadly, it has neglected to take up the challenge of justifying its decisions and, more important, neglected to explain to the people of Portsmouth how the post offices in our city will operate in future. That can only be described as a disgrace.
4.3 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on having secured the debate on what is clearly an important issue. I assure him that the Government are committed to maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices. Both as Ministers and as constituency MPs, we fully recognise their importance as a focal point for local communities, particularly for elderly and less mobile customers. However, as I think that he accepted, failing to take difficult decisions about how to maintain that viability is not the best way to support the Post Office.
I will come on to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points about the proposals in his constituency, but it is worth while reminding ourselves of the policy context for the changes, which are based on recommendations in the performance and innovation unit's 2000 report. which was widely welcomed. The Government accepted all the recommendations that it made. One of those recommendations was that, if the Post Office decided that fewer post offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing funding to ensure that sub-postmasters affected could be adequately compensated for the loss of their business.
Last November, following parliamentary approval of the funding, Post Office Ltd. initiated its urban network reinvention programme. The network of post offices is made up of nearly 17,000 branches—ore than all of the banks and building societies in the country put together. Over 1,000 urban sub-post offices have at least 10 other post offices within a mile. Sub-postmasters have been finding it increasingly difficult to earn a reasonable income from their business and have been leaving the network. In the last financial year. Post Office Ltd. lost £163 million.
The truth is that if action is not taken now, there will be unmanaged decline in the network and serious gaps will open. That will do nothing to maintain the viability of the Post Office or to serve the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those who depend on Post Office services. There are many arguments for why this decline may have occurred. The hon. Gentleman admits that for many post offices it has been a struggle, not least because of under-investment. The programme is also enabling the Government to put that right. It is also the case that greater mobility and changes in shopping and financial habits mean that people are not using the post office as often as they used to, and customer numbers have sharply reduced.
I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's challenge to ensure that we make the range of services offered by post offices attractive. I want to talk later about the support that the Government are providing and the action that Post Office Ltd. is taking in order to improve those services. It is essential for the viability of the post office network that it adapts to changing lifestyles, changes in people's preferences and new ways of doing business.

63WH
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the proposal to develop post offices as Government general practitioners. That was a recommendation from the performance and innovation unit report and, as the Government were asked to, we embarked on a pilot project to test the concept of post offices as Government general practitioners. As sometimes happens when one piles up proposals, one finds that they do not work in the way that is most effective.
The pilot showed that it would neither significantly improve Departments' ability to meet their delivery or financial objectives nor raise sufficient new revenue for post offices, although it did show a number of areas in which Departments might deliver services through post offices in future. The scope for that is being kept under review, as is the significant commercial interest in placing kiosks in post offices, which would open, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, other business opportunities. That was a rational decision taken on the basis of a pilot.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a. concern about the consultation process with regard to the closure proposals. It is the case that the consultation proposals have been considerably improved. Initially closure proposals were focused on single offices known to be at most risk of closure because of poor viability. The company has accepted that there was much uncertainty about the future shape of the network and has now undertaken to produce its proposals on an area-by-area basis using each parliamentary constituency, or geographical groupings of them. In its recently published report on the post office network, the regulator Postcomm commended Post Office Ltd. for its constructive response, and welcomed its more co-ordinated approach, as did the Trade and Industry Committee.
Producing proposals on that basis brings the benefit of giving a clear view of the level and location of service provision at the end of the programme in a given area, taking into consideration all those important issues of access and the way that local people need to use post offices, while giving the opportunity to understand the views of key opinion formers—especially MPs and local authorities—about the wider plans. Of course, in accordance with the code of practice, every proposal is subject to public consultation.
The consumer watchdog set up by the Government, Postwatch, has a key role in the process. It is consulted on every proposal and monitors th programme as a whole. Following discussion with Postwatch on how to undertake consultation on the new area plans, Post Office Ltd. agreed to extend the period of public consultation from one month to six weeks. As with the early stages of the programme, consultation is still based on the proposal for each individual branch and Postwatch still receives prior notification of proposals.
Mr. Hancock: Does the Minister agree that one of the fundamentals of any consultation would be the willingness of the Post Office to take its case to the people of the area? Why has it systematically refused to take its case to the people of Portsmouth, South and many other constituencies where offices have been
64WH
deemed ready for closure? What is it about that proposition that the Post Office finds so difficult to handle? Would not a major breakthrough be for the Post Office to be ready and willing to participate in a proper consultation, in which it makes its case to the people most affected?
Jacqui Smith: I certainly agree that it is important to have proper consultation. That is why we have extended the time period; why we have increased the support to Postwatch to enable it to act as a defender of, and a voice for, people throughout the process; and why we have ensured that the proposals are shared with local people. I am not sure that I agree that public meetings, beloved as they are of politicians, are always the most effective way to make local people's voices heard. As the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, he has been able to ensure that the voice of his constituents is being clearly heard, as have many other hon. Members. It is—dare I say it?—slightly churlish of him to criticise the Post Office for now agreeing to meet him, when that is clearly what he is demanding.
Mr. Hancock rose—
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman spoke for longer than his allotted time. If he wants to speak again, that is fine, but I will not be able to answer all his questions.
Mr. Hancock: I want the Minister to be left in no doubt that the Post Office has agreed to a meeting after the consultation period is closed, which is complete nonsense. Surely she agrees that for the Post Office to say that it will argue its case after the consultation has closed and then to have a fixed number of people who can attend does not encourage the public to believe that it is doing this openly and transparently.
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has certainly taken the time opportunities available to him today to put his case. I agree with him to the extent that I expect the decisions to be taken on the basis of the widest consideration of the views of local people and the other criteria that have been laid down. That is clearly what should happen and, given the extended time and the role of Postwatch that I have outlined, it is more likely to happen now than it was previously.
The hon. Gentleman also raised specific issues about his local branches. It is important to identify the fact that, although he pushes me on this issue and rightly demands that Post Office Ltd. takes responsibility for listening and responding to the points made by his constituents, the Government do not have a role in this decision-making process. It is also important to note that once decisions on the current proposals have been reached, difficult as they are, Post Office Ltd. has no intention of returning to the hon. Gentleman's constituency with any further proposals. That is why it is important that the views of Postwatch, as an effective consumer champion, and of local people are taken into consideration in the process.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of how we improve the services offered by post offices. Let us be clear that this process has enabled the Government to invest an additional £30 million to modernise and adapt the offices that remain in the network. Those offices that

65WH
may receive customers who previously attended one of the post offices being closed are eligible to apply for grants of up to £10,000 each to improve their facilities. I understand that offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have applied for such grants. That will enable us to begin to see better, more accessible post offices, with some of the investment necessary to make them places that will do business successfully and contribute to their communities.
More widely, Post Office Ltd. continues to develop and introduce new services and business activities. Most recently, that has included the announcement of the intention to offer a range of financial products through a joint venture with the Bank of Ireland. Other initiatives, including the acceptance of debit card payments and a major advertising campaign for travel insurance and bureau de change services, contribute to make the post office a place that customers want to visit. The Government have provided £480 million to automate every post office branch, enabling the establishment of the technical infrastructure to support electronic banking services.
Change is difficult, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern to ensure that, throughout this process, there is open consultation, and that local people have the opportunity to have their say. However, the ultimate objective is to end up with a better, stronger and broader post office network.

Far East Prisoners of War (Memorial)
4.15 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am pleased to have secured this debate on the cultural and memorial building for those who were far east prisoners of war in 1941 to 1945.
When I gave my maiden speech in 1997, its subject was a memorial to far east prisoners of war. Although events have moved on since then, it is regrettable that there is still no permanent memorial to which people can go to learn what happened to British prisoners in captivity across south-east Asia during the second world war. It is high time that that sad state of affairs was remedied. Today, I not only commend the charity Children and Families of the Far East Prisoners of War and the National Memorial Arboretum for their sterling efforts to raise funds for such a memorial, but ask the Government to play their part in ensuring the success of that project.
In my maiden speech, I asked the Government to give serious consideration to contributing funds to the building of a memorial museum to the British soldiers who died while imprisoned in the far east. At that time, it was suggested that such a memorial should be constructed on an infamous section of the Thai-Burma railway line that became known as Hellfire pass. In that place, in just 12 weeks, a massive cutting was hacked through the solid rock of a mountainside by prisoners of war and forced Asian labourers, using nothing but the most basic tools. It is known that 700 prisoners of war died while building just 3 miles of railway at that spot.
Although many veterans and relatives of those who died thought that that would be a fitting place for a memorial, others preferred different sites. As the desire grew to ensure that any such memorial should also include a historical record of what happened to the far east prisoners of war and act as an educational resource for present and future generations, it became clear that the best place for it would be in the UK.
Before proceeding, I should perhaps explain my interest in the issue. The subject was initially raised with me by one of my constituents, Mrs. Carol Cooper, whose father was a far east prisoner of war. He was Lance-Corporal William Smith, who left his family to go to war 62 year; ago, most poignantly, on this very day, which also happened to be his 26th birthday. He died in captivity in Burma in 1943 at the age of 28, when Mrs. Cooper was only four. During his imprisonment he kept a remarkable diary containing not only a detailed record of his experiences, but addresses and facts about his fellow soldiers, poems about his family and recipes he planned to cook on his return home.
Mrs. Cooper has been kind enough to supply me with a few short extracts from her father's diary for use in this debate. They relate to a few days in August 1943 when her father was in a camp on the border of Thailand and Burma called Sonkerai. I include the excerpts to try to give hon. Members some idea of what the far east prisoners of war had to suffer:
"Saturday 14th: It seems we are a sort of forgotten men because no one seems to worry about us and we are still stuck in this pig sty of a hole. There are over 2,000 men here and the deaths average 9 a day.

67WH
Monday 16th: Heard news Corporal Liversly died last night so the death roll of Divisional H.Q. is growing. Still no sign of moving and the food is rotten. We have sunk to a sorry plight. No soap to wash with, our clothes are lousy and it takes all the go out of one to do anything.
Friday 20th: Well we lost yet another of our party today and I helped to carry him away this evening, so that leaves us with 50. There have been 167 deaths this month so far and the record was 28 in one night when cholera was at its height. It is simply a case of plain murder."
Lance-Corporal Smith's family were not aware of the existence of the diary until Mrs. Cooper happened to read about the auction of a diary written in a Japanese camp by a member of the Royal Norfolk Regiment. Mrs. Cooper realised that the diary was her father's and she tried to buy it back. Initially, she was unsuccessful, but she succeeded after the BBC took an interest and made a documentary about it. The BBC made a further programme in which it took Mrs. Cooper to Thailand and along the route of the Burma-Thai railway, retracing her father's steps as outlined in his diary. The railway was 250 miles long and built through harsh, disease-ridden country, almost exclusively by human effort. It was completed at the cost of a huge loss of life, with 13,000 prisoners of war and 80,000 forced Asian labourers dying from sickness, disease, starvation and sheer brutality. It has since been said that the railway was built at the cost of a life for every sleeper.
Having recovered the diary and travelled in her father's footsteps, Mrs. Cooper could have left the matter. However, she was struck by the fact that, throughout her journey, she had not seen a single memorial, plaque or stone from the British Government to honour the sacrifice and suffering of thousands of British servicemen. Until her journey, she had, like so many others, a general idea that many British servicemen had been imprisoned and badly treated in the far east. When she realised the full horror of their experience, she vowed to take up the fight to ensure that they were properly honoured and remembered.
In August 1997, Mrs. Cooper placed an advert in our local paper calling for the children and families of far east prisoners of war to join her in asking the Government to pay those men an honour that they truly deserved. In November 1997, the Children and Families of the Far East Prisoners of War organisation was formed, with 25 members in Norfolk. A year later, five charity trustees were appointed and COFEPOW became a registered charity. It now has about 500 members from all over the country and beyond. It is an extremely powerful voice in lobbying for a fitting memorial to the far east prisoners of war, and is active in raising funds towards that cause.
It is important to make it clear that the cultural and memorial building to the far east prisoners of war, which is what this Adjournment debate is about, is not simply an abstract idea, but a project that is well under way. A site has already been agreed at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. It is a millennium project being created on 150 acres of land, alongside the River Thame, and is the nation's living tribute to the people of the 20th century. The site
68WH
includes the millennium chapel of peace and forgiveness, and there can be no more fitting a place for the cultural and memorial building to the far east prisoners of war.
A design has already been drawn up for the project, which will be a simple and dignified building with a far eastern appearance. It will be constructed of oak, as befits its surroundings in the National forest. The design and establishment of the permanent building, the interior lay-out, the historical research and acquisition of the contents, and the ongoing archival support will cost about £350,000. The National Memorial Arboretum has undertaken to provide ongoing permanent management and maintenance.
As I briefly mentioned earlier, the cultural and memorial building will not be simply a commemorative building to perpetuate the memory of all British prisoners of war. It will also be a research and archival centre, intended to educate not only present-day students and families as well as relatives involved in research, but future generations on that aspect of the history of the far east. There can be no better organisation than the Children and Families of the Far East Prisoners of War to display the story of what happened to their fathers, many of whom never returned. It has worked hard over the last five years to establish a place to provide a record of and an insight into the tragedy that took place in south-east Asia during the second world war, and has been busy accumulating a range of material, which will be readily accessible to anyone trying to find out about that chapter of our history.
There is no place in Britain for people to see and learn what happened to British prisoners in captivity across south-east Asia in the last war. At the arboretum there will be audiotapes, videos, artefacts, photographs, drawings, maps, letters and diaries. All those documents form part of our heritage, and the material should be brought together. I am sure that even more will become available when it is known that the building is complete.
Perhaps most important, the cultural and memorial building will epitomise everything about that particular theatre of war, from 1941 to 1945. It will present a factual, historical picture that must be preserved before the demise of all surviving far east prisoners of war and before their story is lost in the annals of history. The memorial has assumed added importance due to Government plans to erect a memorial at the arboretum in memory of all those who have been lost in conflicts since 1948.
Before moving on, I wish briefly to mention a matter that is strongly connected to the one I raise today. For years, a campaign has been waged for an official apology from the Japanese Government and for proper compensation for the far east prisoners of war. Although the matter remains unresolved, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Government for stepping in and at last paying compensation of £10,000 to surviving far east prisoners of war or their surviving widows.
Some people think that the payment should have been made by the Japanese Government, but one of the biggest disappointments is that, of the 37,000 who returned after the war, more than 30,000 died prior to

69WH
the compensation agreement. It is also the case that many widows died before agreement was reached, so many children who have lost both parents will receive no compensation. I hasten to add that that is not an argument for them to receive compensation, as they have not asked for it, but they and I ask for adequate funding to be released for a tribute in remembrance of far east prisoners of war and in recognition of the valour of those men.
By virtue of the fact that the Government recognised the special case of compensation for far east prisoners of war, they could also do so on the subject of establishing a memorial to them. That is the issue that I wish to take up with the Minister today. I ask the Government to go a step further and to give their backing to the cultural and memorial building to ensure that that thoroughly worthy project is a success.
Since COFEPOW's inception, its members have been in correspondence with the Government to try to get them to fund a memorial to the far east prisoners of war. The response has been a consistent refusal, stated in the following terms:
"It has been the policy of successive governments that the cost of war memorials is not usually met from public funds, but from private donations or public subscription. The Government, and the Ministry of Defence in particular, receive many requests from individuals, ex-Servicemen's groups and charitable organisations for assistance with memorials.
It would not be possible, neither would it be fair, to be seen to support one group rather than another. The vast majority have worthy goals and can make an equally compelling case for support. It would be divisive, and open to criticism from unsuccessful claimants, if the Government were to pick and choose projects to support."
COFEPOW members have become used to hearing that form of words, repeated as it has been for the past five years. Although I disagree with the policy, I acknowledge that the Government at least have an argument. None the less, if any group of veterans constitutes a special case, I contend that it is the far east prisoners of war, who had to endure almost unimaginable torture, cruelty and sheer brutality.
However, rather than carry on with that particular argument, just though it may be, I wish to ask the Government for something that is modest, deliverable and not inconsistent with any previous policy. I am sure that many Members will have heard of the plans for a memorial garden on one side of Grosvenor square in London to commemorate the British victims of 11 September. The memorial garden was opened this year by Princess Anne on the second anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Centre. It is intended that the cost of the memorial, estimated at £1 million, will largely be met by those companies that were directly affected by the 11 September attacks, with the rest being met by public subscription. I have been assured by Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials that they are confident that the costs will be met in that way. However, I quote directly from a letter from the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), which says that
"in order to get this undertaking completed by the second anniversary, it has been necessary for the Government to underwrite the project in the first instance."
No one disputes the desirability of a memorial to the victims of 11 September, but the Government's commitment in underwriting the project is something
70WH
that we have not seen before. Indeed, I believe that some upfront costs incurred for the 11 September memorial have yet to be met by either private donation or public subscription.
The campaign to raise the £350,000 that is necessary for the far east prisoners of war cultural and memorial building is already well under way. It began on 15 February 2002, which was the 60th anniversary of the fall of Singapore to the Japanese army, when the majority of the far east prisoners of war were captured. The aim is to complete the building by 15 August 2005, the 60th anniversary of the Japanese surrender.
More than £80,000 has already been raised by all manner of fundraising events and methods. I had no hesitation in adding my support to an application for assistance that was made to the Millennium Commission. I can now add that that has been successful with a grant of £131,000 as part of a multi-bid submitted by I he National Memorial Arboretum to be committed once planning permission has been obtained.
All that I and the members of COFEPOW ask is that the Government agree to underwrite the cultural and memorial building to far east prisoners of war in exactly the same way as they have underwritten the 11 September memorial garden. The sum involved is about half that of the 11 September memorial and the time available to raise the money far greater. A significant start has already been made in raising the funds and the anniversary is just as poignant for the surviving far east prisoners and their families as 11 September is to survivors and families involved in that tragedy.
I do not ask for special treatment from the Government for the cultural and memorial building, just for consistency in their approach to two different but very deserving causes. I sincerely hope that the Government are able to make a positive announcement, if not today then in the near future. It is my passionate belief that the far east prisoners of war, who endured such terrible suffering while serving their country, deserve nothing less.
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on securing this important debate. He raised the subject in his maiden speech and he has campaigned on it for most of his parliamentary career. The subject is close to his heart, particularly because of the large number of men serving in the East Anglian units that defended Singapore in 1942 who became prisoners of war when the island fell to the Japanese. I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to them, their comrades, those who were similarly captured when Hong Kong surrendered a few months earlier and others who were taken prisoner during fighting elsewhere in the far east. I express my admiration for the bravery with which they endured the terrible conditions of their captivity, which, in many cases, they continued to endure when the war was over, and the bravery with which so many met their death.
I appreciate how distressing it must be for the families of those prisoners of war knowing how much their loved ones suffered during their captivity. There will have been

71WH
particular distress where a husband or father returned from captivity a changed man, or where a child never had a chance to get to know his father. It is natural and right that they should want the suffering of the prisoners to be remembered, in recognition of what they underwent all those years ago and as a reminder that it must not be allowed to happen again.
I stress, however, that the far east prisoners of war have not been forgotten by the Government. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission maintains its cemeteries in the far east and is pledged to do so in perpetuity. The Government contribute more than £20 million a year to the costs of the commission's work worldwide. Every year, the Royal British Legion takes pilgrimages to Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and Japan, visiting the scenes of the fighting in 1941 and 1942, the places where 140,000 British and Commonwealth troops were imprisoned or put to forced labour, such as the notorious Changi jail, Hellfire pass and the River Kwai, and the many war cemeteries in the far east.
In the United Kingdom, there are 54 memorials dedicated to those who died in the far east. The Catholic church of Our Lady and St. Thomas of Canterbury at Wymondham in Norfolk was built after the war by a parish priest who had been a prisoner in the far east, as a permanent memorial to those who died not only in captivity but later as a result of their ordeal. It still serves that purpose, and the Ministry of Defence is represented at the commemorative services that are held there each year.
There is a far east prisoners of war chapel in the St. Peter Mancroft church in Norwich. At the National Memorial Arboretum near Lichfield in Staffordshire, there is, as my hon. Friend has said, a plot in memory of the far east campaigns and the prisoners of war. In January last year, a length of track from the infamous Thai-Burma railway was installed there as a memorial to the prisoners of war who had lost their lives in its construction. The Imperial War museum and the museums of the individual services contain displays and archives that record and present the history of the battles in the far east and the story of those who fought, suffered and died. That is done with the professionalism and accuracy that is to be expected of our national museums.
Of course, that does not mean that additional memorials should not be erected if people want them or if there is a further need. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence has been well aware of the existence of Children and Families of the Far East Prisoners of War since the organisation was formed six years ago. I sympathise with its worthy aims, and over the years the Ministry has offered it advice on matters such as where a memorial might be sited. I also congratulate the campaign on its success to date, and in particular on its success in achieving a lottery grant.
However, I regret that the Ministry cannot offer help with funding for a memorial. My hon. Friend accurately portrayed and quoted the Government's policy on the matter. The reason for the policy is that the Government receive many requests from individuals, ex-service groups and charitable organisations for assistance with the erection or maintenance of memorials each year.
72WH
There are more than 46,000 war memorials throughout the United Kingdom, all of them in need of some form of continuing maintenance.
Proposals for new memorials continue to appear. There has been a noticeable increase over the past few years. Interest in the condition and preservation of war memorials has also increased to new heights. That is to he welcomed, and the Friends of War Memorials does a good job in keeping the issue in the public eye.
The Government certainly welcome the growing interest in war memorials but, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, we could not fund all of them and it would not be fair to support one group and not another. They are all worthy and every single one of them can make an equally compelling case, particularly for financial support. It would be invidious to pick and choose projects to support. Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence is not funded to provide help to charitable organisations in that way. However, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter in further detail.
I should also mention that the armed forces memorial, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in November 2000 and which will commemorate members of the armed forces killed on duty since the end of the second world war, will be funded by subscriptions and donations and not by the Ministry of Defence. That is our well-established policy, and it is most certainly not intended to deter groups that wish to set up memorials, and clearly does not do so. There are other effective ways of raising money, including sponsorship, lottery applications and appeals to individuals.
My Department has seen a number of projects develop from the first seeds of an idea to a most impressive fruition. Once the organisers accepted that Government funding was not available, they redoubled their efforts to look for other sources and raised considerable amounts of money. Recent success stories, just in central London, have included the Fleet Air Arm memorial outside the Ministry of Defence main building, the commonwealth memorial gates on Constitution hill and the Victoria Cross and George Cross memorial in Westminster abbey.
I have explained why we cannot help with the funding of a memorial, but that does not mean that we cannot or will not help at all. The intended site for the far east prisoners of war memorial is the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. I believe that the arboretum will be a most suitable place. The concept is visionary and the site has the potential for development as a place of great beauty that will be a perfect setting for commemoration and remembrance. It is the Government's desire that it should be promoted as a site of national importance for that purpose. It has already become a significant place for the veterans of a great many conflicts. As I mentioned earlier, there is already a far east prisoners of war plot there.
Management of the arboretum has recently been taken over by National Memorial Arboretum Co. Ltd. Recognition and remembrance of the role played by the service personnel of this country is one of the key themes of the Government's veterans initiative, and we see the arboretum under its new management as making a major contribution to that aim. Earlier this month, I

73WH
announced that we would give the company a grant in aid of £250,000 a year for an initial period of three years. The terms of the agreement covering the grant specify that it has to be used to defray the cost of maintaining the arboretum and not for the erection or maintenance of memorials, which must be funded from other sources.
The Government will be helping to safeguard the long-term future of the arboretum and its development. I hope that that will be of great advantage to veterans groups and all the memorials that have been erected or will be erected in the future. In addition, with the arboretum on a firm basis, there will be exciting prospects for education, giving our younger generations an opportunity to learn about what our armed forces
74WH
have done and undergone in the past. Such a carrying forward of knowledge to future generations is one of the most fitting and most effective ways in which we can honour the memory of the far east prisoners of war.
I wish the fundraising campaign for the memorial every success. Once the completed memorial is in place, I would be pleased to arrange for appropriate Government and armed forces representation at any dedication ceremony that the Children and Families of the Far East Prisoners of War want to organise.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Five o 'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Electronics Industry
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, recent discussions he has had with ministers in the Scottish Executive concerning the future of the Scottish electronics industry. [133811]

  Mr. Darling
  I have regular contact with Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the Scottish economy.

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions about assistance for workers in Scotland whose companies are in receivership and whose pension rights might be jeopardised. [133813]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a variety of issues of relevance to Scotland.

  On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced government proposals to introduce a range of measures on occupational pensions. In insolvency cases, the Pension Protection Fund will guarantee pension scheme members a specified minimum level of pension. The Government will also introduce a full buy-out provision for solvent companies who decide to wind up their schemes.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will make a statement on the uptake of pension credit in Scotland. [133814]

  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the take-up of pension credit in Scotland. [133816]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend launched the Pension Credit in Scotland on 3 October. Around 201,000 pension credit awards have been made to pensioner households in Scotland, benefiting approximately 235,000 individuals.

  We are making every endeavour to ensure that all those eligible for Pension Credit take up their entitlement.

  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to promote pension credit uptake in Scotland. [133815]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend launched the pension credit in Scotland on 3 October 2003.
  136W
  The Pension Service will have written to every pensioner household by June 2004 to tell them about pension credit and help them decide whether to apply. To support this process, the Government are running a major TV and press advertising campaign.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on proposed changes to the air traffic control infrastructure in Scotland. [133817]

  Mr. Darling
  I was pleased to be at Prestwick to welcome the recent announcement by National Air Traffic Services that they are to re-start works on the new Prestwick centre in the near future. Their two-centre strategy, based on Swanwick and Prestwick, will ensure that the UK continues to have one of the most modern, efficient and safe air traffic systems in the world.

  Motoring Taxation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to meet(a) the Treasury and (b) the Scottish Executive to discuss motoring taxation as it affects Scotland. [133818]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with both the Treasury and the Scottish Executive about a variety of issues affecting Scotland.

  Carlisle Airport
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with public sector bodies in Dumfries and Galloway about Carlisle airport and a possible financial contribution by them towards the airport's costs. [133819]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has not taken part in any such discussions. Responsibility for economic development in Dumfries and Galloway rests with Scottish Ministers.

  I understand that Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway are involved with the North West Development Agency in looking at the issues surrounding the financing of airport and route development at Carlisle.

  Asylum Seekers (Dungavel)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Home Office about the continued use of Dungavel for the detention of asylum seekers' children. [133820]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular discussions with Home Office Ministers on asylum issues, including the operation of Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre. I most recently visited Dungavel on 20 October 2003 and was impressed by the high quality of the facilities for the children there and the conscientious and caring attitude of the staff.

  Post Offices (Banking Services)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with(a) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (b) Halifax Bank of Scotland and (c) Clydesdale Bank concerning the provision of banking services in the Post Office; and if he will make a statement. [133526]

  Mrs. McGuire
  No recent discussions have taken place between Scottish banks and the Scotland Office on this subject. Scotland Office Ministers have taken a specific interest in the provision of banking services in Scotland and have also had discussions with Post Office Ltd. in relation to this.

  Discussions are on-going between. the Post Office and the banks to improve the level of services currently offered.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met members of the Scottish Executive to discuss employment in the water industry in Scotland. [134003]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland Office Ministers have discussions from time to time with members of the Scottish Executive across a wide range of issues affecting Scotland. Management of the water industry is a devolved matter.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Aviation
  David Taylor
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to bring forward proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft bill on aviation. [134533]

  Mr. Woolas
  My hon. Friend will be aware that I cannot reveal the Government's future legislative plans or pre-empt the contents of the Queen's Speech.

  Information Technology
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Leader of the House what proposals he will put before the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on the use of information technology in Standing Committees. [134534]

  Mr. Woolas
  My right hon. Friend is conscious of the benefits which information technology can bring to Members serving on Standing Committees, as in other aspects of our work, but has no immediate plans to put proposals to the Modernisation Committee on this subject.

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Leader of the House what criteria he proposes for selecting draft legislation to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. [134535]

  Mr. Woolas
  My right hon. Friend's wish is that bills should be published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny 138W
  whenever time and the preparedness of the bill permits, as long as this is consistent with the overall interests of the legislative programme.

  Conservative Party Funding
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Leader of the House how much he estimates will be paid to the Conservative Party out of public funds in the year 2003–04. [135097]

  Mr. Hain
  Short Money is allocated under three headings: general funding, travel expenses and the costs of the office of the Leader of the Opposition. The amounts available in the first two categories are determined by a formula based on the number of votes cast and the number of seats won in the last general election. The amounts available in 2003–04 for general funding and the office of the Leader of the Opposition are £2,935,041 and £548,102 respectively. Full travel expenses have yet to be claimed.

  Cranborne Money is the House of Lords equivalent of Short Money. It must be used by the Official Opposition exclusively in relation to their parliamentary business. The amount available to the Official Opposition in the House of Lords for the 2003–04 financial year is £402,662.

  In addition, section 12 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established a policy development grant, which is a grant to a represented registered political party which meets the qualifying conditions to assist the party with the development of policies for inclusion in any manifesto. The total fund for 2003–04 is £2 million, the amount stipulated in the legislation, of which the Conservative Party will be paid £438,6031. The fund is administered by the Electoral Commission.

  1Source:

  Electoral Commission.

  Official Transport
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list the transport arrangements for which payment is made out of public funds to(a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Leader of the Conservative Party and (c) the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in their respective capacities; and what payments were made in each case in 2002–03. [135096]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The travel arrangements for Ministers are set out in Travel by Ministers, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The Leader of the Official Opposition is provided with a car for official duties associated with that office. The leader of the Liberal Democrats is not provided with an official car. For details of costs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), on 3 March 2003, Official Report, column 783W.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Archbishop of Canterbury
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what proportion and how much of the total costs of the visit by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Rome in the first week of October were paid by the Church Commissioners; and of that sum, what proportion and how much relates to the cost for staff members, excluding the Archbishop, his wife and chaplain. [134346]

  Mr. Bell
  The total cost met by the Commissioners from within an annual budget set aside for the Archbishop for overseas travel was £2,100.

  Of this amount, £227 (11 per cent. of the total) related to the cost for staff members.

  Other members of the party and supporters were paid for by their respective offices or travelled at their own expense.

  Church of England
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church of England has contributed since 1 June 2002 towards the costs of(a) the Anglican Commission, (b) the Anglican Consultative Council and (c) the Anglican Consultative Centre in Rome. [134345]

  Mr. Bell
  The Anglican Communion (not Commission) comprises 38 self-governing Anglican churches, including the Church of England. Each church is responsible for its own costs.

  The member churches of the provinces of the Anglican Communion meet 85 per cent. of the Anglican Consultative Council's core budget income and the Church of England's contribution is provided by parishes via the Archbishops' Council. I understand from the Council that the current amount paid is £359,700 a year, which would amount to some £509,000 from 1 June 2002 to the present.

  The Anglican Centre in Rome is financed by fundraising and is not a responsibility of the Church Commissioners. However, the Archbishop made a contribution of £2,500 from his discretionary funds in 2002.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Criminal Justice Boards
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to involve hon. Members in the work of local criminal justice boards. [134518]

  Mr. Leslie
  Local Criminal Justice Boards are newly formed partnership comprising key stakeholders including the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Probation and the Courts. As executive boards focused on improving the local criminal justice system, they need the ability to meet in private to discuss sensitive policy matters. However, it is possible for there to be more 140W
  regular consultative discussions with hon. Members in particular, and for non-sensitive minutes of meetings to be published.

  Legal Services (Consumer Choice)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent progress the Lord Chancellor has made in increasing consumer choice in legal services. [134519]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government have commissioned an independent review of the regulation of legal services aimed at promoting competition and innovation and improving services for consumers and we are reviewing future demand for legal services and the suppliers needed particularly in the publicly funded sector. We have already decided to open up the probate market to new providers, which should enable consumers to benefit from better and more cost effective services.

  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many stipendiary magistrates there are in England and Wales; and what the figure was in 1995. [134521]

  Mr. Leslie
  Stipendiary magistrates are now known as "District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)", and there are currently 108 in England and Wales, including the Senior and Deputy Senior District Judges. At the end of 1995, 92 full-time stipendiaries were in post.

  House of Lords
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Secretary of State will bring forward proposals for an indirectly elected second chamber for the UK Parliament. [134523]

  Mr. Leslie
  As I announced to the House on 18 September, the Government proposes to introduce legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to put the House of Lords on a stable basis for the medium term. We are consulting on the details of our proposals and recognise that there is more to be done on Lords Reform after the removal of the remaining hereditary peerages.

  Financial Penalties
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress has been made in(a) improving the payment rate for financial penalties imposed by the courts and (b) implementing the recommendations made by the Committee of Public Accounts in its 68th Report, Session 2001–02, on the collection of fines and other financial penalties in the criminal justice systems. [134525]

  Mr. Leslie
  Sustained improvement in the fine payment rate is a key priority, and to deliver that my Department has established a wide-ranging programme of change to implement my 7-point action plan and to address the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. Furthermore I have now set a revised target for 2003–04 which gives a clearer focus to those involved in enforcement.

  Land Registry
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress has been made with putting the Land Registry on-line. [134526]

  Mr. Lammy
  Land Registry's key information services are already available online. The Department is also progressively enabling customers to make land registration transactions electronically, the culmination of which will be the introduction of a full electronic conveyancing system in England and Wales from 2006.

  Legal Aid
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans the Lord Chancellor has to amend the workings of the legal aid system. [134527]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government has a clear responsibility to ensure that we achieve value for money from the legal aid system. It seeks to achieve this through active monitoring and a programme of work which includes a major review of the demand, supply and purchasing arrangements for legal services, which will report in December.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment the Lord Chancellor has made of the effectiveness of community legal service partnerships in promoting increased access to legal advice and assistance. [134520]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since the launch of the CLS in April 2000 more than 200 Community Legal Service Partnerships have been set up, covering more than 99 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. These partnerships have been effective in identifying priority areas of unmet need for legal and advice services in their locality. The extent to which these Partnerships have been effective in getting advice to the right people at the right time will be folly examined by the Independent Review of the CLS, which is due to report in April 2004.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the judges' lodgings system. [134524]

  Mr. Leslie
  As I confirmed to the hon. Member in my written answer of 6 October 2003, it is our policy intention to introduce further efficiencies, particularly on rationalisation of Lodgings' ownership. I still hope to be in a position to make a more detailed statement later this year.

TRANSPORT

  Imports
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage by volume of the goods imported into the United Kingdom in the latest 142W
  available financial year were transported by (a) sea, (b) rail and (c) air. [133901]

  Dr. Howells
  In 20021, the estimated shares of goods (tonnes lifted) imported into the United Kingdom were as follows:
  1Information is not available on a financial year basis.

  Percentage

  Sea

  95

  Rail1

  4

  Air

  Less than 1 per cent.

  1 Goods transported through the Channel Tunnel on through trains or on the freight shuttle.

  Source:

  DfT (sea), Eurotunnel (rail), Civil Aviation Authority (air)

  Aviation Fuel
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking in(a) European and (b) international forums to promote a common approach to imposing tax on aviation fuel. [133959]

  Mr. McNulty
  This matter was last raised internationally at the ICAO 33rd Assembly in 2001, when the overwhelming majority of States spoke out against the introduction of a tax on aviation fuel. Analysis by the European Commission has also suggested that an EU-wide tax would deliver minimal environmental benefit. However, the Government remain committed to finding alternative ways of applying the 'polluter pays' concept to civil aviation. Information is contained in the joint HM Treasury/ Department for Transport discussion document "Aviation and the Environment: Using Economic Instruments", published in March 2003.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached following his review of fuel duty rebate for operators of bus services. [134266]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Chancellor's Budget statement in April 2003 announced that the review of bus subsidies would be continuing in the context of the review of the 10-year transport plan. This is being taken forward in line with Spending Review 2004 and is expected to conclude next summer.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 26W, on transport policies, what measures he has taken to disseminate good practice in the bus sector to (a) individual authorities, (b) bus companies, (c) regulators and (d) professional and trade bodies, including trade unions, listing the (i) cost, (ii) means of dissemination and (iii) what assessment has been made in each case; and if he will make a statement. [133985]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department takes many measures to disseminate good practice in the bus sector, both
  143W
  alone and in partnership with other stakeholders. It is not possible to allocate costs and benefits in the form set out in the question.

  For example, the Department has published:

  a) good practice guidance on Quality Bus Partnerships, aimed at both local authorities and operators (2001); and

  (b) "Get on Board: an Agenda for Improving Personal Security in Bus Travel" (April 2002), including guidance and best practice case studies on measures that can be taken by bus companies and local authorities concerning crime and antisocial behaviour in bus travel.

  The Bus Partnership Forum, which I chair, brings together senior representatives from the bus industry, central and local government and has produced:

  (a) a report on Understanding Customer Needs, of value to both operators and local authorities;

  (b) a code of conduct on Service Stability to encourage local authorities and operators to agree to limit timetable changes to specific dates; and

  (c) an information pack, "Bus Priority: The Way Ahead", to help local authorities get the most out of bus priority measures.

  The Government have established the Safer Travel on Buses and Coaches Panel (STOP), bringing together bus operators, local authorities, police, unions, and other stakeholders to exchange and disseminate best practice in tackling problems caused by crime and anti-social behaviour around bus and coach travel.

  The Department will shortly be publishing three further good practice guides:

  (a) "Rural Bus Service Provision", drawing on experience with Rural Bus Grant and the Rural Bus Challenge, and aimed at local authority officers and elected Members, transport operators and other local interest groups;

  (b) guidance on local authority procurement of local bus services, replacing existing guidance published in 1999, and aimed chiefly at local authorities; and

  (c) protecting bus and coach crews, updating the 1995 booklet which advises bus drivers and crews, operators and local authorities on measures they can take to reduce the incidence and fear of crime and anti-social behaviour in bus travel.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures he has taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to promote the use of quality bus corridors; and if he will make a statement; [133986]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies involved in quality bus corridors, listing the (i) number of passengers carried (A) before and (B) after implementation, (ii) number of services run and (iii) length of the schemes involved; and if he will make a statement; [133987]

  (3) what specific measures have been taken to encourage (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to enter into a quality bus partnership; and if he will make a statement; [134024]

  (4) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have entered into a quality bus partnership; how many passengers have been carried; how many services have been run; and if he will make a statement. [134025]
  144W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Department provides funding to local authorities for bus priority measures such as quality bus corridors which, in 2002–03, put in place almost 900 kilometres of improved bus routes.

  The Department has published Good Practice Guidance on Quality Bus Partnerships and has facilitated their provision on a statutory basis through powers in the Transport Act 2000, making them enforceable by traffic commissioners. Many such partnerships comprise one or more bus corridor improvements.

  The Bus Partnership Forum has published an information pack, "Bus Priority: The Way Ahead", to help local authorities get the most out of bus priority measures including bus corridors.

  Research shows that quality partnership schemes typically increase bus patronage by between 5 per cent. and 20 per cent. within the first 12 months of operation. These schemes also contribute towards modal shift, with surveys showing that around 33 per cent. of new users had previously undertaken their journey by car.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to simplify fare structures on buses to a flat-rate for all inner-city single journeys; and if he will make a statement; [133988]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have simplified their fare structure on buses to a flat-rate for all inner-city single journeys, listing (i) the number of passengers carried (A) before and (B) after implementation and (ii) the number of services run; and if he will make a statement. [133989]

  Mr. McNulty
  The setting of bus fares in a deregulated market is a matter of commercial decision for bus operators. The appropriateness of a flat-rate fare system (with concessions for those statutorily entitled to them) will depend on the size of the urban area concerned and on travel patterns within it. Many operators are simplifying their fare structures in the light of evidence that this is what customers prefer.

  The Department's booklet, "Protecting Bus and Coach Crews", advises that simplifying fare structures can reduce the scope for disputes between passengers and drivers. This booklet is currently being revised by the Safer Travel on Buses and Coaches Panel (STOP).

  In April 2002, the Department published "Get on Board: an Agenda for Improving Personal Security in Bus Travel", including advice to operators and local authorities on using fare structures to reduce the scope for conflict between drivers and passengers.

  The Government do not collect data on flat-rate fare schemes.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to create integrated bus/rail links; and if he will make a statement; [134015]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have created integrated bus/rail links; how many passengers were carried on the bus services

  145W
  (i) before and (ii) after implementation; how many bus services have been run; and if he will make a statement. [134016]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department's Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding provides local authorities with the resources from which they can develop bus/rail interchange facilities. The LTP guidance highlights the benefits of developing seamless travel conditions at interchange points where rail and bus services can dovetail to enable fully integrated journeys.

  The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority which has Centre of Excellence status, has, for example, developed a network of modern bus interchanges in the major urban centres of the county many of which provide bus/rail links. These have the latest designs which have resulted in significant improvements in user satisfaction, and increases in passenger throughputs. They are also developing a significant number of bus/ rail interchange facilities at smaller rail stations.

  The statistical information requested here is not available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies operate a hail-and-ride system, broken down by (i) number of passengers carried, (ii) length of schemes and (iii) number of services run; and if he will make a statement. [134021]

  Mr. McNulty
  Hail-and-ride has been in common use for many years outside main urban centres. Registration documents lodged with the Traffic Commissioners record the stopping arrangements for services, including whether they are wholly or partly operated on a hailand-ride basis, but the statistical information requested here is not available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to operate a buy before boarding ticket system; and if he will make a statement; [134026]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which operate a buy before boarding ticket system, providing details of (i) the number of passengers carried (A) 12 months before and (B) after implementation and (ii) the number of services run; and if he will make a statement. [134027]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information about where bus tickets are sold is not held centrally. This is essentially a matter for local decision. Multi-journey tickets, particularly weekly and monthly travelcards and carnets, are commonly sold off the vehicle.

  The Department's booklet "Protecting Bus and Coach Crews" advises that the use of pre-paid tickets reduces the scope for disputes between passengers and drivers and the risk of theft created by carrying large amounts of cash on the bus. This booklet is currently being revised by the Safer Travel on Buses and Coaches Panel (STOP).

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to offer combined ticketing for bus, rail and taxi journeys; and if he will make a statement; [134028]
  146W
  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that offer combined tickets for bus, rail and taxi journeys; how many (i) passengers use the joint service and (ii) services run; and if he will make a statement. [134029]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Transport Act 2000 empowers local authorities to make ticketing schemes covering local bus services which may include travel on connecting rail or tram services. Operators themselves may agree inter-available tickets within the terms of the Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption Order. This Order covers journeys by bus, rail, tram or ferry.

  The "Plus-bus" scheme run by "Journey Solutions" and funded by transport operators, provides an add-on bus option to rail tickets at either or both ends of a train journey. Plus-bus is currently available at 135 stations across the rail network, and is being rolled out to every major town and city in Great Britain.

  Various other combined ticketing schemes are available, particularly in major conurbations. Their terms and conditions vary from time to time and it would not be practical for central Government to collect data on them, or the number of passengers using them.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which provide a route from rural train stations to towns not served by rail; and how many (i) passengers are carried and (ii) services there were; and if he will make a statement; [134030]

  (2) what measures have been taken to encourage (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to implement hub-and-spoke rural bus systems; and if he will make a statement; [134036]

  (3) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which operate hub-and-spoke rural bus systems; how many (i) passengers were carried and (ii) services were run (A) 12 months before and (B) after implementation; and if he will make a statement; [134037]

  (4) what measures have been taken to encourage (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to set up bus routes from rural train stations to towns not served by rail; and if he will make a statement. [134099]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department is providing significant funding to improve rural bus services through the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) and Rural Bus Challenge (RBC). This has enabled local authorities to address the transport needs of rural communities, including where necessary the provision of services from rural train stations.

  The Department has recently conducted research on the impact of RBSG and RBC funding. This showed, for example, that in allocating RBSG, several authorities gave attention to reducing barriers to travel and promoting social inclusion, by considering access and interchange requirements. More than a quarter of the authorities responding to the study's survey, specifically sponsored services that provided improved bus-rail interchange.
  147W
  The research also showed that RBC funding has allowed and encouraged the development of complex schemes involving feeder services to main routes. In Lincolnshire, for instance, the Interconnect scheme has sought to remove barriers to travel by combining infrastructure and vehicle improvements with new service patterns revolving around guaranteed interchange and, increasingly, demand responsive transport.

  The Department's Local Transport Plan funding has also enabled examples of good practice in rural rail/bus links. Cornwall which is one of the Centres of Excellence has established the first "bus branch line" in the UK. Work on the project, which fully integrates rail and bus services was completed in September 2000 and the service now operates between Redruth train station and Helston.

  The statistical information requested here is not available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to install seating on buses where seats face each other; and if he will make a statement. [134031]

  Mr. McNulty
  No measures have been taken to encourage either local authorities or bus companies to install seats that face each other. It is for the operators and those requiring the service to determine the best design for the seating arrangements that will get the optimum use on the route the vehicle is required for.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to enforce bus lane restrictions with (i) staff and (ii) cameras; and if he will make a statement. [134032]

  Mr. McNulty
  The use of bus priority measures, including bus lanes, as a way of providing attractive and reliable bus services has been encouraged by Local Transport Note 1/97 "Keeping Buses Moving", Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01 "Bus Priority" and the Bus Priority Resource Pack "The Way Ahead" published in September this year. Each of these publications points to the importance of enforcement to the extent that the priority measures in question are not self-enforcing.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have enforced their bus lane restrictions with (i) staff and (ii) cameras; how many (A) prosecutions for infringement there are (1) 12 months before and (2) after implementation, (B) staff are employed and (C) cameras are set up; and if he will make a statement. [134033]

  Mr. McNulty
  Responsibility for enforcement of bus lanes rests with the police or local authorities with civil enforcement powers. Information in the form requested is not collected centrally.

  Civil enforcement of bus lanes in London by London local authorities and Transport for London (TfL) has been enabled by powers contained in Part II of the London Local Authorities Act 1996. Such enforcement is carried out using bus mounted cameras, roadside cameras and closed circuit television cameras. Under the bus lane enforcement camera project run by TfL,
  148W
  836 buses have been equipped with cameras and 46 roadside cameras have been installed to date. In addition, the following 12 London authorities are currently using closed circuit television cameras to enforce bus lanes in their areas: Bexley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Lambeth, Newham, Southwark, Waltham Forest and Wandsworth. In 2001–02, 290,231 penalty charge notices were issued by London local authorities and TfL for bus lane contraventions.

  Regulations under section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 enabling civil enforcement of bus lanes by local authorities outside London are in preparation.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures he has taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to improve the regularity of bus timetabling for rural services; and if he will make a statement; [134034]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have improved the regularity of bus timetabling for rural services; how many (i) passengers were carried and (ii) services were run (A) 12 months before and (B) after implementation; and if he will make a statement. [134035]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Bus Partnership Forum encourages operators and local authorities to agree to limit the dates on which timetable changes are made and has produced a Code of Conduct on Service Stability for implementation locally, which was placed on the Department's website in May 2003. This code should help to stabilise the timetabling of services in rural areas, among others, but it is too soon to monitor any improvement.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to offer reduced-rate tickets for (i) pensioners, (ii) people with disabilities, (iii) children under 16 and (iv) people between the ages of 16 and 19 in full-time education; and if he will make a statement; [134078]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have implemented reduced-rate tickets for (i) pensioners, (ii) people with disabilities, (iii) children under 16 and (iv) people between the ages of 16 and 19 in full-time education in the last five years; how many passengers were carried (A) before and (B) after implementation; and if he will make a statement. [134079]

  Mr. McNulty
  From June 2001 the Transport Act 2000 provides a standard minimum requirement for concessionary travel in England which guarantees half fares for all pensioners and disabled people on local buses, with no charge for the pass. Local authorities may make more generous provision at their discretion. From 1 April this year concessionary travel schemes are available to men aged 60 to 64, bringing them into line with women of the same age.

  Free travel to and from school is provided by local education authorities under the education acts for schoolchildren up to the age of 16 living more than the

  149W
  statutory walking distances from school. Under the Transport Act 1985 local authorities have a power to provide concessionary travel for school children, and for young people aged 16 to 19 who are undergoing full-time education (see table). That power applies to all journeys, not just those to or from school. Some bus operators offer reduced fares for young people on a commercial basis. These schemes will vary from time to time. In addition the Connexions Card project offers a range of commercial discounts for all 16 to 19-year-olds and the card is capable of carrying existing travel concessions.

  Under 16

  16 years

  Students

  Unitaries

  Derby City

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Darlington

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Milton Keynes

  Derby City

  Isle of Wight

  North East Lincolnshire

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Kingston upon Hull

  North Lincolnshire

  Hartlepool

  Milton Keynes

  Plymouth

  Isle of Wight

  North East Lincolnshire

  York

  Kingston upon Hull

  North Lincolnshire

  Middlesbrough

  Swindon

  Milton Keynes

  York

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Stockton on Tees

  Telford and Wrekin

  Warrington

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Counties

  Derbyshire

  Durham

  Cornwall

  Durham

  Hertfordshire

  Derbyshire

  Hertfordshire

  Northumberland

  Hertfordshire

  Northumberland

  Northumberland

  Surrey

  Passenger transport authorities

  Greater Manchester

  Greater Manchester

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside

  South Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  Tyne and Wear

  Tyne and Wear

  Tyne and Wear

  West Midlands

  West Midlands

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Transport for London (TFL)

  TFL

  TFL

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to use low-emission buses; and if he will make a statement. [134080]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Powering Future Vehicles strategy set a target that:"By 2012, 600 or more buses coming into operation per year will be low carbon".

  I recently announced a Low Carbon Bus Challenge, offering financial support under the DfT's TransportEnergy programme for bus operators to introduce and demonstrate fleets of low carbon buses. Bus operators are invited to submit expressions of interest by the end of the year.

  In addition, TransportEnergy provides grants for cleaner fuelled buses and for the retrofitting of pollution reducing equipment to existing buses and are providing funds for the CUTE (Clean Urban Transport for Europe) Hydrogen bus project in London. They have also produced and widely distributed "The Route to Cleaner Buses: A Guide to Operating Cleaner, Low Carbon Buses".
  150W
  We do not collect information on what bus companies offer for these groups of people, nor on how many passengers were carried before and after implementation of any discount schemes, many of which have been in place for many years.

  In 2001 the Department carried out a survey about local authority concessionary travel in England. This survey showed that in 2001 the following authorities provided concessionary travel, at their discretion, for children and young people of the following age categories:

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies using low-emission buses; what the level of emissions was (i) before and (ii) after implementation; and if he will make a statement. [134081]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department has, through the TransportEnergy programme, given financial support for the purchase of 38 cleaner fuelled buses and the fitting of 4,898 buses with pollution reducing equipment. The Energy Saving Trust, which manages the programme, estimate that over the life time of these vehicles, emissions of NOx will be 4,340 tonnes less and PM10 will be 709 tonnes less. The Energy Saving Trust do not hold information on other operators using such buses.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to increase public awareness through improved advertising of bus services; and if he will make a statement; [134082]
  151W
  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have improved advertising of bus services in the last five years; what estimate he has made of the number of passengers carried (i) before and (ii) after advertising campaigns; and if he will make a statement. [134083]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Bus Partnership Forum recently produced a report, "Understanding Customer Needs", which was placed on the Department's website in May 2003, and has been widely publicised among operators and local authorities. The report gives many examples where intelligent marketing and branding of bus services has increased public awareness, and hence patronage of the services.

  The Department does not evaluate the effect of advertising campaigns by local authorities or bus companies.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies, to introduce yellow school buses; and if he will make a statement; [134084]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have introduced yellow school buses; how many (i) passengers were carried and (ii) services were run in the last period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [134085]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport has commissioned an independent evaluation of yellow school bus schemes. The evaluation is now almost complete and we expect to publish the final report, which will include an analysis of the various dedicated school bus schemes currently in operation, within the next few weeks. We will make a statement at that time.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to fit bicycle racks on buses; and if he will make a statement; [134086]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have fitted bicycle racks on buses; what estimate he has made of the number of passengers carrying bicycles (i) before and (ii) after implementation; and if he will make a statement. [134087]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department recognises that combined bicycle and bus journeys have the potential to increase the market of operators as well as enabling people to use bicycles for part of a longer journey. It has encouraged local authorities and bus operators to improve the provision of cycle and bus journeys.

  The Department has funded the production of advice leaflets on combined cycle and bus journeys. The National Cycling Forum (since renamed as the National Cycling Strategy Board for England) has published:
  "Issues for Public Transport Planners and Operators"—advising public transport operators of the commercial gains that can be made by encouraging combined cycling and public transport;
  "Combined Bicycle and Bus or Coach Journeys"—a good practice guidance on all aspects of cycle and bus journeys including carriage, access and information and cycle parking at bus stations; and
  152W
  "Model Conditions of Carriage—Accommodating the Bicycle on Bus and Coach". that provides a basic model for operators to adopt on carriage.

  The Department has also commissioned research on the implications of fitting bicycle racks to the fronts of buses, the results of which are expected to be published later this year.

  We have also funded a number of schemes involving cycle racks on buses, for example, through the Rural Bus Challenge competition in separate projects in Cornwall, Shropshire and Cumbria.

  The statistical information requested here is not available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to provide seat belts on buses; and if he will make a statement; [134088]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have fitted seat belts on buses in the last five years; how many (i) deaths, (ii) serious injuries and (iii) injuries there were (A) before and (B) after implementation; and if he will make a statement. [134089]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information on individual local authorities and companies is not available. However, there has been a progressive increase in the provision of seat belts on buses over the last six years. This has been due to:(i) legislation implemented from February 1997 to require children on organised trips in minibuses and coaches to be provided with seat belts, and
  (ii) legislation requiring all buses registered since October 2001 (apart from those specifically designed for standing passengers) to have seat belts provided for all forward and rearward-facing seats.

  Figures for fatal, serious and slight injuries to seated bus and coach passengers in Great Britain over the last 10 years are given in the table.

  Killed

  Serious

  Slight

  1993

  17

  264

  4,357

  1994

  11

  320

  5,039

  1995

  28

  350

  4,430

  1996

  4

  264

  4,800

  1997

  6

  209

  4,865

  1998

  10

  242

  5,216

  1999

  4

  278

  5,707

  2000

  7

  255

  5,477

  2001

  4

  231

  5,466

  2002

  9

  219

  4,869

  Concessionary Travel Schemes
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the potential costs to(a) each local authority, (b) London boroughs and (c) local government as a whole, of replacing the national minimum standards for concessionary travel schemes for people over the age of 60 with a 100 per cent. discount on fares for people over the age of 70; [134384]
  153W
  (2) what estimate he has made of the change in the local government finance settlement necessary fully to reimburse local government for the costs of replacing the national minimum standards for concessionary travel schemes for people aged over 60 with schemes providing travel tokens worth (a) £25 and (b) £50 to (i) to people aged over 60, (ii) all pensioners and (iii) to people aged over 70; [134385]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the potential cost to (a) each local authority, (b) the London boroughs and (c) local government as a whole of replacing the national minimum standards for concessionary travel schemes for people aged over 60 with schemes providing travel tokens worth (i) £25 and (ii) £50 to (A) to people aged over 60, (B) all pensioners and (C) to people aged over 70; [134386]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the change in the local government finance settlement necessary to reimburse fully local government for the costs of replacing the national minimum standards for concessionary travel schemes for people over the age of 60 with a 100 per cent. discount on fares for people over the age of 70. [134387]

  Mr. McNulty
  The extension this year of the minimum statutory requirement to men aged 60-65 cost £50 million per year. The Government does not plan further extensions of concessionary fares. We estimate that free concessionary travel for pensioners in England (women aged 60 and over, men aged 65 and over) would cost in excess of an extra £300 million a year. We have not costed all the variants listed in the question and could do so only at disproportionate cost.

  Cycling
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations were held during the preparation of the school based cycle helmet awareness programme booklet with the(a) Schools Travel Advisory Group, (b) Health Development Agency, (c) Sports and Physical Activity Board, (d) National Cycling Strategy Board, (e) cycle user groups and (f) other bodies. [135018]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has not produced a school based cycle helmet awareness programme booklet. However the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust has produced, "Guidelines for setting up a successful school based helmet awareness programme" booklet with Government grant financing some of the costs. The principal aims of the BHIT guidelines, to encourage school children to wear cycle helmets, are consistent with Government policy.

  Dealing with Disadvantage Project
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities which have applied to his Department for special Dealing with Disadvantage grants; and if he will set out the criteria used in deciding upon the successful applications. [134745]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]Applications for Dealing with Disadvantage funds have been made by:

  Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Wigan.

  154W

  Further applications have been invited from:

  Bradford, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sandwell.

  The criteria by which applications are judged are: a clear understanding of the road safety problems associated with disadvantage in the council's area; the relevance of the proposals to those problems; the likelihood of those proposals addressing the issues; the extent to which other programmes, such as Neighbourhood Renewal, have been linked to the proposal.

  Dover Harbour Board
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of the Dover Harbour Board are appointed by his Department; and if he will make a statement on future policy relating to such appointments. [135032]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Seven board members, including the Chairman, are appointed by the Secretary of State to the Dover Harbour Board (DHB).

  Government appointments to the DHB are made in strict accord with its policy on the appointment of all non-executive directors and board members of public bodies and we abide by guidelines set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). We have no current plans to alter this policy.

  Driving Licence Applications
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his target is for the time taken to process a provisional driving licence application from the date of receipt to the applicant receiving the licence, in cases where the applicant indicates that they have a relevant medical condition; and what proportion of licences were issued within this target in each of the last three years. [134663]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's published charter standards for dealing with applications, where a medical condition has to be considered, are as follows:(a) if a decision can be made based on the information originally provided by the applicant, the Agency aims to make a decision on 97.5 per cent. of cases within 15 working days;
  (b) if further information is needed about the medical condition from the applicant, his doctors or other sources, the Agency aims to make a decision on 80 per cent. of cases within 90 working days.

  The Agency has reported against these standards since April 2002. In financial year 2002–03, the cumulative performance was for (a) 98 per cent. of cases were cleared within 15 working days and for (b) 80.2 per cent. of cases were cleared within 90 working days.

  Since April this year, the cumulative performance is for (a) 95.4 per cent. of cases have been cleared within 15 working days and for (b) 78.7 per cent. of cases have been cleared within 90 working days.

  No separate figures are available for provisional driving licence applications.

  Road Deaths
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2003,
  155W
  Official Report, column 240W, on road deaths, whether the information provided by the Dutch on new traffic arrangements at various sites in North Holland indicated decreases in casualties; and what reasons were given by the two UK authorities for considering more familiar techniques rather than the measures used in North Holland. [134106]

  Dr. Howells
  Information was supplied on 15 locations in North Holland that had been treated in innovative ways. Only two of the locations had an injury accident record showing more than one injury per year (one had two in a single year, one had three). Of the 15 treatments, 13 were neutral in their influence on injuries, one may have saved injuries and one may have put injuries up. In all cases, though, the casualty numbers are very small.

  No specific reasons were given by UK authorities, in discussion with Department officials, for not including measures used in North Holland. The discussions took place while the authorities were considering various approaches in the design of traffic management for the areas under consideration. Removing traffic signals was just one technique in the approach used in North Holland for sharing space. We are not aware that either of the UK sites had traffic signals but the authorities were considering a range of techniques similar to those used in North Holland. Lower vehicle speeds plays a key part in this. Reducing the dominance of motor vehicles allow alternative urban treatments aimed at providing a more equal allocation of space for all road users.

  Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a regulatory risk assessment of the proposal to amend the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations in respect of tinted windows. [135029]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No assessment was produced because the regulation amendment did not change anything—it merely clarified an existing provision of law.

  US Reserve Fleet
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communications he has received, and on what date, from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in respect of the proposal to bring ships from the US Reserve Fleet to Teesside for disposal; and if he will make a statement. [133292]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]Correspondence between the Department and its correspondents is treated in confidence unless the originator chooses to make it public.

  Vehicle Excise Duty Offences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the terms of the netting off arrangement agreed between his Department and Her Majesty's Treasury in relation to the costs and penalty income arising from vehicle excise duty offences. [134746]
  156W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]The terms of the netting off arrangement are contained in the "Proposed governance arrangements for the cost recovery system for continuous registration" document which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the components of the cost estimate over three years to the DVLA in implementing continuous registration; and what he estimates will be the gross proceeds from penalties levied on vehicle excise duty offenders. [134747]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]The components of the cost estimate over three years in implementing continuous registration are contained in the "Proposed governance arrangements for the cost recovery system for continuous registration" document which will be placed in the Library of the House. The cost information appears on page 1-9 paragraph 1.3.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles are outside the vehicle registration system; and how many of these will be brought back into the system through the measures set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No 3) Regulations 2003. [134749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]These are currently 2.1 million vehicles on the vehicle record with no current keeper details, although not all of these will be in use on our roads.

  As I announced on 22 May, I have set the DVLA tough new targets in relation to Continuous Registration, which have to be achieved by 2007. One objective is to halve the number of vehicles outside the system, either by relicensing them or by removing them from the road.

  The purpose of the regulations is to stop further seepage out of the system by making keepers of vehicles responsible for taxing them until the DVLA are informed that the vehicle has been sold or taken off the road. This will be assisted by enhanced checking procedures for the identity of new keepers when DVLA is informed of a change of keeper.

  In addition, as a result of the publicity that will accompany the new arrangements, it is anticipated that many unlicensed vehicles will be brought back onto the register by their keepers relicensing them.

  Vehicles outside the system will be dealt with through enhanced enforcement measures—mainly wheel clamping and removal—undertaken by the DVLA. Since April 2002 local authorities can now take on the powers of DVLA in clamping unlicensed vehicles. 14 authorities have these powers already, three are being inducted into their use currently and a further 27 are in talks with DVLA about taking on these powers. This will complement DVLA's own wheel clamping capacity and will ensure that vehicles currently outside the system are properly dealt with.

WALES

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2003,Official Report, column 258W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [130944]

  Mr. Touhig
  Following the Asbestos Survey of 2002, Gwydyr House was found to contain asbestos.

  Miners' Compensation
  Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been paid under the(a) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (b) vibration white finger schemes in Wales, broken down by constituency. [133248]

  Mr. Touhig
  I will write to my right hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library.

DEFENCE

  Draft EU Constitution
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what commitments of capability the UK plans to make to the EU under Articles III—210 to 214 of the Draft EU Constitution. [134312]

  Mr. Hoon
  The EU's Headline Goal, towards which the UK has offered a substantial military contribution, is due to be reviewed. The review will need to take account of the strategic environment, including the outcome of negotiations on the draft Treaty. The Government will then consider whether any changes to the UK contribution are appropriate. Under the draft Treaty, the commitment of national resources by Member States to ESDP operations will as now be based on their sovereign decisions.

  European Armaments Agency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what budget is planned for the first year of the European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency. [134313]

  (2) what level of (a) financial and (b) personnel commitment the UK plans to make to the European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency. [134314]

  Mr. Hoon
  The organisational and financial arrangements, including the contributions to be made by individual Member States, for the proposed European agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments are under discussion with European partners.

  Ex-service Personnel
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what help is given to ex-service personnel who have 158W
  difficulty in returning to civilian life; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the emotional changes that can result. [121522]

  Mr. Caplin
  In my statement of 17 September 2003,Official Report, column 51WS, I drew Member's attention to the King's College London research paper published on the same day. It confirmed the MOD's assessment that although joining the armed forces is generally a positive experience, with the overwhelming majority of Service Personnel who have difficulty making the transition back to civilian life. Personnel most vulnerable to problems of transition include those discharged for medical reasons, including mental health conditions, as well as those dismissed for disciplinary reasons, premature leavers and those discharged as temperamentally unsuitable.

  The MOD has a comprehensive range of measures to prevent or help deal with these potential difficulties. All Service Personnel who are medically discharged are entitled to the full resettlement package available to personnel serving prescribed lengths of service, including a career transition workshop, financial and housing briefings and individual interviews with a career consultant who is available for up to two years after discharge. When Service Personnel are medically discharged, the Veterans Agency automatically considers entitlement to pensions and allowances under the War Pension Scheme. Disablement pensions are tax-free and not income-related. The scheme includes a range of supplementary allowances to address the disabling effects of accepted disorders, for example, mobility and care. The War Pensioners' Welfare Service, located throughout the United Kingdom, provides war pensions advice, information and help to access appropriate services. When personnel leave the armed forces, their medical management becomes the responsibility of the national health service (NHS). Since the 1950s war pensioners have been entitled to NHS Priority Treatment for their accepted disorders.

  The MOD has recently developed an Early Service Leavers Initiative which involves a programme to improve the transition process for those who leave early for whatever reason and are not eligible therefore, for the full resettlement package. The overarching aim is to create a resettlement umbrella that will cover all Service leavers. The Initiative provides for a range of measures that will include a mandatory resettlement interview to assess vulnerability, provide guidance on access to Job Centre Plus and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits, housing associations, financial matters and give contact details for the ex-Service charities and other welfare organisations.

  As part of the Veterans Initiative, projects are in place or being developed on housing and homelessness and employment issues. Many of these involve the voluntary sector. Close contact is also being maintained with the DWP Pathways to Work Project and MOD is represented on the Social Exclusion Unit's Mental Health Project. This is inter-Departmental and is looking at how to improve employment rates for adults with mental health problems, both in terms of take-up and retention of jobs and how to promote greater social participation and access to services for this group. The Department of Health (DoH) has designated mental health in the community at large as one of its key

  159W
  priorities. MOD is working closely with DOH colleagues to explore better services including delivery of mental health services for veterans and improved access to services. This will include work to increase Service leavers' and veterans' awareness of NHS facilities and services and to brief health professionals on military matters and culture.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units within his Department's married quarters estate will be upgraded in each of the next five years. [133372]

  Mr. Caplin
  For financial year 2003–04,1 refer the hon. Member to my Written Ministerial Statement on 2 July Official Report, columns 18-19WS. Planned targets for financial years 2004–05, 2006–06 and 2006–07 were published in this year's Ministry of Defence Departmental Plan. Copies are available in the Library of the House. No target has yet been identified for financial year 2007–08, but will emerge from the decisions made in the MOD's Short Term Planning process.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was in each of the last five years of upgrading properties in his Department's married quarters estate; and what the planned expenditure is for this financial year. [133376]

  Mr. Caplin
  The cost of upgrading Service Family Accommodation to Standard 1 for condition in mainland United Kingdom in each of the past five financial years was

  Year

  £ million

  1998–99

  2.14

  1999–2000

  48

  2000–01

  56.7

  2002–02

  78.0

  2003–03

  52.7

  Total

  256.8

  For the current Financial Year the estimated outturn on upgrade projects is £40.4 million.

  These figures include capital projects where new properties replace demolished properties. The cost of new build stock provided through PFI projects is not included.

  In addition to the above, a number of properties benefited from improvements and partial upgrades through property management contracts.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he estimates his Department's upgrade programme for the married quarters estate will be completed by November 2005; how many units are part of this upgrade programme; how many units have been upgraded so far; and if he will make a statement. [133379]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 153W, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
  160W
  Over 8,800 properties have been upgraded to Standard 1, the highest standard, since 1999 and over 90 per cent. of Service families now live in properties at either Standard 1 or 2.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme benefits combined heat and power systems. [131970]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: The Government are aware of concerns that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme may act as a disincentive for the installation of combined heat and power (CHP) technologies. For this reason we are considering options for the treatment of CHP plants in the process of developing the National Allocation Plan.

  The CHP industry believe that supplying operators in this situation with allowances for free from a limited CHP set-aside may act as an incentive. In this case operators installing new CHP plants would be provided with allowances equal to the difference in emissions between their existing or proposed traditional boiler and the proposed CHF plant. We are considering this and other options in the draft National Allocation Plan which we intend to publish for consultation in early December, giving industry an opportunity to comment on the various options.

  Fuels Protocol
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to seek to amend the substitute Fuels Protocol; and if she will make a statement. [133105]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Environment Agency asked its Regional Environment Protection Advisory Committees (REPACS), in June, to consider the need for review of the Substitute Fuels Protocol and their views are being taken into account in the preparation of a formal consultation paper, which the Agency hopes to publish in November. Interested stakeholders will have three months from publication in which to respond to the consultation.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many authorisations for export have been granted by the animal exports division for captive wild animals in each of the last three years, broken down by(a) breed and (b) destination; and if she will make a statement. [132443]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is not available in the form requested. However according to our computer systems used for issuing export health certificates and CITES certificates, the following numbers of export certificates and permits have been issued during the last three years for categories of animals which exclude livestock, horses and pets.
  161W
  CITES certificates are issued under the "Washington" Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, more commonly known as CITES. The aim is to protect certain plants and animals by regulating and monitoring their international trade to prevent it reaching unsustainable levels.

  Animal health

  To EU countries

  To non-EU countries

  2001

  382

  237

  2002

  504

  283

  2003

  419

  229

  CITIES

  Exports (non-EU)

  2001

  1,726

  2002

  1,324

  2003

  1,509

  The records for these exports are not kept in a format which readily shows a breakdown by breed and destination. For CITES specimens the main exports are of falcons to Middle East destinations.

  Beef
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable she has set for the resumption of unrestricted beef exports to the EU when BSE cases in the UK have fallen to below the moderate risk status threshold. [133858]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to give a precise date for any such relaxation of current beef export controls. We have submitted papers to the European Commission to support our case for lifting restrictions and these are now being considered by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA's opinion is expected in early 2004. In addition an inspection by the EU Food and Veterinary Office is likely to be required. We would then need agreement with other member states and changes to EU regulations. Export controls are therefore unlikely to change before mid 2004.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets have been set for the introduction of(a) beef from cattle born after August 1996 onto the UK market from 24 April 2004 and (b) moderate risk status beef onto the UK market before autumn 2004; and if she will make a statement on progress towards these targets. [133859]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ministers are currently considering Food Standard's Agency recommendations on changes to the Over Thirty Month rule. Beef from over thirty month cattle born after August 1996 will not therefore be allowed onto the UK market before April 2004.

  We have worked closely with the Meat and Livestock Commission to examine how the domestic market can absorb the extra beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996 and the balanced view of the industry is that this can be achieved by import substitution and increases in processed product consumption. We are also pressing the commission to introduce market support arrangements should there be a short term need.
  162W
  With regards to moderate risk status, the commission has sought advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on amending the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) for UK beef and our methodology of scaling up testing results to support our claim that export restrictions should be lifted so that the UK can trade on the same basis as other member states. An EFSA opinion is expected in early 2004.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with the United States Department of Agriculture on United Kingdom beef exports. [133982]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We lobbied the United States Department of Agriculture in October 2002, in collaboration with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as part of a wider lobbying strategy of third countries to lift their bans on UK beef exports. Plans for further such lobbying are kept under continuing review in the light of developments with the associated EU rules.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations her Department has received from the horticultural industry over Common Agricultural Policy Reform. [134140]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]The department has received a number of representations from the horticulture industry in response to our consultation on the implementation options under the CAP reform agreement. Most of these representations have argued in favour of an area based approach in implementing the new Single Payment Scheme.

  Dairy Farms
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the(a) average net value and (b) average net profit of dairy farms in the (i) 12 months to March 2002 and (ii) 12 months to March 2003. [134378]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Results from the Farm Business Survey published earlier this year show that the average net worth of full-time dairy farms in the year ending March 2002 to be £415,000. The average Occupiers Net Income for the same period was £22,200. The data for the year ending March 2003 will be published in March 2004.

  Occupiers net income is defined as the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on all their capital invested in the business. This is the most appropriate income measure to compare with net worth.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which EU directives relating to environmental matters would incur a financial penalty if the commitments were not met; and how much each fine would be, per annum. [133261]
  163W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Failure by any part of the UK to observe EU obligations may lead to enforcement action being taken by the European Commission in the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

  If a member state fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice within the time limit specified, the member state may incur either a lump sum penalty or a daily penalty payment. The penalty payment would be based on a uniform flat rate amount, multiplied by two coefficients, one reflecting the seriousness of the infringement, and the other the duration. This would then be multiplied by a factor reflecting the ability of the member state to pay and the number of votes it has in Council.

  Fallen Stock Scheme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when details on the application of the National Fallen Stock Scheme will be announced; and what consultation there has been with farmers on the scheme. [133597]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Rapid progress is now being made on the establishment of this Scheme. We have recently announced the names of the Directors who will sit on the Board of the company that will run the Scheme. These were selected by organisations representing the farming industry and cover regional and sectoral interests. They are now addressing key issues associated with Scheme rules. The Scheme administrators are developing the necessary computer software for recording farmer details and registration. If things go according to plan we hope that the Scheme will be up and running early in the New Year.

  Farming
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned into the age profile of those in the farming community; and what measures she is taking to encourage younger people into the agriculture industry. [133891]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The Government recognise the importance of encouraging new entrants into farming. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food sets out how industry, Government and consumers must work together to secure profitable and internationally competitive farming and food industries, which are attractive to those already engaged in them and to potential new entrants.

  This Department has commissioned research which will seek to identify the existence and nature of any artificial barriers to new entrants, and the potential means by which such barriers might be overcome.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with non-farming commercial interests regarding loss insurance in the event of a disease outbreak in(a) farmed livestock and (b) crops. [134506]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The discussions are the same ones referred to in the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend on 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1185W.

  Fisheries
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether(a) the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and (b) the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries has scientific evidence on the connection between fishing effort by the UK fishing fleet and the levels of fish stocks in UK national waters; and if she will review fisheries management systems including those applied by the Faeroese and Icelandic industries. [133991]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In recognition of the migratory behaviour of the fish species concerned, stock assessments and related work are carried out on identifiably discrete stocks of fish, rather than according to national boundaries. For the same reason they are carried out by independent international organisations, which combine data from most of the main countries and fleets that exploit each stock in order to assess their impact on stocks. As part of this process, the scientists from the UK who attend the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, (STECF) therefore submit data on our national catch, and on fishing effort, to inform the discussions. I expect the report being prepared on fisheries by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit to cover a broad range of issues related to fisheries management, including possible alternative management systems.

  Fruit Marketing Standards
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made with EU negotiations over the marketing standard for apples and pears. [134139]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The EU Commission's proposals to amend the marketing standard for apples are expected to be presented at the November meeting of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Management Committee.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantity of biofuel the United Kingdom imported from(a) Germany and (b) France in the last year for which figures are available. [134371]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Currently, around 2 million litres of biodiesel are sold each month in the UK. Around half of this is imported but information is not collected on the country of origin.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the duty reduction to 20 pence a litre for biofuels. [134372]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The cut in the duty on biodiesel has already brought forward production of biodiesel from recycled vegetable oil. This offers waste reduction benefits as well as savings in carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, around 2 million litres of biodiesel are sold each month from over 130

  165W
  filling stations in the UK. Companies are actively considering the production of biodiesel from UK-grown oilseed rape.

  Mr. John Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's estimate is of(a) the percentage of the United Kingdom's farmland suitable for growing biofuel crops and (b) the quantity of biofuel that could be produced from this land. [134373]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: As biofuels can be produced from mainstream arable crops, a large proportion of the UK's 4.2 million hectares of arable land (2001–02 figures) is suitable for growing biofuel feedstocks. The key factor in determining the amount of land used is the need for the market return to the farmer to be sufficient to motivate diversion from production for established food and animal feed markets. Achieving the Biofuels Directive's reference target of 5.75 per cent. use of biofuels by 2010 would require the production of biofuels from waste vegetable oil, plus feedstocks from around 1 million hectares of agricultural land.

  Greyhounds
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions her Department is taking to tackle abuse of greyhounds. [134187]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Officials are discussing with the racing industry and welfare organisations possible measures to improve the welfare of greyhounds under the proposed Animal Welfare Bill.

  Shooting/Fishing
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to maintain the existing regulatory framework not to introduce further restrictions on(a) fishing and (b) shooting laws. [133515]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Within our manifesto is a firm commitment not to introduce further restrictions on the sports of fishing or shooting. The Government recognises the significant contribution that shooting can give to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of rural areas, where it can provide a supplement to incomes and jobs, and contribute to conservation of landscapes, habitats and wildlife.

  When undertaken correctly, we fully recognise the usefulness of shooting as a wildlife management measure. For species such as deer and foxes, lawful shooting is one of the recommended methods of population control and can be very effective. In addition the Government fully supports The Code of Good
  166W
  Shooting Practice, launched by the County Land and Business Association earlier this year, which is based on the following "golden rules":

  To ensure safe conduct, those involved in shooting must show respect for the countryside and consideration for others.

  Shoot managers must endeavour to deliver enhancement of wildlife conservation, habitat and the countryside.

  Reared gamebirds should be released before the start of their shooting season.

  Respect for quarry is paramount. It is fundamental to mark and retrieve all birds. Shot game is food and must be treated as such.

  Game management and shooting must at all times be conducted within the law and the principles of the Code of Practice.

  Angling provides an easily accessible activity that can bring people of all ages, especially the young, into a sport that teaches discipline, respect for the environment and helps them to realise their potential. It is one of the UK's most popular sports in terms of participation with more than two million people involved.

  Angling and shooting—as with all sports—have animportant role to play in the life of this country, and in helping to tackle some of the our major problems, such as crime, social problems and regeneration. This Government remains committed to angling and shooting, and to working with the governing bodies in the best interests of anglers and shooters for the overall development of those sports.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's progress in tackling illegal meat imports. [134004]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Progress against the Government's Action Plan on illegal imports in the financial year 2002–03 is reported in the Annual Review of Controls on Imports of Animal Products. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  The 2003–04 Action Plan is appended to the Review, and we are working with HM Customs and other responsible parties to implement it. HM Customs took over responsibility for anti-smuggling controls at the border on 11 April this year. Progress will be reported in the next Annual Review, to be published after the end of this financial year.

  Japanese Knotweed
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the spread of Japanese knotweed; and if she will make a statement. [134228]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am aware of the problems caused by the spread of Japanese knotweed. The Department commissioned a new survey of plants in Britain and Ireland between 1987 and 1999 to produce updated 10-km square distribution maps of all plant species found in the wild. The results of this research were published in the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora in September 2002. This included information on the spread of non-native plants such as Japanese knotweed.
  167W
  The Botanical Society for the British Isles continues to collect records for all native and the majority of nonnative species (including Japanese Knotweed) in the UK and submit them to the Biological Record Centre at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

  This Department is collaborating with a consortium led by Cornwall county council to undertake a four year project researching the biological control of Japanese knotweed. The study will undertake the necessary research to establish whether biological control is a feasible method for the long-term, sustainable management of Japanese knotweed in the UK.

  Livestock Markets
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many livestock markets there were in 1997, broken down by county; how many of them closed during the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001; how many markets(a) did not open after the outbreak and (b) have closed since; and how many livestock markets there are in each county; [134404]

  (2) which livestock markets have closed in each of the last six years. [134406]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information in the format requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, based upon information provided by the Livestock Auctioneers Association, in 1997 there were 199 livestock auction markets in England and Wales compared with 140 currently. Of the closures 40 have been since February 2001.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what official overseas visits she made in 2002. [132158]

  Margaret Beckett
  In addition to regular Agriculture and Environment Council Meetings in Brussels and Luxembourg, I made official visits to the following countries:

  January: Germany and Poland—Bilaterals

  February: India—World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)

  March: Denmark—CAPRI (CAP Reform Meeting) and South Africa—WSSD

  April: USA and Canada—WSSD and Spain—Informal Agriculture Council

  June: Indonesia—WSSD

  July: France—OECD and Denmark—Informal Environment Council

  August: South Africa—WSSD

  September: Denmark—Informal Agriculture Council

  October: France—The Global Food Marketplace (SIAL),
  Germany—Bilateral and India—Trade Visit

  Renewable Energy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional incentives will he made available to the forestry industry to produce renewable products for use in power stations. [133883]
  168W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: Defra, in association with the devolved administrations and the Forestry Commission, is setting up a £3.5 million UK-wide Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme. This scheme will help develop the supply chain required to harvest, store, process and supply biomass, such as energy crops and forestry woodfuel, to energy end-users. The European Commission's approval of the scheme is currently being sought. Subject to this, Defra hopes to launch the scheme in early 2004. Markets for woodfuel in heat, combined heat and power, and power generation are being developed through the Department of Trade and Industry/New Opportunities Fund's Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on further assistance for the agriculture industry in producing biomass for use in power stations. [133884]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 23 October 2003]: This Department is committed to supporting biomass for energy use. In addition to Defra's existing Energy Crops Scheme, which provides funding to support the planting of energy crops and the setting up of producer groups, there are several new initiatives which will support biomass.

  Under the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, crops for energy use can continue to be grown on both set-aside and non set-aside land and will receive payments under the new Single Payments Scheme. An additional Euro 45 per hectare will be available from 1 January 2004 for energy crops grown on non set-aside land. A maximum guaranteed area of 1.5m hectares is fixed for the EU for this additional payment and aid will be reduced if production exceeds that area. Defra, in association with the devolved administrations and the Forestry Commission, is setting up a £3.5 million UK-wide Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme. This scheme will help develop the supply chain required to harvest, store, process and supply biomass to energy end-users.

  Markets for biomass in heat, combined heat and power, and power generation are being developed through the Department of Trade and Industry/New Opportunities Fund's Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently consulting stakeholders on changes to the rules for co-firing biomass with fossil fuels in conventional power stations. The proposed changes will give longer timescales for the use of biomass, thereby making co-firing a more attractive option for both farmers and power generators.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with other Government Departments on the potential for future expansion in the use of biofuels. [134189]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has had a number of discussions, both at ministerial and official level, with the Treasury, HM Customs and Excise, the Department for Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Inland Revenue. The potential for biofuels has also
  169W
  been considered by the Ministerial Low Carbon Group and the Ministerial Group on the Implementation of the Energy White Paper.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the farming industry about the opportunities for growers to produce biofuel crops. [134374]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has had a number of discussions, both at ministerial and official level, with the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and with trade organisations, such as the British Association for Biofuels and Oils and British BioGen, which include farming industry representatives amongst their members. Officials have also had discussions with many individual farmers, plant breeders, agricultural suppliers, farming consultants, other agricultural businesses and potential project developers.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantity of palm oil the United Kingdom imported for use in the biofuel industry in the last year for which figures are available. [134375]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Total imports of palm oil in 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, amounted to 1.28 million tonnes. Information is not collected on the use of the oil. Some palm oil is known to be used in the production of biodiesel.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors explain the difference between the figure of £131 million stated in Press Release 133/03 from her Department to be the spending on research and development by her Department during financial year 2002–03 and the figure of £174 million presented in the publication Forward Look (Cm 5877). [133942]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The figure of £131 million stated in Press Release 133/03 correctly reflects the Department's baseline for R&D expenditure in 2002–03. This is funding that the Department spends directly on R&D services to support its policies. The R&D figure provided in the Government's Forward Look of Science, Engineering and Technology includes the DEFRA R&D baseline of £131 million, but also incorporates indirect expenditure by DEFRA Agencies and NDPBs (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; English Nature; Environment Agency; and Countryside Agency) leading to the higher overall figure for DEFRA.

  Smog
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the contribution of conventionally powered vehicles to(a) summer smog and (b) winter smog. [133280]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The most important component of summer smog is ground level ozone. Ozone is not emitted directly by vehicles. It is a secondary pollutant formed from precursor gases. Due to the complexities of 170W
  the chemistry of ozone formation it is not possible to provide a quantitative estimate of the contribution of conventionally powered vehicles to summer smog.

  The major chemical precursors for ground level ozone in industrialised nations are oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons produced mainly by conventionally powered motor vehicles and industry. Ozone and its precursors can be transported over hundreds of kilometres making ozone a transboundary pollutant. Local emissions of precursors do not generally make a significant contribution to local ozone concentrations in the UK.

  The most important components of winter smog are particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). PM to is a complex mixture of local primary combustion particles, mechanically generated particles and secondary particles formed in the atmosphere from oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide and transported over hundreds of kilometres. 18 per cent. of UK PM10 emissions are from road traffic sources and 42 per cent. of NOx emissions are from road traffic sources. The contribution from road traffic sources to ambient concentrations in cities during winter smog episodes is likely to be higher than implied by national emission totals. Studies suggest that between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. of PM10 concentrations and 50-70 per cent. of oxides of nitrogen concentrations are likely to be derived from road traffic in urban areas.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132109]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no plans to outsource overseas the call centres operated by my Department, ACAS, the Small Business Service or British Trade International (which brings together the work of my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in support of British trade and investment overseas).

  The Chief Executives of my Department's other Agencies will reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the allocation of allowances under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will benefit low carbon technologies such as combined heat and power. [133115]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are aware of concerns that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme may act as a disincentive for the installation of combined heat and power (CHP) technologies. For this reason we are considering options for the treatment of CHP plants in the process of developing the National Allocation Plan.
  171W
  The CHP industry believe that supplying operators in this situation with allowances for free from a limited CHP set-aside may act as an incentive. In this case operators installing new CHP plants would be provided with allowances equal to the difference in emissions between their existing or proposed traditional boiler and the proposed CHP plant. We are considering this and other options in the draft National Allocation Plan which we intend to publish for consultation in early December, giving industry an opportunity to comment on the various options.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will commission research into the impact of the practice of retentions in the construction industry on the continuing viability of companies and individual traders; and what plans she has to promote legislation on this subject. [134238]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI reviews all key research on retentions and has no plans to incur expenditure on duplicating independent research. The Government agree with the Trade and Industry Select Committee's views on legislation on retentions in that there is:
  "no attraction in the prospect of engineering their abolition through legislation".

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the number of employers in the construction industry who pay(a) less than the agreed national rate and (b) less than the national minimum wage; and what steps she is taking to prosecute employers who pay less than the legal minimum. [134240]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government does not have information on the number of employers paying less than the nationally agreed rate or the national minimum wage in the construction industry.

  We are not being complacent on the enforcement of the national minimum wage. The Inland Revenue completed over 6,200 investigations in 2002–03, identifying more than £3.5 million in minimum wage arrears on behalf of underpaid employees in the economy as a whole. The National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Act 2003 also came into force on 8 July 2003. The Act makes it absolutely clear that Revenue officers can issue enforcement notices (an instruction to employers requiring them to start paying the minimum wage to workers and make good any arrears of pay) on behalf of former workers as well as current ones thus closing an enforcement loophole.

  Consumer Direct
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost has been of the Consumer Direct initiative. [134413]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The cost of the Consumer Direct initiative to date is £1,150,000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the purpose of(a) Consumer Direct and (b) the Consumer Gateway. [134481]
  172W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The purpose of Consumer Direct is to increase the provision, quality and consistency of consumer advice across England, Scotland and Wales. Current unmet demand for consumer advic, is estimated at up to 1.5m calls per annum ("DTI Consumer Helplines Study", February 2002).

  The Consumer Direct approach is to empower consumers to make the right choices and to resolve problems themselves, so placing more effective pressure on companies to improve. Consumer Direct will also increase the quality and coverage of information for those enforcing con sumer legislation.

  The Consumer Gateway acts as a portal to consumer information available online. It provides links to a variety of relevant information sources. Consumer Gateway will be subsumed by Consumer Direct Online when it goes live next summer.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is the policy of the Government to provide advice o a individual consumer(a) problems and (b) complaints; and if she will make a statement. [134482]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: It is Government policy to increase people's access to quality consumer advice and information through Consumer Direct. Local Authorities, working in partnership within the English Government Office regions, Scotland and Wales, will be responsible for running Consumer Direct contact centres. These centres will provide advice on individual consumer problems and complaints via telephone or e-mail, or will refer consumers to local Consumer Support Network members if further help is required, or to other organisations who are better placed to assist. Consumer Direct will allow existing advice services to focus their skills and resources where they can add most value, in particular helping vulnerable consumers, providing face-to-face advice, implementing education programmes and clamping down on rogue traders and scams.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff of her Department were redeployed out of London and the South East in the last five years. [125358]

  Ms Hewitt
  There have been no major redeployments of DTI staff out of London and the South East in the past five years. We are unable to provide figures for individual members of staff who have moved to the Department's numerous offices outside London and the South East in the same period without incurring disproportionate cost. Support work on Finance and Human Resources has, however, been moved to Billingham and Cardiff over the past two years.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for her Department in each year since 1996. [126475]
  173W
  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to Table C of the annual publication, "Civil Service Statistics", which covers Permanent Staff Numbers in each Department and agency from 1995 to 2002. Copies of the publication are held in the Libraries of the House. The latest edition was published on 24 July 2003. These figures include press officers.

  Information is also available at the following address on the Cabinet Office Statistics website: http//www.civilservice.gov.uk/statistics/css.htm My special advisers are currently Jim Godfrey, Kitty Usher, Deborah Lincoln and Roger Sharp. Roger Sharp is part-time.

  Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value is at current prices of United Kingdom(a) exports to and (b) imports from (i) Europe, (ii) Africa, (iii) Australasia, (iv) North America, (v) South America, (vi) the Middle East and (vii) Asia in each year since 1973; and what percentage of (A) UK and (B) world trade U K trade with these regions constituted in each of these years. [132936]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  An answer to the question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on UK trade, published by HM Customs and Excise, gives figures for selected regions of the world but these do not correspond to the regions required. It would, therefore, be necessary to use data for UK trade with individual countries and aggregate them to arrive at the totals for the required regions. UK trade data prior to 1988 are not available electronically so compiling this part of the answer would require manual entry of 6,000 numbers. Another 6,000 items of data would have to be downloaded from the trade database for more recent information on UK trade. Downloading recent data is complicated by various political changes that have taken place over the period in question, such as the break up of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, as well as the German unification. As a result of these changes, several countries did not exist in the earlier years but do now, while some that did exist earlier no longer do so. Finally, the combined set would have to be aggregated to provide trade statistics for the specified regions.

  The second part of the question requires a comparison of trade by the UK, and the World. Information on world trade is available from the International Monetary Fund (Direction of Trade Statistics), but again, their regions do not correspond to those required to answer the question. For example, the IMF grouped centrally planned economies together, as a separate "region", although geographically they were in (Eastern) Europe, Asia and Central America. It would be necessary to calculate regional totals from those for individual countries. The IMF data are not available in electronic form so this procedure would entail manually compiling a database consisting of 30 years' worth of data for around 200 countries for two trade flows (imports and exports).

  For strict comparability, it would be advisable to use the IMF source for UK trade rat her than Customs' figures. In all, this would entail manually compiling a
  174W
  data set of around 24,000 figures, which would then need to be processed to arrive at the information required.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what efforts are being made to reduce the risks that are present when consumers purchase fireworks from illegitimate outlets; [134335]

  (2) what guidance she gives to the public on ensuring that the fireworks that they buy are from legitimate sources. [134336]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Under the Explosives Act 1875, which is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, retail premises are required to be registered with the local authority in order to store and display fireworks for sale. The 1875 Act also makes it illegal to sell fireworks in the street. Trading standards departments are responsible for enforcing these measures giving them particular priority during the firework season.

  The Department, through the annual fireworks safety campaign, urges the public to take care when using fireworks and make sure when buying fireworks they are marked as complying with British Standard 7114, the British safety standard for consumer fireworks.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action her Department is taking with the Home Office to keep fireworks from being a nuisance; [134337]

  (2) what plans her Department has to enable authorities to keep track of fireworks once they have left the port of entry. [134338]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Fireworks Act 2003, which received the Royal Assent on 18 September, will allow the Department to make regulations covering a range of firework issues which we are currently unable to regulate under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. These include restricting firework sales and use, licensing of retailers, controlling noise and nuisance and the importation of fireworks.

  We hope to implement the part of the Act concerning the creating an offence for possession of fireworks by those under 18 years of age by Christmas. The Department is currently having discussions with the Home Office.

  We will start implementation of the part of the Act in relation to the importation of fireworks in the New Year. This relates to the giving of information on firework imports to help keep track of fireworks once they have left the point of entry.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will lay regulations under the Fireworks Act 2003. [131661]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The majority of regulations to be made under the Fireworks Act 2003 are expected to be laid in the summer of 2004.

  The Department is also looking into the possibility of implementing certain parts of the Act that deal with the anti-social use of fireworks—possibly before Christmas, in which case regulations could be laid in December.
  175W
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations will take place on regulations to be introduced under the Fireworks Bill; with whom consultations will be held; and over what period. [131405]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: The Department has begun preliminary consultations with key stakeholders on the form that Fireworks Regulations will take. Draft Regulations will be published, along with a Regulatory Impact Assessment, in spring 2004. Therefore, we expect Regulations to become law in Summer 2004?in good time for next year's fireworks season.

  In the immediate term, the Department is also looking into the possibility of implementing those parts of the Act identified as dealing with the anti-social use of fireworks, which, if judged suitable, will be implemented before the end of the year. We have already had preliminary consultations on this and, if Regulations are to be made, we will consult on these shortly.

  Our stakeholders include other Government Departments; the Police Service; trading standards; religious groups; the industry and retailer representatives; and, interested groups such as the RSPCA and the Guide Dog for the Blind Association.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she was consulted about the statement made by a Department official to the Yorkshire Evening Post and published on 15 September 2003, concerning Regulations under the Fireworks Bill and the absence of limitations on the period of sale of fireworks; and if she will make a statement. [131407]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: The statement made is fully in line with the Department's current thinking on the form that Fireworks Regulations may take.

  The question of limitations on periods of sale requires careful consideration given the culturally diverse celebrations involving the use of fireworks. The Department is still formulating Regulations with regard to specific sections of the Act and will be consulting widely.

  Government Regulations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted on the average number of man hours each business spends on dealing with Government regulations. [133411]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI has never conducted research on the number of 'man' hours devoted to this.

  Industrial Participation Programmes (South Africa)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials from her Department assisted in the negotiations with the(a) National Industrial Participation and (b) Defence Industrial Participation programmes with South Africa; what their role was in these negotiations; and what posts they held in her Department at the time of the negotiations. [134540]
  176W
  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 20 October 2003,Official Report, column 448W.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 on reducing late payment; and if she will make a statement. [134235]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government continue to monitor the effectiveness c f Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act, in partnership with the construction industry umbrella bodies. The Act provides clearer payment terms and a statutory right to adjudication in construction contracts to reduce late and non-payment and resolve payment disputes.

  The Government have supported the work of the Construction Umbrella Bodies Adjudication Task Group to produce guidance on the Adjudication process for users and adjudicators.

  Miners' Compensation
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent on the coal health compensation schemes; and what percentage of the total has gone to(a) claimants, (b) solicitors and (c) other organisations. [134398]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To date, the total amount spent in respect of the respiratory disease and vibration white finger (VWF) schemes is £2.2 billion. 77 per cent. of the total spent has been paid as compensation to the claimants, 10 per cent. has been paid in solicitors' costs and 13 per cent. to contractors.

  Respiratory disease and vibration white finger

  Percentage

  £ million

  77

  1.694

  10

  220

  13

  286

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners have received a final settlement of less than £200 in compensation for(a) chronic bronchitis emphysema and (b) vibration white finger; and what the average fees paid (i) to solicitors and (ii) for medical examinations have been for processing these claims. [134399]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures are as follows:

  COPD

  VWF

  Settlements of less than £200

  3,162

  10

  Average fee to solicitors

  £2,143

  £465

  Medical assessments: £865 Live respiratory including record collection and lung function testing.

  £571 deceased including record collection.

  Vibration white finger £190 (Live only).

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people will benefit from the latest rise in the national minimum wage in(a) the North West and (b) the UK. [134439]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Based on the Office for National Statistic's Low Pay data for 2002, the DTI estimates that between 180,000 and 220,000 people in the North West can expect to benefit from the increase in minimum wage rates in October 2003; DTI estimates that between 1.3 and 1.6 million people can expect to benefit in the UK as a whole.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122264]

  Ms Hewitt
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service is collected from departments and agencies twice-yearly, in April and-October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2002 were published on 27 February 2003.

  A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is available on the world wide web at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. Copies of these documents are also placed in the Libraries of House.

  More detailed information on the Civil Service is published annually in 'Civil Service Statistics', copies of which are laid in the Libraries of the House. The last edition, based on April 2002 data, was published on 24 July 2003.

  The Cabinet Office publishes information on non-departmental public bodies in its annual publication Public Bodies'. The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. 'Public Bodies 2002' was published in January 2003. Copies of 'Public Bodies' published each year since 1997 are available in the Libraries of House.

  Information on costs cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Unqualified Mechanics
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted into the effect on the motor industry of the number of unqualified mechanics operating within it; and what plans she has to take steps to improve the situation. [133409]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In 2002 the Department carried out a mystery shopping exercise into the car servicing and repair sector following a study of the sector carried out by the OFT in 2000. Both studies showed high consumer detriment and shortfalls in delivering acceptable levels of customer service.
  178W
  A number of DTI-led and joint DTI/DfES skills related initiatives are underway to reduce skills gaps and shortages for the automotive industry as a whole. Sector Skills Councils are being set up to achieve four key goals: reducing skills gaps and shortages; improving productivity, business and public service performance; increasing opportunities to boost the skills and productivity of everyone in the sector's workforce; and improving learning supply, including apprenticeships, HE and national occupational standards. For the automotive industry, SEMTA (for the science, engineering and manufacturing technologies sectors including automotive) and Automotive Skills Ltd. for the automotive retail, servicing and repair sectors will be looking to achieve these goals.

  One of the first tasks of these new bodies will be to undertake a detailed skills audit, which will bring into focus the issue of qualified mechanics within the industry. Linked with SEMTA will be the recently launched Automotive Academy, which will provide a comprehensive range of support to enhance process improvement activities in the automotive manufacturing sector. DTI has committed £15 million over 5 years to support the establishment of the Academy which will kitemark existing courses where these meet the needs of industry and will commission new material where necessary to fill gaps in provision.

  In addition to these initiatives the DTI and industry has developed a new Motor Code for which the main retail trade associations in the UK are seeking Office of Fair Trading approval. This focuses on customer service and provides an opportunity for the industry to show collective responsibility for enhancing its reputation with its customers.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Visitors Centre
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the progress of plans for the establishment of a parliamentary visitors' centre. [134532]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Following two feasibility studies, and wide consultation in both Houses, the Commission is, with the authorities in the House of Lords, now looking at ways of taking forward the development of new visitor facilities.

  Palace of Westminster Art Collection
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many works of art from the Palace of Westminster Collection are(a) public display in the House, (b) on display in the House in areas to which the public do not have regular access, (c) on loan and (d) in storage. [135094]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission is responsible only for matters affecting this House. However, I understand that there are 6,708 works of art in the permanent collections of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, of which
  179W
  approximately 10 per cent. is in storage at any one time. One work is currently on loan from the House of Commons collection.

  There are 417 works of art on display on the route taken by visitor tours, in the committee rooms and committee corridor in the Palace, and in the committee rooms and surrounding areas in Portcullis House. These areas may be visited by unaccompanied members of the public or by members of the public on organised tours. Many works of art are on display in catering facilities or other areas to which the public may have access if accompanied by a passholder. If any member of the public wishes to view a specific work of art from either of the collections, efforts are made to arrange this.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been spent by the Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art on the acquisition of works of art in each year from 1997 to date; and how much has been realised through sales of works of art. [135095]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Expenditure from the House of Commons Administration Estimate since 1997 on acquisitions for the House of Commons collection is shown in the following table:

  £

  1997–98

  50,126.16

  1998–99

  50,138.28

  1999–2000

  49,792.62

  2000–01

  50,001.65

  2001–02

  50,000.00

  2002–03

  86,697.91

  Expenditure from the House of Commons Administration Estimate since 1997 for works of art for Portcullis House is shown in the following table:

  £

  1997–98

  3,778.05

  1998–99

  18,500.00

  1999–2000

  90,711.30

  2000–01

  99,823.80

  2001–02

  96,497.16

  2002–03

  500.00

  There have been no sales of works of art since 1997.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Pregnancy Discrimination
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister for Women what measures are in place to prevent pregnancy discrimination at work. [133470]

  Ms Hewitt
  Discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or maternity is a form of direct discrimination on the ground of sex. The courts have interpreted the Sex Discrimination Act as meaning that discrimination on the ground that a woman is, or might become, pregnant is unlawful. This is reinforced by the amended Equal Treatment Directive published on 5 October 2002, which says that less favourable treatment on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity within the meaning of the Pregnant Workers Directive constitutes sex discrimination.

  In 1999, the Government introduced specific protections to prevent women from suffering detriment and from being unfairly dismissed or selected for redundancy for reasons connected with their pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave. We have also ensured a women has a clear right to return to her job after maternity leave, on the same terms and conditions as if she had not been away.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Licensing Act
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate has been made of the additional cost to local authorities of implementing the Licensing Act 200.3; and how much this will add to the average council tax bill. [134850]

  Mr. Caborn
  There will be no additional cost to local authorities resulting from the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003. Fees will be set by the Secretary of State at a level that will allow the full recovery of all costs relating to their duties under the Act. There will therefore be no additional cost to council-tax payers as a result of the new regime.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  OSIRIS II
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to carry out exercises similar to OSIRIS II in other cities. [134115]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 16 October 2003,Official Report, column 314W.

  Airguns
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with gun trade associations on the(a) sale and (b) criminal use of airguns; and if he will make a statement. [134596]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: We have discussions with the gun trade associations on a range of issues. Most recently we have been discussing the problems which have arisen as a result of criminals converting air weapons which use the self-contained gas cartridge system to fire conventional ammunition. It was not possible to modify these guns to prevent conversion and we have therefore made provision in the current Anti-Social Behaviour Bill for future manufacture, importation, transfer or sale to be prohibited. Existing owners will be able to retain their guns provided they obtain a firearms certificate.

  Car Insurance (Fines)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times in each of the last 10 years the maximum fine for driving without insurance has been imposed by the courts; and in how many cases the fine was paid in full. [133018]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: Information collected centrally in the Home Office Court Proceedings Database shows that for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, the maximum fine of £5,000 (Level 5) has been imposed in England and Wales on seven occasions from 1992 to 2001. Five times in 1996 and twice in 1997.

  An amendment to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.143 has now made using a motor vehicle while uninsured against third party risks a fixed penalty offence from 1 June 2003. Initially, offenders will be subjected to a £200 fixed penalty, which can be increased to a maximum fine of £5,000 if the matter goes to court. Information is not collected centrally on the amount of fines paid by the type of offence.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 14 October 2002, concerning Mr. David Copeland of Brixham; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay. [93883]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]: I replied to the hon. Member on 8 July 2003

  Data Protection
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what redress is available to private citizens(a) whose private activities have been monitored and on (b) whom private data has been collected without their permission by individuals acting on behalf of corporate entities. [133401]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Private individuals whose activities are monitored, or their personal data collected, without their consent by another private individual (whether acting alone or on behalf of a private enterprise) may seek assistance from the police if the conduct of that monitoring has involved, or is suspected of having involved, the commission of a criminal offence.

  Where personal data has been, or is suspected of having been, processed contrary to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, any directly affected person may ask the Information Commissioner to make an assessment. It is open to the Commissioner to take enforcement action if he concludes that the Act has been breached and for individuals to claim compensation through the Courts if damage has been caused as a result of any breach of the Act.

  Where the monitoring has been undertaken by a broadcast organisation the individual may seek redress from the Broadcasting Standards Commission or from the Press Complaints Commission where a member of the press has undertaken the monitoring.

  Domestic Violence
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what nationally accredited programmes are available in prison to address issues related to domestic violence. [134848]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The Prison Service has developed a programme for domestic violence offenders, which it has been piloting in two establishments, and which was accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel in October 2003.

  Drug-related Offences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been imprisoned in each of the last 15 years for offences related to(a) dealing in cannabis and (b) using cannabis; and if he will make a statement. [133902]

  Caroline Flint
  The table shows the number of people sentenced to custody in England and Wales for drugs offences involving cannabis, from 1993 to 2001. Before 1993 offences relating to cannabis were not separately identified.
  183W

  Number of offenders sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for drug offences involving cannabis1,2

  England and Wales 1993 to 2001

  Offence description

  Statute

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Supplying or offering (or being concerned in) to supply a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 4(3)

  315

  362

  457

  628

  650

  Having possession of a controlled drug (cannabis) with intent to supply

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 5(3)

  516

  678

  925

  983

  1,129

  Production or being concerned in production of a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Secs 4(2), 6(2)

  20

  66

  125

  178

  233

  Having possession of a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 5(2), as amended by Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994, Sec 157, Sch 8, part II

  155

  167

  194

  204

  268

  Permitting premises to be used for unlawful purposes (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 8

  9

  7

  21

  17

  18

  Total

  1,015

  1,280

  1,722

  2,010

  2,298

  Offence description

  Statute

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Supplying or offering (or being concerned in) to supply a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 4(3)

  656

  573

  405

  265

  Having possession of a controlled drug (cannabis) with intent to supply

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 5(3)

  1,284

  1,112

  808

  618

  Production or being concerned in production of a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Secs 4(2),6(2)

  216

  206

  156

  126

  Having possession of a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 5(2), as amended by Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994, Sec 157, Sch 8, part II

  410

  451

  361

  290

  Permitting premises to be used for unlawful purposes (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sec 8

  27

  25

  9

  10

  Total

  2,593

  2,367

  1,739

  1,309

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 This relates to drug offences where cannabis can be separately identified.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests of cannabis users were made in each of the last 15 years; what he estimates the cost to police resources was of making these arrests; and if he will make a statement. [133904]

  Caroline Flint
  The data available centrally on arrests for drug offences do not give details of the type of drug for which an individual was arrested, so information on the number of arrests for cannabis offences, together with costs, is not currently available.

  We do have data on the number of persons dealt with for possession of cannabis. This is the closest approximation to the number of arrests. The figures appear in the table.

  The figures are taken from the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin. They are available on the RDS website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/ hosb402.pdf and in the Library.
  184W

  Persons found guilty, cautioned, given a fiscal fine or dealt with by compounding for possession of cannabis by year, 1986 to 2000.

  Number

  1986

  16,640

  1987

  18,800

  1988

  23,230

  1989

  30,030

  1990

  36,090

  1991

  38,460

  1992

  37,440

  1993

  50,710

  1994

  65,100

  1995

  68,600

  1996

  65,100

  1997

  79,090

  1998

  91,150

  1999

  82,130

  2000

  70,310

  Source:

  Home Office Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United
  Kingdom—Supplementary Tables and Findings 202

  Gun Crime
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Dfsepartment what steps the Government is taking to tackle gun crime. [132676]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government are taking a wide range of action to tackle gun crime

  This includes:

  Proposing a mandatory, minimum five-year sentence for those convicted, on indictment, of possessing prohibited firearms;

  Proposing to ban the carrying of replicas or air weapons in a public place without reasonable excuse,

  Proposing to raise the age limit for owning an air weapon from 14 to 17 and restricting their use without adult supervision as 77 per cent. of airgun crimes are criminal damage;

  Proposing a ban on the sale, manufacture and import of tandem air cartridge systems, and the licensing of those already held as they can be readily converted into lethal firearms;

  Publishing a new strategy for witnesses to increase the numbers of people who come forward when they witness a crime;

  The national firearms amnesty, held during April, in which over 43,000 weapons and 1 million rounds of ammunition were handed in.

  Legislation and law enforcement alone cannot solve the problem and it is vital that community groups, local authorities and those involved service provision, including education, engage with us in taking action to deal with this problem. Community groups have therefore been involved in the two national meetings my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has chaired, with a third meeting due to be held on 25 November. We are planning a community engagement event in January, to bring together community activists, representatives of voluntary organisation, law enforcement and policy officials to take forward this dialogue and support community involvement in tackliug gun crime. The Government have also made available £1.5 million of recorded assets receipts to support community involvement.

  We are also working with the Disarm Trust which will support the victims of, and communities working against gun crime.

  The police have established dedicated teams, such as Operation Trident in London and Operation Stealth in Nottingham, working against particular groups of criminals involved in armed violence. Many of these Operations have forged good links with the communities they serve by establishing Independent Advisory Groups, made up of members of the local community.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners released on home detention curfew in the last 12 months have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for breaching the conditions of their licence, broken down by each police force area in England and Wales; and how many of those who were convicted received a custodial sentence. [134382]
  186W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The table shows the number of people recalled from home detention curfew, by reason for recall, in the 12-month period January 2002 to December 2002. This information is not available by police force area.

  Recalls from home detention curfew: January to December 2002

  Number

  Cases not involving new charges—total

  1,247

  Breach of (HDC) conditions

  795

  Installation failure

  2

  Monitoring failure

  9

  Change of circumstances

  383

  Risk of serious harm

  1

  Breach of non-HDC licence conditions

  57

  Cases involving new charges—total

  231

  Breach of HDC conditions

  1

  Inability to monitor

  1

  Risk of serious harm

  0

  Charge with a new offence

  229

  Total

  1,478

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders sentenced to a curfew order in the last 12 months have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for breaching the conditions of the order, broken down by each police force area in England and Wales; and how many of those who were convicted received a custodial sentence. [134383]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The attached table gives the number of persons who were proceeded against at magistrates' courts, found guilty and sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for breach of a curfew order (with or without electronic monitoring), for each police force area in England and Wales 2001

  Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts, found guilty at all courts and sentenced to immediate custody for breach of a curfew order, by police force area, England and Wales 2001

  Police Force Area

  Persons proceeded against at magistrates'courts

  Persons found guilty1 at all courts

  Of which: Sentenced to immediate custody

  Avon and Somerset

  48

  50

  11

  Bedfordshire

  —

  3

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  6

  2

  Cheshire

  13

  10

  3

  Cleveland

  5

  6

  4

  Cumbria

  5

  5

  2

  Derbyshire

  16

  16

  6

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  5

  1

  Dorset

  2

  2

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  1

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  207

  208

  43

  Hampshire

  11

  11

  4

  Hertfordshire

  9

  9

  3

  Humberside

  7

  8

  2

  Kent

  10

  10

  1

  Lancashire

  21

  21

  4

  Leicestershire

  14

  14

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  2

  2

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  81

  84

  17

  Norfolk

  89

  92

  21

  187W

  Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts, found guilty at all courts and sentenced to immediate custody for breach of a curfew order, by police force area, England and Wales 2001

  Police Force Area

  Persons proceeded against at magistrates'courts

  Persons found guilty1 at all courts

  Of which: Sentenced to immediate custody

  Northamptonshire

  4

  4

  1

  Northumbria

  5

  5

  3

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  6

  —

  South Yorkshire

  24

  25

  4

  Staffordshire

  7

  8

  6

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  2

  2

  —

  Sussex

  1

  2

  1

  Thames Valley

  32

  32

  8

  Warwickshire

  3

  3

  2

  West Mercia

  —

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  19

  19

  7

  West Yorkshire

  38

  41

  11

  Wiltshire

  9

  9

  1

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  21

  21

  6

  South Wales

  14

  18

  7

  England and Wales

  736

  761

  185

  1 Number of persons found guilty may exceed number proceeded against because magistrates' court proceedings for breaches dealt with at the Crown Court are not collected centrally and are not therefore included in the figures of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts.

  Inquests
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests due to be held have been outstanding for over five years; and if he will make a statement. [134489]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: This information is not held centrally.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it a requirement on coroners to conduct inquests required of them within two years of a person's death. [134490]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: No. While we encourage coroners to hold inquests as quickly as possible, there will always be some circumstances where it may not be sensible for the inquest to be held within a prescribed period, for example where other relevant legal proceedings are outstanding.

  Prisoners (Revocation of Licence)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were returned to custody owing to a revocation of licence in the last year for which figures are available. [134184]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of prisoners returned to custody due to a revocation of licence for the period 1 April 2002 to 30 March 2003 was 7,849.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) of 15 October 2003,Official Report, column 260W, on terrorism, when
  188W
  section 44 powers were first used in London; on how many occasions and on what dates the powers have been confirmed since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force; and whether the use of section 44 powers relates to specific areas of London or to the whole of the Metropolitan police area. [133966]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Metropolitan police and City of London have authorised the use of stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act since it came into force on 19 February 2001. The powers have been authorised in respect of the whole of each force area since that time in accordance with the statutory procedures.

  The decision to authorise use of the powers is made against the background of the current threat level and the assessment of the risk to any designated or whole force area. Authorisations are only confirmed on a monthly basis if the Secretary of State is satisfied that their use is necessary to prevent acts of terrorism.

  Young Offenders (North Wales)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what secure accommodation provision is in place for young offenders from North Wales. [133980]

  Paul Goggins
  In general, young people from North Wales who have been placed in custody by the courts are accommodated in secure facilities in North West England, although they may sometimes be placed elsewhere depending on the availability of places and other factors.

  Young Offenders from North Wales aged 18-20 are normally allocated. to the following Young Offender Institutions: Stoke Heath in Shropshire (sentenced males), Altcourse in Merseyside (remanded males), and Styal in Cheshire (sentenced and remanded females).

  Responsibility for the commissioning and purchasing of all secure accommodation for juvenile offenders (i.e. for those below the age of 18), and for the placement of juveniles sentenced to a detention and training order, rests with the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. The Board's policy in relation to the placement of juvenile offenders from North Wales is as follows:

  Remanded and sentenced males aged 15 to 17 will normally be placed in Stoke Heath Young Offender's Institute or, if this establishment is full, in Werrington Young Offender's Institute (Stoke-on-Trent) or Hindley Young Offender's Institute (Wigan). Thorn Cross Young Offender's Institute, an open establishment near Warrington, is also available, subject to a proper risk assessment of the individual.

  Males below the age of 15 or those assessed as vulnerable will normally be placed in one of two Secure Training Centres, Rainsbrook in Warwickshire or Hassockfield in Durham, or in a local authority secure community home. The closest of these to North Wales are Barton Moss (Greater Manchester), Dales House (Lancashire), Dyson Hall (Merseyside), Red Bank (Merseyside), Redsands (Cheshire) and Hillside (West Glamorgan).

  Females aged 17 are normally placed in New Hall Young Offender's Institute, near Wakefield. Those aged under 17 are normally placed in either Rainsbrook or Hassockfield Secure Training Centre or one of the local

  189W
  authority secure community homes that accommodate females. Those nearest to North Wales are St. Catherines (Merseyside), Redsands and Hillside

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bribery
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many allegations of bribery of a foreign public official have been received from diplomatic pests overseas since 14 February 2002. [132369]

  Mr. MacShane
  Reports on bribery and corruption overseas are received from time-to-time from diplomatic posts and after validation these are passed on to the appropriate authorities in the UK. Four such reports, specifically related to guidance on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, have been received since 14 February 2002.

  British Missions (USA)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many locally-engaged staff working in British missions in the United States pay cuts have been imposed; what the largest percentage pay cut is; what the average cut is; and what negotiations have taken place on the matter. [135031]

  Mr. MacShane
  No pay cuts have been imposed.

  Burundi
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the peace accord signed in October 2003 by the President of Burundi and Pierre Nkurunziza of the Forces for the Defence of Democracy; what assessment has been made of the viability of the accord; and if he will make a statement. [134432]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK welcomes the signing of the Pretoria protocol on 8 October between the Force pour la Defense de la Democratic (FDD) (Nkurunziza) and the Government of Burundi. This is a positive step towards implementation of the 2 December 2002 ceasefire agreement between the two parties. Further talks to resolve outstanding issues including an implementation timetable, immunity, army integration and registering the FDD as a political party, are due to take place soon. The UK is working with the Government of Burundi and our international partners to ensure momentum is not lost.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) representatives of the UK Government have had with the (i) Government of Rwanda, (ii) Government of Tanzania, (iii) Government of Uganda, (iv) Government of France, (v) governments of other European Union member states, (vi) governments of EU candidate countries and (vii) Government of the United States of America concerning the (A) security situation in and
  190W
  (B) political stability of Burundi; what issues were raised; what actions were agreed on during these meetings; and if he will make a statement. [134433]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK remains active in the Burundi peace process in a range of international fora. The UK maintains a dialogue on Burundi with our EU partners, the Regional Initiative chaired by Ugandan President Museveni, the South African led Facilitation and our key international partners in Burundi.

  Key issues of concern include bringing the Forces Nationales de Liberation (FNL) into the peace negotiations, ensuring the Forces pour la Defense de la Democratic (FDD) and the Government of Burundi honour their ceasefire commitments, supporting the AU peacekeeping force (AMIB), laying the foundations for a sustainable democracy and providing vital humanitarian assistance.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) representatives of the UK Government have had with (i) representatives of the United Nations, (ii) representatives of the European Commission, (iii) representatives of African multilateral organisations and (iv) European and African non-governmental organisations concerning the human rights situation in Burundi; what issues were highlighted during these discussions; what concerns were voiced; what action was (A) formulated and (B) implemented directly addressing those issues and concerns; and if he will make a statement. [134434]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK is in contact with a range of partners on the human rights situation in Burundi including the EU, AU and UN. The UK also maintains a dialogue with national and international human rights NGOs. We are concerned at the impact of the war on the human rights of the civilian population, particularly women and children. The UK is actively working with our international partners in promoting peace in Burundi as the key to protecting their human rights.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the Forces for the National Liberation's absence from the peace talks leading up to the October peace accord in Burundi on the long-term viability of the peace accord; what discussions(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) representatives of the UK Government have had with the Government of Burundi on the inclusion of the Forces for National Liberation in the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [134444]

  Mr. Mullin
  An all-inclusive cease-fire in Burundi is vital for the long-term stability of Burundi. UK officials remain in regular contact with the Government of Burundi on the need to engage the Forces Nationales de Liberation (FNL) in peace negotiations. Most recently, our Ambassador in Kigali raised this issue on 23-24 October with the President and Foreign Minister of Burundi.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the internal conflict in Burundi on the(a) security and (b) stability

  191W
  of border regions in (i) Tanzania, (ii) Rwanda and (iii) the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [134445]

  Mr. Mullin
  The 10-year civil war has had a destabilising effect on neighbouring countries. There are nearly 500,000 Burundi refugees in Tanzania. Some Burundi rebel forces remain in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  The UK is committed to supporting implementation of the Arusha agreement of 2000 and the transitional government institutions in Burundi as an integral part of achieving security and stability in the Great Lakes Region.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the developments in the security situation in(a) Burundi and (b) Rwanda since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [134446]

  Mr. Mullin
  We continually monitor the security situation in Rwanda and Burundi. The Government of Rwanda has made a concerted effort to bring security to the country. In this they have been broadly successful. However, the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi make the border areas potentially dangerous. The security situation in Burundi is unstable. But, there has been a positive development recently in Burundi with the signing of the Pretoria Protocol on 8 October on power sharing between the Force pour la Defence de la Democratic (FDD) (Nkurunziza) and the government of Burundi. Only the Forces Nationales de Liberation (FNL) (Rwasa) lies outside the peace process.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Secretary of State has had about the impact on UK constitutional arrangements of the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [134522]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government believes that there is a strong case for a single, coherent constitution for the European Union. In effect, the existing treaties already make up a constitutional structure. However, they are overly complex and unclear. For this reason, the Government supports redrafting, restructuring and consolidating the treaties.

  The draft Constitution as it stands is not perfect. It contains points which we want to examine in more detail. And we could only accept a final text that made it clear that issues like tax, defence and foreign policy remained the province of the nation State. Provided there is clarity on these points, the reforms proposed by the Convention should be welcomed. They do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the UK and the Union.

  The Government published in September Command Paper 5934, setting out its views on the draft Treaty prepared by the Convention, and its implications. This followed detailed discussion and consideration of the draft, both within Government and, for example, in Parliament itself. Members of Parliament took part in
  192W
  the Convention, and committees of Parliament have issued so far this year over a dozen reports on the Convention text.

  Cyprus
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2003,Official Report, column 336W, on Cyprus, what concerns over the Cyprus settlement negotiations were raised during the most recent EU Working Group on south-east Europe; what decisions were taken to address these concerns; and if he will make a statement. [134428]

  Mr. MacShane
  Member states agreed at the 8 October Working Group that the EU should continue to do all in its power to bring about the conditions necessary for a resumption of talks on the basis of the UN Secretary-General's comprehensive proposals. We continue to share the Secretary-General's judgment about what those conditions are, including the clear demonstration of sufficient political commitment by the parties concerned. The EU has already made a key contribution to the settlement process by signalling its willingness to accommodate the terms of a Cyprus settlement arrived at under UN auspices.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports(a) he, (b) his Department and (c) representatives of the United Kingdom Government have received of incursions of Rwandan troops into the Democratic Republic of the Congo; what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Rwanda concerning these reports; what assurances were (i) requested and (ii) offered during these discussions; and if he will make a statement. [134469]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are aware of continuing reports of incursions of Rwandan troops into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). These reports have been investigated by the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) and found to be unsubstantiated. We discuss such reports with the Government of Rwanda, at both Ministerial and official level. They have assured us their armed forces withdrew from DRC in October 2002, as provided for in the Pretoria Agreement of 30 July 2002, and have not re-entered.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports(a) he, (b) his Department and (c) representatives of the United Kingdom Government have received on the regrouping of Interahamwe militia groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; what assessment his Department has made of the impact on security in the region; and if he will make a statement. [134470]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are aware of reports that Interahamwe militia and ex-Forces Armees Rwandaises (ex-FAR/I) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are regrouping. While these reports are difficult to verify, the ex-FAR/I pose a real threat to the security of Rwanda and the stability of the region as a whole. Their disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration (DDRRR) is crucial to
  193W
  long-term stability. The UN mission in the DRC (MONUC) is mandated to undertake voluntary demobilisation of the ex-FAR/I and other foreign armed groups in DRC and we fully support their efforts. We are encouraged by the recent statement of the Transitional National Government (TNG) in Kinshasa, that the TNG would no longer tolerate the presence on its national territory of the ex-FAR/I. The recent visit to Kinshasa by a high-level Rwandan delegation to discuss how the two countries can work together to help resolve this problem is a further positive sign.

  EU External Action Service
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what budget, and how many staff, are planned for the EU External Action Service, as defined in the Declaration attached to the Draft Constitution. [134310]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Inter Governmental Conference has not yet discussed the issue of the proposed European External Action Service. Firm decisions on the budget and staff numbers will depend on the outcome of the Inter Governmental Conference.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution in(a) money and (b) personnel the UK plans to make to the European External Action Service under the Declaration to the Draft EU Constitution. [134311]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the right lion. Member to the answer I gave to him today (UIN 134310). The United Kingdom contribution to the European External Action Service will depend on the decisions taken on the service's budget and staff.

  EU Working Group on South East Europe
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the EU Working Group on South East Europe last met; where it met; what issues were on the agenda; and if he will make a statement. [134427]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Working Group last met in Brussels on 8 October. Topics discussed included the state of the Cyprus settlement process, political developments in the north of Cyprus, the EU's trade and aid package for the north of Cyprus, education for Greek Cypriots in the north of Cyprus, Turkey's internal situation, Turkey's EU accession course and the Loizidou case.

  The Government are determined to do all they can to achieve peace, prosperity and security in south-east Europe. We believe that a Cyprus settlement on the basis of the Annan plan and Turkey's fulfilment of the requirements for EU membership, followed by Turkish accession to the EU, are fundament al to that goal.

  European Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2003,Official Report, column 332W, on European Agencies, which other countries have bid for the location of European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA); and if he will make a statement. [134424]
  194W
  Mr. MacShane
  Four other countries have bid to host the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA): Portugal, Greece, Italy and France. No agreement on the location of the EMSA is yet in sight.

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long the search in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction will continue. [132313]

  Mr. MacShane
  No time limit has been set for completion of the search. It will continue for as long as it is necessary to satisfy ourselves that no weapons or associated programmes remain in Iraq.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the Consular Assistance Group in recovering a constituent, Mr. Raeid Jewad's, camcorder that was confiscated by US soldiers in Iraq; and what progress has been made to secure Mr. Jewad compensation for the loss of his possession. [132994]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have made inquiries with US military authorities. They have assured us that they are looking into the matter. We shall continue to press them for a formal response.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British personnel are part of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG); who commissioned the ISG report; and if he will make a statement. [133779]

  Mr. Straw
  As at 20 October there were 65 UK personnel under the control of the Iraq Survey Group. The Iraq Survey Group's interim report presented on 2 October was produced on the basis of an understanding by Dr. Kay that a progress report should be produced. There is no formal requirement on the ISG to report according to a particular timetable.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has received the full version of the Iraq Survey Group report; and if he will make a statement. [133780]

  Mr. Straw
  A full copy of the interim report of the Iraq Survey Group was passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time of its presentation.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have both publicly stated the Government's position with regard to the report and the continuing search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

  Malaysian Prime Minister
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the speech by the Malaysian Prime Minister at the opening of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference Summit in Kuala Lumpur on 16 October; what discussions(a) he (b) members of his Department and (c) representatives of the United Kingdom Government have had with (i) members and (ii) representatives of the government of Malaysia regarding this speech; and if he will make a statement. [134431]
  195W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  Dr. Mahathir's comments about Jews in his speech to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference Summit on 16 October were totally unacceptable. I summoned the Malaysian high commissioner on 17 October, and made our position clear. I said it was particularly regrettable that some welcome messages in Dr. Mahathir's speech—such as negotiation as the path to peace, and the futility of terrorism—had been overshadowed by his outburst about Jews.

  On 20 October the British high commissioner in Kuala Lumpur repeated our position to the Secretary General of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary General argued that Dr. Mahathir had made clear repeatedly that he was not anti-Semitic, and that the speech showed his unequivocal opposition to terrorism and the use of violence in Palestine, including suicide bombings.

  The EU Presidency issued a statement on 16 October condemning Dr. Mahathir's remarks on behalf of all member states.

  Pamplona Bull Run
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Spanish Government in respect of the welfare implications of the running of the bulls in Pamplona. [135093]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government takes seriously reports of cruelty to animals. Where appropriate, our Embassies overseas, including our Embassy in Madrid, bring such issues to the attention of the government concerned, and encourages them to adopt acceptable standards of animal welfare. They also convey the strength of public opposition in the UK to the exploitation of animals overseas.

  Passport Renewal (Harare)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost is for renewal of a British passport at the British High Commission in Harare; and what the cost was on(a) 1 January 1997, (b) 1 January 2000 and (c) 1 January 2003. [135030]

  Mr. Mullin
  The fee charged by any British Diplomatic Mission to issue a standard adult passport is currently £56.50. The fee has previously been set at:

  (a) 1 January 1997—£18.00

  (b) 1 January 2000—£49.00

  (c) 1 January 2003—£54.40

  The fee recovered would have been the local currency equivalent of the above sterling amounts.

  Proliferation Security Initiative Group
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) matters were discussed, and (b) decisions were taken, at the meeting of the Proliferation Security Initiative Group of States in early October; what resources are committed in support of this initiative; when future meetings will be held; and if he will make a statement. [133311]
  196W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Chairman's conclusions from the meeting were published on 10 October, and can be found on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at www.fco.gov.uk/internationalsecurity. I refer my hon. Friend also to the written statement that I made to this House on 22 October.

  For the present, work on the initiative is being funded from within existing resources. Any decisions regarding the commitment of additional resources to the initiative will be taken on a case-by-case basis dependent upon future operational requirements. The next meeting of the Proliferation Security Initiative will be held in Portugal early in 2004.

  Rebel Groups (Kenya)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the progress of the discussions between the Sudanese Government and rebel groups in the Kenyan town of Naivasha; what assessment he has made of the likelihood of significant progress in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [134718]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are optimistic about the prospects for peace between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). We assess that there is a good chance of agreement this year or early next year. The latest round of talks adjourned on 26 October for the month of Ramadan. There are outstanding problems which need to be resolved, on power and wealth sharing, the three conflict areas (of Southern Blue Nile, the Nuba Mountains and Abyei) and ceasefire and security issues. Discussion of these issues is expected to resume on 1 December. We are confident that, with the continued commitment of both parties, there will be no barriers to signing a peace deal. On 25 September, the parties signed a Framework Agreement on Security Arrangements during the Interim Period.

  We continue to offer the parties and mediators our full support and advice and remain actively involved in helping them reach a comprehensive peace agreement.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Access to Work Programme
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people with disabilities enrolled in the Access to Work Programme in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years. [133875]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of people with disabilities on the Access to Work programme in each of the last three years is as follows:

  2000–01—495

  2001–02—540

  2002–03—620

  Energy Industry
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 957W, on the energy

  197W
  industry, what mechanisms for reducing energy costs in Northern Ireland are planned to enable a more efficient means of financing energy assets and contracts; and if he will make a statement. [122807]

  Mr. Pearson
  A working group of economists is examining a range of mechanisms, including a legislative low cost borrowing option, for reducing energy costs in Northern Ireland and is due to report shortly. The outcomes of discussions on the consultation papers "Competition and Customer Empowerment" published by the Regulator on 4 March 2003 and -Towards a New Energy Strategy for Northern Ireland", published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on 17 April 2003, will also shape future announcements in this area.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets he has set for the working group set up to examine practical options for reducing energy costs in Northern Ireland; when the working group is due to report; and if he will make a statement. [122808]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to PQ Written No 122807. No targets have been set for the working group which is expected to report shortly.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government will make a decision on the introduction of legislation to reduce the cost of borrowing in the Northern Ireland energy market sector; and if he will make a statement. [122809]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to PQ Written No 122807. A legislative low cost borrowing mechanism is one of the options being examined by the working group of economists which will report to me shortly.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the costs of the Saville Inquiry, broken down by the cost of(a) instructing solicitors, (b) instructing counsel, (c) inquiry accommodation, (d) travel and accommodation for (i) relatives of the victims and (ii) other witnesses and (e) other costs. [129905]

  Mr. Spellar
  Up to end August 2003 the cost of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry was £119.7 million. The cash spend by the Northern Ireland Office on the Inquiry was a total of £94.6 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence advises me that his Department has spent £25.1 million. Breaking these down in the categories requested gives the following figures:

  £000

  NIO

  MOD

  (a) Instructing Solicitors

  24,160

  7,300

  (b) Instructing counsel

  15,630

  15,400

  (c) Inquiry Accommodation

  13,517

  330

  (d) Travel and Accommodation for

  (i) relatives of the victims

  467

  (ii) other witnesses

  32

  44

  (e) Other costs

  1 40,801

  2 2,100

  198W
  1 Figure includes salary costs of Tribunal members (except Lord Saville) and Inquiry staff, IT equipment, expert witnesses, office services and security, telecommunications and other miscellaneous office expenditure.

  2 For the MOD the figure includes Inquiry related staff and support costs, an MOD Police Investigation and other miscellaneous fees and expenses.

  Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

  Vocational Courses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many further education students enrolled in vocational courses in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [133874]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table provides information relating to vocational enrolments in Northern Ireland Further Education Colleges from 1998/99 to 2001/02. The data details all enrolments on vocational courses at levels of study 1-5, over the entire academic year. Full year data has only been collected since 1998/99, and 2001/02 is the most recent year for which this information is available.

  Enrolments

  2001/02

  121,930

  2000/01

  130,744

  1999/2000

  124,219

  1998/99

  117,376

  Note:

  The drop in enrolments for 2001/02 can be attributed to: (i) the reduction in the number of Further Education Colleges from 17 to 16 (following the merger of NIHCC with the University of Ulster) and (ii) changes regarding the re-alignment of vocational/non- vocational computing courses.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the executive agencies that have been established by his Department since 1997; and how much has been spent on(a) staffing and (b) resourcing these agencies. [134851]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Fairtrade Products
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will take steps to encourage more schools to establish Fairtrade tuckshops; and if he will make a statement; [132985]

  (2) what steps he will take to encourage the use of Fairtrade products in school meals. [132986]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Nutritional standards prescribe the types of food that should be available from the four main food groups, but the content of the school meal and what is sold in tuck shops is decided by the LEA or the governing body of a school. However, in the Sustainable Development Action Plan that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched on 23 September, we have made clear the importance we
  199W
  attach to all forms of sustainable food procurement, including fair trade products, and are committed to disseminating good practice.

  Homebuy Scheme
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether eligibility for Key Teacher Homebuy loans will be affected by total family income. [134603]

  Mr. Miliband
  The package of assistance announced by the Secretary of State on 21 October is designed to help retain good teachers within London with the potential to rise to leadership positions within the profession, by enabling them to purchase the types of homes that suit their needs but which may have been beyond their means until now. Although we are still in the process of finalising full details, it is very likely that teachers will only be eligible if their total family income is below a certain level.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Key Teacher Homebuy scheme will be available to teachers in all subjects. [134604]

  Mr. Miliband
  The package of assistance announced by the Secretary of State on 21 October is designed to help retain good teachers within London with the potential to rise to leadership positions within the profession, by enabling them to purchase the types of homes that suit their needs but which may have been beyond their means until now. Although we are still in the process of finalising full details, it is very likely that teachers in any subject will be eligible to apply.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether Key Teacher Homebuy loans will be repayable in the event of teachers(a) taking a sabbatical, (b) taking a period of secondment and (c) moving to employment in (i) an independent school and (ii) an academy in London. [134605]

  Mr. Miliband
  The package of assistance announced by the Secretary of State on 21 October is designed to help retain good teachers within London with the potential to rise to leadership positions within the profession, by enabling them to purchase the types of homes that suit their needs but which may have been beyond their means until now. Eligible teachers will be required to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to working within maintained sector schools (as well as Academies) within London. However, in the case of sabbaticals, secondments and work in the independent sector, periods of up to two years will be permitted before loans become repayable.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether teachers will have to repay equity loans under the Key Teacher Homebuy scheme(a) on retirement, (b) on retiring on grounds of ill-health and (c) when made redundant. [134612]

  Mr. Miliband
  The package of assistance announced by the Secretary of State on 21 October is designed to help retain good teachers within London with the potential to rise to leadership positions within the profession, by enabling them to purchase the types of homes that suit their needs but which may have been 200W
  beyond their means until now. Although details are still to be finalised, we would normally only expect loans to be repaid when a property is sold or if a teacher is no longing teaching in London for more than two years, or if a teacher wishes to own the property outright and chooses to repay the loan.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria he will use to assess a teacher's suitability for an equity loan under his Department's Key Teacher Homebuy Scheme. [134613]

  Mr. Miliband
  The package of assistance announced by the Secretary of State on 21 October is designed to help retain good teachers within London with the potential to rise to leadership positions within the profession, by enabling them to purchase the types of homes that suit their needs but which may have been beyond their means until now. We are currently working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to develop a system that will enable us to be able to identify and prioritise those teachers who might be eligible. We expect to be able to publicise this information before the end of the year.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to encourage the creation of modern apprenticeships in the photographic sector; and if he will make a statement. [133703]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government are firmly committed to their Modern Apprenticeships (MA) programme across all sectors, including the photographic sector in England. We have demonstrated that by first commissioning and then, jointly with the Learning and Skills Council, implementing the recommendations of the Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee. Photography featured in the Modern Apprenticeships TV advertisements last year aimed at young people. Under Sir Roy Gardner a business-led Modern Apprenticeship Task Force is taking a key role in promoting MA to employers and thereby contributing to increased take-up. I n doing so we are able to raise both the quality and expand the number of opportunities available. This action supports the Government's broader aims announced in our Skills Strategy White Paper "21st Century Skills" published recently.

  The Learning and Skills Council in England determines the allocation of MA places for each sector based on local labour market needs. It is working closely with the Connexions Service, the new Sector Skills Councils (SSC) and others to increase demand for places from both young people and employers. While the number of MAs in the photographic industry is currently small, it is planned that Skillset the Trailblazer SSC for the Audio Visual Industries will shortly include Photo-Imaging, offering an exciting opportunity to further develop effective training for the sector. The number of MAs in learning are at the highest level since they were introduced in 1994—at 234,100. Over 750,000 have started since 1997.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many young people in(a) Birkenhead and (b) Wirral have entered (i) an advanced modern apprenticeship and (ii) a foundation modern apprenticeship since the schemes' inception. [134343]
  201W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is not available for the areas requested by my right hon. Friend. However, information is available for old Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) areas and new Learning and Skills Council (LSC) areas. The table below shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in Greater Merseyside Learning and Skills Council (LSC) between the 26 March 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from the inception of the programmes until 25 March 2001 in the four TEC areas that became Dart of Greater Merseyside LSC area.

  Time period

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MA

  Foundation MA

  Inception to March 01

  CEWTEC1

  5,500

  2,500

  Merseyside

  11,900

  8,800

  St. Helens CCTE

  1,800

  1,000

  North & Mid Cheshire1

  5,300

  1,636

  March 01 to July 03

  Greater Merseyside LSC

  4,600

  11,000

  1 Some of the old TEC area became part of Greater Merseyside LSC, but some of the old TEC area also became part of Cheshire and Warrington LSC.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when he will reply to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on 8 September, reference 129229; [133832]

  (2) when he will reply to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on 8 September, reference 129168; [133833]

  (3) when he will reply to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on 8 September, reference 129169. [133834]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given on 20 October.

  School Budgets (Lincolnshire)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools in(a) North Lincolnshire and (b) North East Lincolnshire which ran a deficit budget in the year ending 31 March; and how much each deficit was. [132650]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on those schools with deficits in the financial year 2002–03 will be contained in the outturn statement which all local education authorities are required to publish under section 52 of the School Standards Framework Act 1998. Figures for the year ending 31 March 2003 are not yet available for North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire: I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as they are.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) temporary and (b) permanent exclusions were made by (i) primary, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [133690]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on fixed term exclusions is not yet available centrally. The Department has recently started to collect information from local 202W
  education authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis. However, reliable findings from this data collection exercise are not expected to be available until next year.

  A table showing information requested on permanent exclusions has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  School Setting (West Sussex)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 6 October 2003, Official Report, column 1142W, on school setting, what percentage of maintained schools in West Sussex LEA inspected by Ofsted between 1995 and 2002 in(a) year 7, (b) year 8, (c) year 9, (d) year 10 and (e) year 11 were recorded as set by ability in (i) maths, (ii) English, (iii) science and (iv) modern foreign languages. [135026]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  School Funding
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Kent schools have made recent representations to him about school funding; and what response he has made. [134730]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have received a number of recent representations from Kent schools about education funding issues. In response, we have referred to the Secretary of State's statement on 17 July when he announced the changes we propose to make to restore stability to school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06. We have been working with national partners on the detail of his proposals and the Secretary of State will be announcing the outcome shortly.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the salary costs for each local education authority of(a) all staff, (b) all school staff, (c) school teaching staff and (d) school non-teaching staff were in each year since 1997. [133697]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to his previous question on 30 April 2003,Official Report, column 419W, for the reply. Figures for the year ending 31 March 2003 are not yet available: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further measures he proposes to take to protect school budgets from the effects of the changes to the grant formula. [134673]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, in his statement to the House on 17 July, that in each of the next two years, every local authority will receive an increase in its Formula Grant from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which is at least as large as the increase in its Schools Formula Spending Share (SPSS). He expects to make a further announcement on schools funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06 shortly.
  203W
  Each local authority's provisional Formula Grant and SPSS increases for 2004–05 will be announced as part of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement in mid-November.

  Standard Attainment Tests
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the findings of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority investigation into the Standard Attainment Test at 7, 11 and 14 submitted to the QCA in January 2002. [135020]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) will make the report available before the end of the year and I have asked the Chief Executive of the QCA to write to the hon. Member about this matter.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the income starting point for repayment of student loans by new graduates was in each of the last 10 calendar years. [134505]

  £

  Academic years

  1993/94

  1994/95

  1995/96

  1996/97

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  Mortgage style loans deferment threshold

  13,980

  14,592

  15,204

  15,792

  16,488

  17,784

  18,192

  19,104

  19,728

  21,022

  Income contingent loans repayment threshold

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Teachers' Income Tax
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of teachers who pay income tax at the higher rate. [134342]

  Mr. Miliband
  The amount of income needed for a teacher to become a higher rate tax payer will depend on their own and their family's circumstances. As we do not collect information on teachers' financial and family circumstances we are unable to make a reliable assessment of the number or percentage of teachers paying income tax at the higher rate.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bond Security Scheme
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has carried out to assess the feasibility of launching a bond security scheme for tenants in rented property; and what studies he has received of bond security schemes for tenants in rented property in Australia. [135039]

  Keith Hill
  Cost-benefit assessments of intervention measures were carried out for the consultation on protection of tenancy monies, based on research by the University of York and data from the pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme. In 1998, a review of deposit schemes operating in Canada, New Zealand and Australian states was carried out.
  204W
  Alan Johnson
  There are two types of student loan. Borrowers who started their courses before the 1998/99 Academic Year are liable to repay fixed-term (mortgage-style) loans. Income contingent loans apply to the vast majority of borrowers who entered higher education from the 1998/99 Academic Year.

  Under the mortgage-style loans scheme, a student can apply to defer their loan repayments for a year at a time if their income is not more than 85 per cent. of national average earnings. This deferment threshold is recalculated annually in line with figures published by National Statistics and is currently £21,364 for the year starting 1 September 2003. Any change to the 85 per cent. threshold would require primary legislation and we have no plans to make such a change.

  The threshold for repaying income contingent loans is an annual income of £10,000. Borrowers over this threshold are liable to repay 9 per cent. of their income over £10,000. The repayment scheme came into effect in April 2000. The level of the threshold will rise to £15,000 from April 2005.

  The information requested is provided in the table for both mortgage style and income contingent loans:

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire of 4 June and 22 August. [134511]

  Yvette Cooper
  I replied to the hon. Member on 27 October 2003.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to enable elected members of district councils to view the names of those on the councils' housing waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [134832]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no plans to enable elected members of district councils to view the names of those on the councils' housing waiting lists. There is no legislative provision for such access, and it is difficult to see how it is compatible with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the impact of an additional £50 million per annum investment on housing rents of a local authority owning 25,000 properties, managed by(a) the local authority and (b) an arm's length management organisation. [135198]

  Keith Hill
  There should be no impact on rents on properties managed by either a local authority or an arm's length management organisation provided that the managing organisation is implementing the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals on rent restructuring.

  Council Housing Stock
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Government grants to local councils are affected by whether they have retained control of council housing stock. [133770]

  Keith Hill
  Housing Revenue Account (HRA) subsidy is payable to all housing authorities who retain control of their housing stock, including those who have set up an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) or entered into a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. HRA subsidy entitlement is calculated on the basis of assumed need. An authority that has no housing stock, and has closed its HRA, will not therefore be entitled to HRA subsidy.

  Funding provided to support housing investment by local authorities is based on indices which reflect a range of housing needs including the renovation backlog in the council housing stock. Again, these indices will be adjusted when stock is transferred to a registered social landlord.

  Council Tax
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Band D council tax is for each constituency in England. [134997]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Figures for the average Band D council tax for each parliamentary constituency in England are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This is because the boundaries of most constituencies do not coincide with those of local authorities, and figures are not collected in such a way as to allow reliable estimates for constituency areas to be produced.

  It is possible, however, to provide figures for the average Band D area council tax for 2003–04 for each of the billing authority areas lying partly or wholly within each English parliamentary constituency. A table giving this information is available in the Library of the House.

  Councillors (Tenure)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 20 October 2003,Official Report, column 403W, on councillors (tenure), when he expects to bring forward legislation to extend the tenure of those councillors affected. [134937]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government will shortly be launching a consultation paper on drafts of the relevant Statutory Instruments. It hopes to be able to lay a final draft before the House by the end of this year, and subject to parliamentary approval, make the order by the end of January 2004.

  Family Houses
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many family houses for rent he estimates will be built in the Colchester constituency in the next two years from the funds he has provided for the east of England; [135089]

  (2) how many family houses for rent he estimates will be built in the east of England over the next two years from funds he has allocated. [135090]
  206W
  Keith Hill
  It will be for Regional Housing Board to prioritise the use of resources the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has provided to the east of England amounting to £330 million over two years (2004–05 to 2005–06). Where funding is being provided by the Housing Corporation, registered social landlords (RSLs) will be expected to bid for funds in line with both regional and local priorities, the latter being set by the local authorities.

  At this stage we expect that funding over this period will provide around 5,500 completions of homes in the east of England. These homes will be for rent or for low cost home ownership.

  The Housing Corporation launched their bidding round on 24 October under which they will be allocating the resources for 2004–05 and 2005–06 to RSLs

  Figures at constituency level are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families in the east of England he estimates are living in accommodation of a size below recommended standards. [135091]

  Keith Hill
  There are no recommended standards for occupancy but the "bedroom standard" has been used as a statistical measure of under-occupancy/ overcrowding since the 1970's. Using data from the Survey of English Housing, averaged over the years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 in order to provide a sufficiently large sample, the estimated number of households in overcrowded accommodation (i.e. one or more bedrooms below the standard) in the east of England was 35,000 households or 1.6 per cent. of all households in the region. For the whole of England there were estimated to be 501,000 households i.e. 2.4 per cent.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Mc Walter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps(a) to conserve the green belt in Hertfordshire and (b) to ensure that towns to the north of the M25 retain their distinctive character and are not joined together by ribbon development. [134544]

  Keith Hill
  Hertfordshire is an area with strong housing pressures and very high house prices. Much of the county is covered by green belt. Through the Communities Plan the Government are committed to addressing the housing shortage in the greater south east by ensuring house building rates in existing plans are met and, where appropriate—with a strong emphasis on the growth areas—such rates are increased.

  Government policy is that the essential characteristic of green belts is their permanence, that established boundaries should only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances, and that at the regional level the extent of green belt should at least be retained.

  Notwithstanding the presumption that capacity within urban areas should be used first and the exemplary approach of Hertfordshire county council towards developing urban capacity, we accept that in the Hertfordshire context some limited local releases of green belt are likely to be required. The location of these will be defined through the regional planning and local

  207W
  planning processes. This will not lead to changing the distinctive character of individual towns and will ensure they are not joined by ribbon development.

  Local Elections
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of councils, excluding parish and town councils, are under Labour majority control in England, broken down by region. [134344]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Formula
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the real terms percentage change in(a) local government formula and (b) one-off grant funding was, broken down by (i) spending area and (ii) council, in each year since 1997–98. [133608]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Figures for English local authorities are available in the Library of the House.

  London Bridge Tower
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will make a final decision on the planning application for the London Bridge Tower. [135159]

  Keith Hill
  The Inspector's report is currently under consideration and a decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what public money has been used to support the Millennium Dome since its closure. [133542]

  Keith Hill
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was responsible for maintaining the Dome, and decommissioning its contents, from its closure on 31 December 2000 to end of June 2001. During this period, NMEC incurred expenditure of £8.2 million funded by the Lottery, although partially offset by net income of £3.9 million from the sale of assets following closure.

  English Partnerships (EP) took over responsibility in July 2001, since when it has incurred expenditure of £6.3 million on maintaining the Dome, up to the end of August 2003. EP has also incurred expenditure of £6.7 million on decommissioning the Dome's contents and site preparation for its long-term use, and £7.4 million in connection with the current sale process, from February 2001 to the end of August 2003. £6.7 million was spent by EP on the earlier competition to find a long-term use for the Dome, which began in March 1999 and ended in February 2001. EP has received income, net of VAT, of £0.9 million for events held at the Dome since it became available for such use at the end of 2001, thereby reducing the amount of public money used to support the Dome. The remaining EP expenditure, and their future costs, will be recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will grant local authorities more powers to refuse applications by mobile telephone companies to erect telephone masts; and if he will make a statement. [132819]

  Keith Hill
  On 22 August 2001, the Government significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. There are no plans to change these arrangements at present.

  Park Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce a separate band of council tax for people who live in park homes; and if he will make a statement. [135004]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the concerns about the current width of band A from people who live in lower value dwellings like park homes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that it will have a council tax revaluation in England in 2007 based on 1 April 2005 values and ahead of that will listen to the views of local government and taxpayers about council tax bands. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will decide on any changes to the banding structure nearer to the time of the revaluation.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate park home sites, with particular reference to the purchasing and selling of homes; and if he will make a statement. [135005]

  Keith Hill
  The Select Committee's report on the draft Housing Bill recommended that the Government should commit to introducing new legislation on park homes within the next two years. I cannot pre-empt the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, which will be published next month, nor the contents of the Queen's Speech.

  Planning
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 to include an additional condition to prevent development on grounds of intrusion; and if he will make a statement. [134796]

  Keith Hill
  As part of the planning reform agenda, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is undertaking a review of the permitted development rights granted by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development Rights) Order 1995. A research report commissioned from Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Ltd. (available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website) makes a number of recommendations to address concerns about privacy and overlooking. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be seeking views on these recommendations as part of a wider consultation on possible changes to the Order.

  Planning Legislation (Northern Ireland)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of the planning system in delivering sustainable development in Northern Ireland. [100175]

  Angela Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025, which was formulated by the Northern Ireland Assembly on 20 September 2001, sets new directions to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development in the interests of future generations. The Department of Environment in Northern Ireland has a programme to provide a full suite of Planning Policy Statements by the end of 2005 and complete up-to-date Area Plan coverage by the end of 2006.

  The Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 requires all Planning Policy Statements and Area Plans to be in general conformity with the Regional Development Strategy.

  In Northern Ireland, statutory provisions therefore ensure that the promotion of more sustainable forms of development is embedded in all emerging Planning Policy Statements and Area Plans.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce a statutory Purpose for Planning requirement into Northern Ireland planning legislation based on principles of sustainable development; and if he will make a statement. [100176]

  Angela Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill imposes a statutory duty on persons and bodies responsible for preparing Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents in England and Wales to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

  In Northern Ireland, statutory provisions already require Planning Policy Statements and Area Plans to be in general conformity with the Regional Development Strategy 2025, which was formulated by the Northern Ireland Assembly in September 2001 and sets new directions to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development.

  I can assure you, however, that consideration will be given to the need to include further provision in future planning legislation for Northern Ireland.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on which dates he intends to hold the referenda on the proposed regional assemblies in(a) the North West, (b) the North East and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside; and if he will make a statement. [134403]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No dates have been decided for the referendums on whether to establish elected regional assemblies in the North West, North East and Yorkshire and Humberside regions.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister cannot order referendums until six weeks after he receives the Boundary Committee for England's
  210W
  recommendations on options for restructuring two-tier local government in the regions, planned for 25 May 2004.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the expected cost(a) by region and (b) in Pendle is of the postal ballot in the referendums on regional assemblies. [134611]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information in the Electoral Commission's report "The shape of elections to come" suggests that the direct cost of postal referendums on elected assemblies would be around £1.10 per elector.

  On this basis the cost by region of the elected assembly referendum would be £5.7 million in the north west, £4.1 million in Yorkshire and Humberside and £2.1 million in the north east. These figures assume that everyone eligible to vote returns a ballot paper. In practice costs will depend upon turnout, as this will affect postal and processing costs. There will be some additional costs in those parts of the region which also have a local referendum.

  It is too soon to estimate the costs in Pendle.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his latest estimate is of the cost of holding a referendum on regional government in(a) the north west region and (b) the three northern regions, including the costs of postal ballots. [134661]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information in the Electoral Commission's report "The shape of elections to come" suggests that the direct cost of postal referendums on elected assemblies would be around £1.10 per elector

  On this basis the cost by region of the elected assembly referendum would be £5.7 million in the north west and £11.9 million in the three northern regions.

  These figures assume that everyone eligible to vote returns a ballot paper. In practice costs will depend upon turnout, as this will affect postal and processing costs. There will be some additional costs in those parts of the region which also have a local referendum.

  Regional Housing Boards
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role the regional housing boards will play in ensuring that housing development takes place throughout the South East region. [135006]

  Keith Hill
  The South East Regional Housing Board will encourage local landowners, developers, registered social landlords and local authorities to work even more closely together to ensure that the region delivers the right type of housing development, in the right location, to meet the strategic needs of the region and maximise the level of public funding.

  Starter Homes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many social workers, broken down by local authority area, have benefited from the Starter Home Initiative. [134812]

  Keith Hill
  The priority groups for assistance under the Starter Home Initiative (SH I) are teachers, police, nurses and other essential health workers. A small
  211W
  number of other key workers are being helped, including social workers in some areas. Funding was allocate in 2001 and 2002 based on the bids received, the recruitment and retention difficulties being experience across different areas and the relative cost of housing As at 30 September 2003, 45 social workers have beet helped to purchase homes under the SHI.

  The following table sets out the breakdown by local authority.

  Local Authority

  Number of social workers assisted

  Barnet

  1

  Basingstoke and Deane

  5

  Bexley

  1

  Brighton and Hove

  4

  Bristol

  3

  Broxbourne

  1

  Cambridge

  5

  Chichester

  2

  Ealing

  3

  Eastbourne

  1

  Guildford

  1

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  Harrow

  1

  Hastings

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  Lewes

  1

  Oxford

  1

  Reading

  2

  Reigate and Banstead

  1

  St. Albans

  1

  Southampton

  1

  Watford

  1

  Woking

  1

  Wokingham

  2

  Total

  45

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many public service workers have been assisted by the Starter Home Initiative, broken down by profession. [134813]

  Keith Hill
  As at 30 September 2003, over 4,500 key workers have been helped to purchase homes under the Starter Home Initiative. The following table sets out the breakdown by key worker group.

  Number of key workers helped to purchase homes

  Health workers

  1,961

  Teachers

  1,896

  Police

  571

  Other1

  99

  Total

  4,527

  1 Other key workers being helped under the Starter Home Initiative are social workers, care workers, fire fighters, transport workers, occupational therapists and (from July 2003) prison and probation service staff.

TREASURY

  Bond Payment Schemes
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 6 October 2003,212W
  Official Report, column 1097W, on bond payment schemes, if he will make such an assessment. [135105]

  John Healey
  There are no plans to make such an assessment on bond payment schemes.

  Efficiency Review
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the findings of the Efficiency Review consultation; and what recent discussions he has had with Mr. Peter Gershon, Head of the Office Government Commerce, regarding the progress of the Efficiency Review. [135009]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Review of Efficiency in Public Services is being independently led by Peter Gershon and it is for him to decide when to publish the results of the consultation.

  Discussions with Peter Gershon and his team are held on an ongoing basis as required.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which premier league and football league clubs have reached agreement with Customs and Excise over the last five years to pay off debts of less than their full value; and what the nature was of the agreement in each case. [135085]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise are statutorily debarred from disclosing information relating to the tax affairs of individuals and of public and private sector bodies. Exemption 15 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Homebuy Scheme (Teachers)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances equity loans under the Key Teacher Homebuy Scheme will be treated as a taxable benefit. [134602]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A loan to a teacher, as to any employee, will be a taxable benefit if it is on beneficial terms and made, or arranged, guaranteed or facilitated in any way, by the employer.

  Ports of Entry (Controls)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce container and goods vehicles scanning to detect illegal entry of(a) persons and (b) goods at ports of entry. [134117]

  John Healey
  Mobile freight scanners were introduced by HM Customs and Excise in a phased rollout between November 2000 and April 2003 for the detection of smuggled goods. There are currently 13 Customs scanners deployed at ports around the country.

  The UK Immigration Service (UKIS) currently operates a Gamma Scanner at the port of Dover for the detection of clandestine entrants. The scanner is deployed jointly with Customs and is capable of finding clandestine entrants and goods.
  213W
  A second gamma scanner, owned by UKIS, was loaned to the Belgian Federal Maritime Police in August 2003. It is operated jointly by the Belgian Federal Police and the UK Immigration Service at Zeebrugge and Ostende, and on the approach routes to both ports.

  Royal Forest of Dean College
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Speedwell building at the Royal Forest of Dean College is classified as a charity annex in respect of VAT; and whether its usage qualifies it for zero-rating for VAT. [134200]

  John Healey
  Annexes to buildings constructed by charities for non-business use can be zero-rated in certain circumstances.

  I understand that Customs and Excise are currently discussing the VAT treatment of the Speedwell building with the Royal Forest of Dean College.

  Second World War Debt
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much debt has yet to be repaid to the US by the UK Government in settlement of military equipment provision during World War II. [134817]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for 2001–02, presented to Parliament on 19 December 2002, provides the latest published data on these loans. As at 31 March 2002 principal of $289,985,203 (£203,641,294 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United Sates Government in 1945. A further repayment of principal, amounting to US$66,381,002.61, was made at the end of December 2002, which reduced this figure.

  Proportion of taxes paid by decile groups of ALL households, 2001–02

  Decile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  6th

  7th

  8th

  9th

  Top

  Decile points (equivalised £)

  8,214

  10,356

  12,361

  14,670

  17,179

  19,910

  23,691

  28,469

  37,095

  Proportions of taxes (percentage)

  Income tax

  1

  1

  2

  3

  5

  7

  10

  13

  18

  40

  All taxes (direct and indirect)

  4

  4

  4

  6

  7

  9

  11

  13

  16

  26

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02'.

  VAT
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to raise rates of value added tax. [134417]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave on 15 September 2003,Official Report, column 595W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan)

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  214W
  The new figure for the principal amount outstanding as at 31 March 2003 will be published in the 2002–03 Accounts in December 2003.

  Taxes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the proportion of(a) income tax and (b) taxes paid by each income decile in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [134277]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Laws, dated 28 October 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for an estimate of the proportion of (a) income tax and (b) taxes paid by each income decile in 2002–03. (134277)
  Estimates for 2002–03 are not yet available but the attached table is based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02" produced by the ONS and published on the National Statistics website on October 21st 2003. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons library or from the National Statistics website at http://www. statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. It includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey.
  The table shows estimates of the proportion of total tax paid by households in each income decile group where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. Tax is defined as direct and indirect taxes. Equivalisation is a standard methodology that takes into account the size and composition of households and adjusts their incomes to recognise differing demands on resources.
  The table also shows the equivalised disposable income decile points, which have been calculated separately for each year. For example, the 1st decile point is the income below which one tenth of all households are estimated to lie.

  Work and Pensions how many investigations by the Health and Safety Executive there have been into infections in NHS hospitals in each of the past five years. [132307]

  Mr. Browne
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has investigated the following numbers of reportable infections to staff in NHS hospitals over the last five years:

  1998–99—8

  1999–2000—10

  2000–01—10

  2001–02—3

  2002–0—7.

  215W
  With very few exceptions, infections to patients do not have to be reported to HSE. HSE has investigated some such cases, for example as a result of complaints or outbreaks affecting both staff and patients. The number of these investigations is not readily obtainable, but is likely to be fewer than the above figures.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost to the Exchequer is of the granting of automatic national insurance contribution credits to those aged between 60 and 65 years. [133534]

  Mr. Pond
  These credits were introduced in 1983 to remove the need for many men in the 60 to 65 age-group, whose occupational retirement age was 60, to register as unemployed solely in order to obtain unemployment credits. These automatic credits effectively replaced unemployment credits for the majority of these men. We are unable to estimate the cost because not all people who are awarded these credits need them for benefit purposes.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list contracts for consultancy or work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997 stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [133897]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 27 October 2003.]: The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 and has had no contracts with Bechtel.

  Benefit Payments
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what percentage of(a) child benefit recipients and (b) pensioners have chosen to receive their payments into (i) a normal bank or building society account, (ii) a basic bank account and (iii) a Post Office card account; [134953]

  (2) how many (a) pensioners and (b) child benefit recipients have been contacted regarding the new direct payment arrangements; how many are yet to be contacted; and what deadline the Government have set for contacting these recipients. [135000]

  Mr. Pond
  Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the House of Commons Library, updated every four weeks. It should be noted that for statistical purposes, we cannot differentiate between a current bank account and a basic bank account.

  The huge number of customers involved in the conversion process, some 13 million, means that the changes are being phased in over a two-year period.

  Carers
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to grant(a) the carers' allowance and (b) other financial assistance to carers over 65 years irrespective of other benefit entitlements. [133956]
  216W
  Maria Eagle
  The upper age limit for carer's allowance was abolished with effect from 28 October 2002. The allowance for those over 65 years is subject to the same rules as those which apply when a person below the state pension age is entitled to more than one Social Security benefit.

  Only one benefit at a time can be paid in full for income maintenance. Both state pension and carer's allowance provide a measure of income replacement for individuals who have reached pension age. In these circumstances one benefit has to be adjusted by reference to the other.

  As to other financial assistance, even if carer's allowance is not payable under these rules, a carer entitled to state pension credit will receive the carer premium worth £25.10 a week. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire of 20 August 2003. [134512]

  Maria Eagle
  I regret we have no record of the hon. Member's letter. If he would like to send a further copy, I will arrange for it to be considered urgently.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the arrangements are for piloting new disability living allowance claim forms. [132677]

  Maria Eagle
  On 22 September 2003, we began testing a new, shorter and simpler, postal Disability Living Allowance claim form at Wembley Disability Benefit Centre. We plan to run the test until the end of the calendar year and the findings will be evaluated in the New Year. Before starting the test at Wembley, we communicated widely with local groups representing customers with disabilities, to encourage them to cooperate in the use of the test form and to provide feedback, which will form a valuable part of the evaluation process. No decisions will be taken on further use of the new form until after the test results have been evaluated.

  Job Grant
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who will be able to apply for the job grant; how much it is worth; for how long the grant will be available; and if he will make a statement. [132949]

  Mr. Browne
  The Job Grant is intended to help people manage until they receive their wages when moving from benefits into work and was introduced in April 2001. It is a flat rate one-off payment of 100 payable to people aged 25 and over who have been in receipt of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance continuously for the last 52 weeks and who are moving into work of at least 16 hours a week.
  217W
  From 25 October 2004, the Job Grant will be available to people receiving Job Seekers Allowance aged 25 and over, lone parents, and people of any age receiving Income Support, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance. The amount payable to lone parents and couples with children will be increased to 250. In addition, the qualifying period of benefit receipt will be reduced from the current 52 weeks to 26 weeks. Access has also been extended to partners of eligible benefit recipients who take up work of 24 hours a week or more, which takes the household off benefit. Full details of Job Grant eligibility conditions have been placed in the Library.

  There are no plans to discontinue the Job Grant and we regularly review our package of work incentives, of which Job Grant is an integral part, to ensure that it works effectively to help people moving from benefits into employment.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time workers were employed by Jobcentre Plus in Essex on 1 September. [132633]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Mark Francois, dated 28 October 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of Jobcentre Plus staff employed in Essex. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  In answer to your question, a total of 1,080 full time and 433 part time staff were employed by Jobcentre Plus in Essex on 1 September 2003. This equates to 1,371 full time staff.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will change jobseeker's allowance from a means-tested benefit to one based solely on contributions. [133525]

  Mr. Pond
  Both contribution-based and income-based jobseeker's allowance provide support to people while they are looking for work. We have no plans to change this.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff(a) from his Department and (b) not from his Department work in each local pension advice surgery. [128743]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information surgeries have been set up in partnership with various organisations to provide a service in locations where customers are most comfortable conducting their business with our staff. We do not have this information in the format requested as the staffing varies from area to area, but the usual arrangement is that one member of local service staff from The Pension Service and one person from the partnering organisation run each surgery session. The 218W
  latest data available shows that there are currently 2,650 weekly surgeries in place with an average session time of 1.5 hours per week. Currently, there are 2,795 (whole time equivalent) field staff employed in The Pension Service local service nationally.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pension credit applications to date have elected to pay into(a) post office card accounts, (b) bank accounts and (c) benefit books. [132322]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. From November, it will be possible to provide some information on the number of pension credit awards by method of payment. I will write to the hon. Member when the information requested becomes available and place a copy of my letter in the Library. Key figures on the progress of conversion to direct payment (payment into accounts) are placed in the Library and updated every four weeks.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) his estimate of the number of residents in the Manchester, Gorton constituency who qualify for pension credit and (b) the number in that constituency who have so far applied for that credit is. [134222]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. As at May 2003, the number of Minimum Income Guarantee recipients in Manchester Gorton was around 4,400. These are the latest figures available.

  We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of applications.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Government Office Region/Parliamentary Constituency is assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  4. MIG recipients are defined as Income Support benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether, when submitting a pension credit claim form, an individual has to provide details of a capital sum expected to be received in future. [134411]

  Malcolm Wicks
  On applying for Pension Credit from age 65, pensioners are asked about any changes they expect to their pension income, annuities and capital over the next 12 months. If they expect to receive a lump sum payment during this period, for example, but the amount is not yet known, their award may be fixed for reassessment at the date of the expected change. If a change is expected in more than 12 months, their assessment will be fixed for the full five-year period allowed, during which time any increases in capital will be ignored.
  219W
  Pensioners aged 60 and over but under 65 will not have an assessed income period set. This means that changes in circumstances will need to be declared as and when they occur in the same way as was the case under the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners are receiving pension credit in(a) Chorley, (b) the North West and (c) the UK. [134441]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. As at May 2003, the number of Minimum Income Guarantee recipients in Chorley was around 2700, in the North West was 248,600 and in Great Britain was 1,778,100. These are the latest figures available.

  We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of applications.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Government Office Region/Parliamentary Constituency is assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  4. MIG recipients are defined as Income Support benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations the Government has received about the collection of a pension by a third party under the direct payment arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [133355]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The Department regularly consults with a range of Specific Interest Groups, including Age Concern, Citizens Advice and Help the Aged to discuss issues surrounding Direct Payment.

  We are committed to ensuring that all people have reasonable access to their benefits and pensions, including the collection of benefits and pensions by a third party.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 18 September 2003,Official Report, column 915W, on pension investment, what public education campaigns the Department has undertaken aimed at those aged 25 to 34 about the benefits of property vis-a-vis other savings products. [135037]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None.

  Pulling Together
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been spent on the Pulling Together programme within the Department, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [133498]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.
  220W
  Letter from David Anderson to Paul Holmes, dated 28 October 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the amount of money spent on the Pulling Together programme. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Pulling Together programme is a highly successful initiative, unique to Jobcentre Plus within the Department. It was launched in April 2002 with the formation of Jobcentre Plus which combined two distinct businesses; the Employment Service and the working age parts of the Benefits Agency. This involved bringing together around 80,000 staff, almost 1,000 Jobcentres, over 400 social security offices and many different jobs and roles whilst simultaneously introducing an entirely new way of doing business.
  We introduced Pulling Together to support all our staff through this period of great business change, cementing the new organisation together through harnessing the ideas and energy of our staff. The response was enthusiastic and activities spanned a broad range from estates work to improve offices for both customers and staff, to putting active labour market information points in social security offices, to instigating a new recognition award and many, many more.

  The amount spent on the Pulling Together programme, broken down by region, including the amount allocated for this year is shown in the table:

  Region/country

  Total

  North West

  2,240,000

  North East

  1,040,000

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  1,540,000

  East Midlands

  1,040,000

  East of England

  1,040,000

  West Midlands

  1,390,000

  South East

  1,240,000

  South West

  1,090,000

  London

  2,290,000

  Wales

  1,140,000

  Scotland

  1,890,000

  Pulling Together central team

  860,000

  Total

  16,800,000

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Financial Management and Control Division
  The largest portion of this spend was incurred last year in the setting up of new processes and different ways of working that had to happen in order for us to deliver our new business in the most customer focused and joined-up way possible.
  I hope this is helpful.

HEALTH

  Audiology
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government is taking to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against in accessing mainstream primary and secondary health care. [134940]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Action the Government are taking to help eliminate discrimination in all its forms from health services, which includes discrimination against deaf people, includes:The NHS Plan, which commits the Department to ensuring that public services are equitable and accessible for disabled people.

  221W
  The Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions are co-operating on the draft Disability Bill, which will mean a significant extension of rights fix disabled people in the United Kingdom.
  The Department is working on a partnership framework for action on disability with the Disability Rights Commission. This will help ensure that the national health service and social care are ready to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act physical access duties from 2004.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives he is giving to health trusts to ensure that deaf people are able to(a) express their consent to treatment and (b) make meaningful treatment choices. [134944]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Health trusts are expected to make suitable provision to ensure that all patients who cannot easily access spoken English, including those who are deaf, are enabled to make informed consent to treatment and to make meaningful choices.

  It is not considered that trusts need incentives to do this but, to encourage services to become more equitable and responsive, the Department is currently undertaking a national consultation, called 'Choice, Responsiveness and Equity', which will improve patient and user experience and build new partnerships between those who use health and social care and those who work in them.

  Children's Trusts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those authorities taking part in pilot schemes for children's trusts; when the pilots(a) start and (b) finish; and what the procedure for (i) reporting on the pilots and (ii) influencing future legislation is. [134778]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The following authorities are children's trust pathfinders: Barnsley, Bexley, Blackburn with Darwen, Bolton, Brighton and Hove, Calderdale, Cambridgeshire, City of York, Croydon, Darlington, Devon, Ealing, East Yorkshire, Essex, Gateshead, Greenwich, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Leicester, Newcastle, North Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Portsmouth, Redbridge, Sandwell, Sheffield, Solihull, South Tyneside, Sutton, Telford and Wrekin, Tower Hamlets, Trafford, West Sussex and Wokingham.

  The children's trust pathfinders were announced on 10 July 2003 and will run for three years as pathfinders. They will be independently evaluated over the three years and reports will be made during that period. Information from the pathfinders, including evaluation reports and the work of the national network will identify issues for any future legislation.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of GP practices in the United Kingdom that have registered children as temporary rather than permanent patients to avoid losing funding if they have a certain percentage of children registered who are not immunised. [134853]
  222W
  Mr. Hutton
  Everyone, including children, has the right to be registered with a general practitioner for free national health service treatment. We have no estimate of the numbers of GPs who de-register children from their patient lists in order to exclude them from the calculation of target payments for childhood immunisations. The General Medical Council and the profession itself opposes such actions and the Government expects primary care trusts to investigate any such cases.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 20 October 2003,Official Report, column 463W, on housing benefit, whether (a) his Department has responsibility for the implementation of the Care Standards Act 2000, (b) his Department has responsibility for the National Care Standards Commission that inspects and registers accommodation under the Care Standards Act 2000, (c) the form of registration applied under the Act has a direct bearing on whether residents are eligible for housing benefit and (d) his Department will liaise with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that people with learning disabilities capable of holding individual tenancies do not lose their entitlement to housing benefit as a result of the registration process. [135098]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has responsibility for the implementation of the Care Standards Act 2000.

  There was no intention through the Care Standards Act 2000 to widen the scope of regulation to new types of accommodation that had not previously been required to register as care homes under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Supported housing type establishments which did not need to register as care homes under the previous regulatory arrangements should not, therefore, need to register now.

  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) was established under the Act as part of the Government's reforms to modernise the regulatory system for care services and independent healthcare. The NCSC is an independent, non-departmental public body, acting at arm's length from the Department. It regulates statutory and independent sector care services in accordance with the regulations and national minimum standards that flow from the Care Standards Act, to ensure consistency and improve the quality of life and level of protection of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

  The interpretation and implementation of the regulations and standards is a matter for the NCSC, as the independent regulator, based on appropriate legal advice. It is for the NCSC, as the regulator, to satisfy itself that care home providers have complied with the regulations to ensure that care home residents' health, welfare and well-being are being protected. Providers have a right of appeal to the independent Care Standards Tribunal against the decisions of the regulator.

  It is, therefore, for the NCSC to decide whether a particular establishment needs to register as a care home. Statutory guidance was issued to the NCSC in

  223W
  August 2002, explaining in broad terms where registration as a care home is required and how to distinguish care homes from supported housing of various kinds. Providers have a right of appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal against the decisions of the NCSC.

  The Department of Work and Pensions has overall responsibility for the scope and structure of the housing benefit scheme. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Pond), gave to him on 21 October 2003, Official Report, column 512W. We are aware that, in some cases, problems have arisen at a local level. The Department is liaising with the Department of Work and Pensions about these cases.

  Nursing Homes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the powers used by the Government on which it bases the system for the payment of the nursing element of a patient's nursing home fees. [134218]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Health Service has a general duty under section 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to provide nursing services to such extent as it considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements. This duty has been delegated by the Secretary of State to primary care trusts (PCTs) pursuant to section 16B of the 1977 Act and section 17 of the same Act gives the Secretary of State the power to direct a PCT about the exercise of those functions. The National Health Service (Nursing Care in Residential Accommodation) (England) Directions 2001 directed the NHS to provide nursing care for all care home residents, where nursing care had the same meaning as in section 49(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. PCTs are required to follow these Directions and guidance has been issued to PCTs about the practical operation of the system

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance on the funding of nursing care in residential and nursing homes following the Coughlan case. [134219]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Guidance on the provision of National Health Service-funded nursing care in nursing homes, Guidance on NHS funded nursing care, was published on 12 March 2003. Guidance on the issues raised by the Coughlan judgement, Continuing care: NHS and Local Councils' responsibilities, was issued on 28 June 2001. There are no current plans to issue new guidance.

  Radiotherapy
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received about average waiting times for radiotherapy treatment; [134640]

  (2) what recent representations he has received about shortages of (a) radiographers and (b) radiologists; and if he will make a statement. [134641]
  224W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has received representations from the Royal College of Radiologists, the Society of Radiographers and others about waiting times and staff shortages in radiotherapy. We are working with the Society of Radiographers and the Royal College of Radiologists to look at all ways of increasing the radiotherapy work force. We have increased the number of therapy radiographers by 10 per cent. since 1997 and to ensure future growth, we have more than doubled, by 111 per cent., the number of training places at universities. We are also extending the careers of radiotherapy staff through new ways of working, which will allow staff to develop and extend their roles in the profession. We have also increased the number of clinical oncologists by 28 per cent., with numbers set to rise further.

  We are also making improvements in radiotherapy services by investment in replacement and additional radiotherapy equipment and streamlining and re-designing care processes through the cancer services collaborative.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS speech and language therapy staff have been employed in each of the last seven years. [135167]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Between September 1997 and 2002, the number of qualified speech and language therapists employed in the national health service has increased by 1,089 or 22 per cent

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified speech and language therapy staff in England as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalents

  1996

  4,705

  3,585

  1997

  4,871

  3,742

  1998

  5,031

  3,831

  1999

  5,185

  3,939

  2000

  5,430

  4,066

  2001

  5,685

  4,207

  2002

  5,960

  4,365

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the vacancy rates for speech and language staff, broken down by primary care trust area. [135168]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the rate of vacancies lasting three months or more for speech and language therapists for each primary care trust organisation has been placed in the Library. As at March 2003, the three-month vacancy rate in England was 3.2 per cent., a fall from 5.2 per cent. in the previous year.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours per child subject is spent on average a year by speech and language therapists. [135169]
  225W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not collected centrally which would enable an estimate to be made. Time spent will vary widely between different children, depending on their clinical needs.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in England are receiving therapy from NHS speech and language professionals in England, broken down by primary care trust area. [135170]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the numbers of children receiving therapy is not collected centrally.226W
  Information on initial contacts, to new episodes of care, is available for the age group 0–15 years, but is broken down by provider, not by primary care trust area.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech and language therapy sessions there were on average per week for each NHS patient receiving such treatment in each of the past five years. [134855]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  The Standards Board for England
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)
  I have today laid the Standards Board for England's Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03.

  The Report and Accounts cover the first year of significant operations by the Standards Board for England. At the end of March 2003, 2,948 allegations of misconduct had been referred to the Standards Board since the introduction of the Code of Conduct in May 2002.

  As the Annual Report shows, the Board is continuing to work in partnership with local government to promote and sustain the high standards of conduct which are essential to public confidence in our local democracy.

  Copies of the Report are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Electoral Pilot Schemes
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government are looking at many ways, including all-postal ballots and e-voting, to modernise our electoral system and to increase the opportunities that people have to vote. To test the robustness of the new options and to build public confidence in them, we have undertaken an extensive programme of pilot innovations at local elections. This is why we are promoting legislation to permit further pilots to be held in a number of regions at the European Parliament and combined local elections in June 2004.

  Our focus over the forthcoming months will be on working to ensure that pilots held at the combined elections are successful in delivering elections that are more straightforward and accessible for all electors. As a result, we are currently not minded to approve applications for by-election pilots for the period from 1 April 2004 until 1 August 2004.

  Outside that period, our general approach on local authority by-election pilots is that while we will consider, as legislation requires us to do, all applications for pilots at by-elections, we are minded normally to approve such applications only if the proposals are consistent with the recommendations of the Electoral Commission as set out in "The Shape of Elections to Come".

TREASURY

  United Kingdom Listing Authority
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Financial Services Authority, acting in its role as the competent authority for listing, is referred to as the United Kingdom Listing Authority. Every year, the operational objectives of the UKLA are discussed with the Treasury. The annual objectives for 2003–04, which the Treasury has endorsed, will be placed in the Library, and also put on the Treasury website.

  Child Trust Fund
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Government are today publishing their detailed proposals for the Child Trust Fund. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Compensation Agency
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The Compensation Agency will publish today its Corporate Plan for 2003 to 2006 and Business Plan for 2003 to 2004. I have set the Agency the following Key Performance Targets for 2003 to 2004:

  Claims under the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977

  Maintain average time taken to reach decisions at 19 weeks for claims received from 1 April 2003;

  Reduce by 85 per cent. the number of claims in hand at 31 March 2003 on which no decision has been reached; and

  Process claims under the Criminal Damage and Terrorism Act schemes at a combined average unit cost of £140.

  Claims under the Terrorism Act 2000

  Reach decisions on claims in 53 days for claims received from 1 April 2003;

  Reduce by 85 per cent. the number of claims in hand at 31 March 2003 on which no decision has been reached; and

  *Process claims under the Criminal Damage and Terrorism Act schemes at the combined average unit cost of £140.

  *This unit cost target relates to claims under the Criminal Damage and Terrorism Act schemes. The work involved in processing these claims is carried out in a single organisational unit within the agency so the efficiency of this element of the agency's operations is measured by reference to a combined unit cost target.

  Claims under Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988

  Reduce by 45 per cent. the number of claims in hand at 31 March 2003; and

  Reach a decision on 50 per cent. of undecided criminal injuries claims in hand at 31 March 2003.

  Claims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (Tariff)

  To decide 45 per cent. of all applications within 12 months of receiving the application.

  To reach decisions on applications at an average unit cost of £290.

  7WS
  Compliance with Legislation/Standards of Adjudication—All Schemes
  That the agency's standards of adjudication are appropriate which will be confirmed by the Department's internal audit branch through random sampling of claims.

  Value for Money—All Schemes
  Manage the workload in 2003–04 within a running costs budget (to cover salaries and administrative expenditure) to financial limits agreed with the Department (including in-year adjustments).

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  HQ 3 (UK) Division continues to command the multinational division (South-East) (MND(SE)) in Iraq, with contributions from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Romania.

  We have begun a process of roulement of United Kingdom Forces, which involves the incremental replacement of HQ 3 (UK) Division with a composite HQ MND(SE), the replacement of 19 Mechanised Brigade with 20 Armoured Brigade the replacement of HQ 101 Logistic Brigade with a composite HQ UK National Support Element (NSE), the roulement of the combat service support units that will make up the UK NSE, and the mobilisation of around 1,000 reservists. We expect the maritime and air elements of our presence in theatre to remain broadly stable.

  A number of adjustments to our force levels in Iraq were made over the summer. Some of these were relatively minor, such as the withdrawal of around 30 armoured engineers and the short-term deployment of around 30 personnel from 23 Pioneer Regiment Royal Logistic Corps to undertake building and construction tasks around Shabah Logistics Base.

  On a larger scale, we also deployed the 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry (2LI) and the 1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets (1RGJ), to conduct a number of additional security and training tasks and provide MND(SE) with the flexibility and capacity to carry out surge operations designed to counter crime and enhance security. A recent major operation in MND(SE), OPERATION SWEENEY, has resulted in 291 arrests, the seizure of six weapons caches, and the interception of 57 vessels and 58 vehicles involved in criminal activity.

  Some of the additional requirements for which 2LI and 1RGJ deployed are now being reduced or progressively transferred to Iraqi security forces. But some other requirements will continue over the next few months, including the provision of training for the new Iraqi Civil Defence Corps. In overall terms, we assess that these continuing requirements can be met by approximately one battalion rather than two. When 2LI and 1 RGJ are withdrawn from theatre in November and December they will therefore be replaced by the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment (2 PARA). We envisage that 2 PARA will deploy from early November.
  8WS
  In addition to adjustments to force levels, we have also deployed further equipment to theatre, including over 200 armoured Land Rovers, three Puma helicopters and three Gazelle helicopters. Taken together, these enhancements provide MND(SE) with greater mobility, force protection and surveillance capabilities, increasing the flexibility and effectiveness of the force.

  We will continue to keep the size and mix of forces in theatre under close review, and we expect to make further adjustments as a matter of routine to ensure that MND(SE) have appropriate capabilities for the tasks in hand. This is likely to include temporary increases in force levels when appropriate, to provide the General Officer Commanding MND(SE) with additional tactical flexibility and help ensure that progress and momentum are maintained and where possible accelerated. To facilitate this process we intend as a matter of course to nominate two battalions as over-the-horizon operational reserves for Iraq.

  Skill Force
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Skill Force is a nationwide Ministry of Defence originated and Department for Education and Skills supported youth initiative to reengage disaffected 14 to 16 year-olds with mainstream education. There are currently 23 teams operating in around 100 schools with 3,000 participants. Pupils drop two GCSE options in favour of a more vocationally based education. Skill Force mainly uses former military Instructors, who have recently left the armed services to deliver a wide range of Key Skill-based subjects to young people who are in danger of becoming disaffected with the formal academic education system.

  Evaluation of the first 12 schemes showed that Skill Force had been very successful in reducing truancy and exclusions by around 80 per cent. and had had a positive impact upon behaviour. As a consequence, DfES has helped to fund a further 11 schemes, which have been operating for a year as part of the behaviour improvement programme.

  The Institute of Education, London University, has recently conducted an independent and comprehensive evaluation of Skill Force. The report concluded that:
  "Overall, Skill Force is an extremely well managed programme which provides a unique service to schools. It has been successful in meeting the needs of many disaffected students, improving their motivation, confidence, communication and social skills. It has reduced exclusions, improved behaviour, attendance, attitudes towards education and attainment and also provided students with a range of practical, vocational qualifications. It offers excellent value for money. The comments from students and parents provided in this report are a testament to the opportunities it offers. Perhaps more importantly it has the support of school management. The ethos of Skill Force is positive, 'can do' and focused on problem solving. The challenges outlined above will be tackled with enthusiasm and solutions found."

  I am today placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House. We are currently assessing, with the Connexions Service, the impact that Skill Force has had upon participants entering employment, training and

  9WS
  education on leaving secondary school in July 2003 at the end of the initial two year course. The Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education and Skills will continue to work together on the longer term future of Skill Force.

  Veterans Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I have set the following Key Targets for the Chief Executive of the Veterans Agency for 2003–04. They are as follows:

  SERVICE
  Key Target 1: To reduce the average time it takes to issue decisions on claims to war pensions to no more than 63 working days. This is an improvement of 19 working days on the 2002–03 target; and it represents a cumulative improvement of 37 per cent. against the 2000–01 baseline level of 100 working days.
  Key Target 2: To reduce the average time it takes to issue decisions on war widows claims to no more than 23 working days. This is an improvement of 11 working days on the 2002–03 target; and it represents a cumulative improvement of 36 per cent. against the 2000–01 baseline level of 36 working days.
  Key Target 3: To achieve an externally validated claims accuracy rate of at least 97 per cent.

  PERSONNEL
  Key Target 4: To carry out an externally validated programme of internal Investors in People assessments during 2003–04 to determine whether the Agency continues to meet the requirements of the IiP standards.

  WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP
  Key Target 5: To work with the Department for Constitutional Affairs Court Service to reduce the average time it takes an appeal to pass through the war pensions appeals process. By 31 March 2004 the average time should reduce to no more than 250 working days. This is an improvement of 60 working days on the 2002–03 target; and it represents a cumulative improvement of 56 per cent. against the 2000–01 baseline level of 565 working days.

  EFFICIENCY
  Key Target 6: To use the Agency output costing methodology developed in 2002–03 to help identify and generate such administrative efficiencies and other savings as will enable the agency to operate within a 2003–04 running cost baseline figure that is 3 per cent. less than its resource departmental expenditure limit for that year.

  SKYNET 5
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  We announced in February 2002 that the British-based consortium Paradigm Secure Communications had been selected as preferred bidder to supply the SKYNET 5 satellite communications service to the MOD under the Private Finance Initiative.

  I am pleased to announce that last Friday contract negotiations were successfully concluded and that the SKYNET 5 PFI contract, the biggest yet placed by the MOD, has been enacted.

  The full value of the contract, which is planned to run until 2018, is expected to be around £2.5 billion and Paradigm expect it to create or sustain up to 1,900 jobs across the UK at its peak.
  10WS
  The MOD is getting this service at a significant value for money advantage compared to the costs that would have been associated with a more traditional procurement route.

  The move to a PFI approach and accompanying fresh and innovative thinking has resulted in substantial savings. SKYNET 5 is within budget and remains on target to achieve initial provision of new services from 2005. It is a clear example of how we are getting better military capability and better value for money by using Smart Acquisition principles.

  This deal will provide the MOD with a number of benefits, including transfer to risk to the contractor. SKYNET 5 will also provide a greatly improved service with regular technology upgrades, and the flexibility to cope with the growth in military satellite communications requirements we expect over the next few years.

  The events of 11 September 2001 provided us all with a timely reminder to make sure that our key military communication and information systems have the necessary resilience to ensure business continuity. SKYNET 5 services will provide this assurance under almost any conceivable scenarios.

TRANSPORT

  Disability Discrimination Act (Taxis)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Government will today announce their proposals for implementing the taxi provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. This will allow us to set standards for wheelchair access and a rang. of other features to help disabled people use taxis. We intend to vary the application of the regulations to target first those areas where we believe accessible taxis will make the biggest impact in meeting the needs of disabled people and where additional cost will not have a major effect. We are calling these first phase authorities and propose to introduce the Regulations in these areas over a 10-year period from 2010–20.

  Authorities within the first phase have been identified and each meet one or more of the following criteria:

  A licensing authority population of at least 120,000 people;

  A major transport interchange;

  A major tourist attraction; or

  An existing mandatory policy resulting in 100 per cent. accessible vehicles.

  A list of those authorities that are currently included will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Licensing authorities outside of this first phase would not be subject to the regulations in the first instance. We would instead issue voluntary guidance to these authorities on establishing an appropriate mix of vehicles and on design parameters that they should be considering. We would also monitor the introduction of accessible vehicles in these areas to determine whether the guidance is effective. A view would then be taken on the necessity of extending the regulations to these areas.
  11WS
  The proposals, which apply to England and Wales only, will be the subject of a full public consultation process in due course. Scotland and Northern Ireland will be holding their own separate consultation processes.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Judicial Appointments Annual Report for 2002–2003—10–28
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The judicial appointments annual report, covering the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, is published today. This year's report shows that:Six hundred and ninety seven appointments were made in 2002–03 from 3,449 applications.
  Appointments of minority ethnic candidates rose from 7.8 per cent. in 2001–02 to 8.9 per cent. (this includes lay appointments) and is more than double the 1999–2000 figure which was 4.2 per cent.
  Women accounted for 31 per cent. of appointments and although this was a decrease of 3 per cent. compared with 2001–02, the figure remains significantly higher than it was five years ago when the first report was published.
  The pilot Assessment Centre in October/November for the Deputy District Judge (Civil and Magistrates) competitions and the Deputy Queen's Bench Master competition was a success. The Commissioner for Judicial Appointments' audit of the pilot was very positive.

  The report also explains other recent action on equal opportunities.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the Department's website at http://www.dca.gov.uk./

WORK AND PENSIONS

  EU Pensions Directive
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  Copies of the Government's consultation document on the implementation of the European Directive (2003/41/ EC) on Institutions for Occupational Retirement Pensions have today been placed in the Library. Copies of the consultation and the Directive are also available on the Department for Work and Pensions' website at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/resourcecentre/consultation_papers.asp

  The Directive supports the Government's plans for reform of the UK pensions system, as outlined in the recent Green Paper Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement (Cm 5677) and the Government's response, Action on Occupational Pensions (Cm 5835).

  It sets up a common framework across Europe for the operation and supervision of institutions providing occupational retirement pensions. It allows pension schemes established in one EU Member State to be sponsored by employers in another Member State, enabling the establishment of cross-border pension schemes.

  The consultation being undertaken builds upon the extensive pensions consultation carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions over the last year. It focuses upon implementation of those areas of the Directive which have not been covered in the earlier consultations.

  The consultation period will close on 23 December.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Zimbabwe: UK Policy
2.36 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House and at the request of my noble friend Lord Blaker who is indisposed, I beg leave to put the Question in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what recent changes there have been in their policy towards Zimbabwe.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, our policy towards Zimbabwe has not changed. We want a democratically accountable government who respect human rights and the rule of law. We are working with our EU and Commonwealth partners and other countries in southern Africa to bring that about, while providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe. Last week, the United Kingdom contributed a further £5 million to the United Nations World Food Programme's emergency appeal for food aid for Zimbabwe. That brings to £62 million our total of humanitarian assistance to that country since September 2001.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. What protests have Her Majesty's Government sought to make, and in what form, at the most recent arrest of the directors of the Daily News as part of a programme of suppressing free speech in Zimbabwe? what protests are to be made at the evidence from the Human Rights Watch report that food is being used for political ends and that the Grain Marketing Board is rotten through and through, distorting the distribution of food? Finally, is there any truth in the report that Mr Mugabe has been taken ill and flown to South Africa and that Mr Mnangagwa has taken over or is about to take over in his place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have made it clear: the Foreign Secretary has issued two statements condemning the Government of Zimbabwe's attack on the free and independent media. As your Lordships may know, after a six-week ban, the administrative court ruled in favour of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe on 24th October. The following day, the Daily News was published with the headline, "We Are Back". Sadly, on 26th October, 18 Daily News employees were arrested. Yes, the Foreign Secretary has made a protest.
128
In relation to the diversion of food, alluded to by the noble Lord, the World Food Programme has raised that issue. On the question about the health of the President, Robert Mugabe, a foreign affairs spokesperson— Mr Ronnie Mamoepa—has denied the report. He has emphasised that the Government and High Commission of Zimbabwe are in a better position than the media to know whether Mr Mugabe is in the country. I understand that the Zimbabwean Government therefore deny the reports in circulation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are there not grounds for thinking that time is at last running out for Mugabe, even though reports of his ill health, unfortunately, are exaggerated? Does the noble Baroness think that the United Nations should be developing contingency plans for a massive increase in aid should there be a transitional government which we could support and which would lead to free and fair elections?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we have hoped for a considerable period that time is running out for Mr Mugabe. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I hope time is running out because the people of Zimbabwe want to see the back of a truly terrible leader, but not necessarily through any illness that Mr Mugabe is suffering. However, perhaps my feelings on that point are not quite as nice as that.
As regards the other point raised by the noble Lord, we have tried to obtain consensus in the United Nations around the issue. As the noble Lord will concede, we have found it very difficult to do so. When we last tried, five members of the Security Council voted for a no-action Motion. If we thought that we could obtain consensus, we would again be pressing on that issue. It is to be hoped that the latest developments—certainly the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his noble friend's Question about the clamp-down on the media—will concentrate minds.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that such is the collapse of the structures of good order in Zimbabwe that we are into a moment of the naked abuse of power? The effect of that is corrupting on all institutions and, if I dare say so, even on some of the leadership of the Churches in Zimbabwe at present. Given the Prime Minister's priority for Africa in this Parliament, what plans have the Government and our international partners in place for the situation when the present regime in Zimbabwe collapses and we face the possibility of a new order?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, throughout the whole unhappy episode, we have tried to keep our lines open to the Opposition in Zimbabwe. But the noble Lord will be aware of the difficulties suffered by Mr Tsvangirai and the trial. We have also kept our lines open to trade unions in Zimbabwe. Through humanitarian assistance, we have made it

129
clear that our quarrel is, in no sense, with the people of Zimbabwe, but with the appalling way in which they are being led.
In the longer term, we hope to see the back of this regime. Her Majesty's Government have—not just bilaterally, but through the multi-lateral means open to them through the EU and the Commonwealth— kept our lines open to the Opposition, to the trade unions and to the very many people, including the Churches, who will be able to do something to step into the breach when we see the back of the regime.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, how would the noble Baroness assess the effectiveness of the policies which Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing in terms of influencing the behaviour of the ZANU-PF regime?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our policy has been consistent and effective. If the sole criterion by which the noble Viscount wishes to judge the policy of Her Majesty's Government is the effect it has had on Mr Mugabe's regime, then no doubt he will think that it has not been effective. But I am bound to say to him that one of the problems is that nothing seems to affect Mr Mugabe's regime. It is not affected by the imposition of travel sanctions on which we think that we have established a strong position, along with our colleagues in the European Union. We believe that our sanctions are biting. On 19th October, the Standard newspaper pointed out that, for example, Zimbabwe's entire fleet of Hawk fighter jets has been grounded because Britain had frozen the parts for those aeroplanes. Further, we have taken action through the Commonwealth Heads of Government.
The noble Viscount should not be led into thinking that what we have done has not been effective. It has; and it is hoped that, through patience and the constant application of those sanctions, we shall see the back of this regime.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, given the closure of the Daily News, which we all regret, can the Minister confirm, without giving too much away, that Her Majesty's Government are doing something to provide alternative sources of news for the Zimbabwean people? Surely this repression is one of the major weapons being used by Mr Mugabe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, given the High Court ruling in Zimbabwe, I would suggest to noble Lords that the closure of the Daily News is now a matter which is illegal. The administration has now moved against its own courts and I understand that legal advice is being taken not only by those arrested, but also by the directors, who went voluntarily to the police on this issue. Of course we must look at other ways through which to get a message into the media, but I stress to noble Lords that we believe that this is now a matter for
130
the Zimbabwean courts to address in light of the harassment that has been illegally conducted by the government.

Illegal Meat Imports
2.45 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many seizures of illegal meat imports Customs and Excise has made since the action plan, and how many have resulted in a conviction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, full-year figures are published by Defra in the Annual Review of Controls on Imports of Animal Products in July of each year. The figures published by Defra for total seizures of imported goods by all agencies in 2001–02 were 2,053, and in 2002–-03, 7,819. As regards convictions, and further to my Written Answer of 24th September (Official Report, 6/10/03; col. WA 34), Customs and Excise has not recorded any convictions for illegal meat smuggling since 1lth April.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that, on 19th June this year, some 33 tons of illegal meat were seized in the Tower Hamlets area? Bearing in mind that, in answer to a Written Question I tabled in March of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated that:
"We have made clear that prosecutions are an important aspect of deterrence which we would like to see used where there is clear evidence of a serious breach in the rules".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; WA 106.],
why have the Government no stomach for prosecuting the illegal importation of meat?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Whitty. In order to prosecute, one must demonstrate a proven intention to break the law and the person to be prosecuted must be available to the United Kingdom courts. A balance has to be struck: are we to use the time of Customs and Excise officers in prosecutions or will we deploy it on greater detection? From the point of view of public health, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, would agree that it is better to use the resources available on detection.
Earl Peel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether Customs and Excise officers are still relying on sniffer dogs to detect illegal meat imports? Further, given the potential for yet another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which caused such great hardship in the countryside—never mind the enormous cost to the Government—can the Minister say whether a feasibility study into the potential use of modern surveillance equipment has been undertaken? If not, why not? If it has been undertaken, can the Minister tell the House the results of that study?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if, in using the word "rely", the noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggests

131
that we rely entirely on sniffer dogs, then the answer is no. Of course we do use sniffer dogs and, indeed, more sniffer dogs are in training. However, the training period is long and there is strong demand for sniffer dogs also for use in. for example, drug detection. Sniffer dogs are not the only method of detection used. We have four new mobile teams involved in the detection of illegal meat smuggling and we rely very heavily on intelligence. Further, we have run publicity campaigns at airports of entry.
In response to the second question put to me about a study made into electronic techniques, I shall have to write to the noble Earl on that.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on answering a question which his colleague, John Healey, could not respond to in the House of Commons on 10th September. The noble Lord has also provided us with some statistics. Those statistics were produced in the July report and a long time has elapsed since then. The original Question concerned enforcement methods. Can the noble Lord tell us how many enforcement officers are being used? Further, if people are importing illegal meat, what are the penalties for so doing and why have there been no arrests?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already answered the question of arrests in my response to the supplementary question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. As regards the number of people involved in detection, I have referred to the four new mobile teams. Of course, Customs and Excise officers at airports are not engaged only on the detection of illegal meat smuggling. They are involved in a whole range of activities and therefore it would not be possible to give a figure for the number of "full-time equivalents"—I think that that is the correct term— engaged in this work.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, as regards statistics, how many recorded cases have there been in each of the last three years of problems caused to public health by the illegal importation of meat or other animal products?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that information is not recorded centrally. Data on food-borne illnesses, at least to human beings, would be recorded by individual National Health Service trusts. No cases have been notified to Customs and Excise.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, it is very good news that the number of seizures has increased and is to the credit of Customs and Excise. How many of the seizures in the past year were of concealed commercial imports and how many were of meat carried by individuals trying to bring it illegally into the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that there are such figures because a hard and fast line cannot be drawn. I do not believe that you can
132
distinguish between someone bringing in meat for their own consumption, or for the consumption of friends and members of their community, and someone bringing in meat, for example, for use in a restaurant. It is an unknowable statistic.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is not the Minister concerned that it is total chaos out there? The figures are dreadful, rising from 2,053 seizures in 2001 to 7,819 seizures in 2002–03. His answer that there have been no convictions will be of no consolation to anyone. I hope that he will at least acknowledge that. The Minister said that it is quite difficult to obtain convictions in this country. What action are the Government taking in co-operation with their colleagues in the countries overseas from which these illegal meats are being brought in? They must surely follow the trail backwards. Is any equivalent work being carried out in those countries overseas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree that it is total chaos out there, to use the noble Baroness's words. The Government are providing £25 million for the years 2003– 05 to tackle illegal imports of meat, other animal products, plants, plant products and foodstuffs. Customs and Excise has received its fair share of that and I have described the methods it is using. Above all, it is a matter of intelligence, and that is the area in which Customs and Excise is collaborating with Defra to ensure that the kind of people who are most likely to import illegal meat from certain parts of the world—the noble Baroness would not wish me to go into detail—are apprehended wherever possible.

Israel: Security Fence
2.53 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the Israeli policy of building a wall against the Palestinians is lawful and what discussions they have had with the Israeli Government on this policy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that Israel's building of a fence on occupied land is unlawful, but we recognise Israel's legitimate security concerns and deplore the terrorist suicide bombings of Israeli civilians. We have urged the Palestinian Authority to exert greater efforts to stop such bombings. At the same time, we have repeatedly urged the Government of Israel to reconsider the route of the fence. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and ambassador.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. Is not the road map a route to nowhere if Israel continues to provoke the very kind of Palestinian

133
extremism that the wall is designed to prevent? Is not the 397-mile wall, as it will be, particularly provocative and self-defeating, expropriating, as it does, large tracts of Palestinian land and thus tens of thousands of Palestinians? Given the indivisibility of Middle East peace—we had only yesterday a reminder of that—will Her Majesty's Government urge the United States, which is the only real influence on Israel, to show some really tough love to stop the continuation of the building of the wall?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the road map is a route to nowhere, although the noble Lord qualified what he said by adding that it would become one if Israel went on in this provocative manner. One of the major problems of dealing with this seemingly intractable problem in the Middle East is the apportioning of blame—the desire at every turn to say who began the latest spiral of violence. We believe that the fence is unlawful but we would not so believe if it had been built on the green line. It is the route that the fence has taken that is provocative. It divides Palestinian land and causes real hardship in the everyday life of many Palestinians. The noble Lord should not run away with the idea that the United States has not made many of these points very clear to the Government of Israel, in the same way as we have done.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the majority of my family and friends who live in Israel, together with most other Israelis, deeply dislike the security fence? But most of them believe that, sadly, it is absolutely necessary if they are to protect their children and their families and those of other people from being murdered by suicide bombers and other infiltrating assassins.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that many of your Lordships will understand that. It was brought home to me very forcefully when I was in Tel Aviv the other day that the fence itself enjoys widespread support in the Israeli community on both left and right of the spectrum—apart from those on the extreme right who are unhappy about the number of settlements left on what they would deem the other side of the fence. It is not the existence of the fence but its routing that is causing so much trouble. If that were to be dealt with in a more sensitive way by the Israeli Government, they would win many friends.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, we all know why the American Government vetoed the resolution on the security fence. As the pro-Israeli American columnist, Thomas Friedman, said, President Bush is so far in Sharon's pocket that you cannot even see him now. As we hope the same is not true of our Prime Minister, why did not the Government take into account the sensible remarks that the Minister has
134
made about the wall and, instead of following obediently behind President Bush, vote for the resolution?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we took a very sensible view. On 14th October the Security Council voted on a text that demanded Israel should cease the construction of the fence. We considered that that draft had insufficient references to terrorism and, therefore, that it was unbalanced and unhelpful to the implementation of the road map. We abstained in that vote, along with Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon, and the United States used its veto. A resolution on the fence was subsequently put to an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly where the European Union proposals, which we had been pivotal in negotiating, were brought forward. We believed at that point that we had a more balanced text and voted in favour of the resolution. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will recognise that the United Kingdom Government have played a constructive role in seeking a balanced way forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister has referred several times to the road map in the present and future tense. I had believed that the road map was now referred to in the past tense. I have read a number of articles in the Washington press and references from the Israeli press which, in effect, assume that the road map is now dead. If that is the case, what are the British Government, with our partners in the EU—which, after all, is one of the four members of the quartet—doing to make sure that the attempt to revive the peace process has not entirely died with the apparent collapse of the road map?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, no matter how gloomy the prospects, I do not accept that the road map has collapsed. I do not accept what has been written in the press in Washington and Israel or in the press in Arab countries. We remain committed to the road map and we support the Palestinian efforts to form a government who can be a genuine partner for peace. The Abu Allah Government are still struggling to survive. I agree that the augurs do not look good, but I would not wish to bury the prospects of that Government succeeding quite so soon. It is important that every possible encouragement is given both to the Palestinian Authority to form a successful government and to the Government of Israel to deal fairly with that government.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the fence built around the Gaza Strip in 1994 has been effective in keeping out terrorists and Palestinian terrorists from entering Israel? Does she agree with me that of the 170 suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, most of those people have come across from the West Bank? Does she further agree that while there might be a debate about the route of a fence, there can be no debate about the right of Israel to build such a fence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that it is not the existence of

135
the fence that we believe to be unlawful but the route that is taken. The noble Lord is quite right to remind us that since the fence built around the Gaza Strip has been in place, almost all the suicide bombings have come from the West Bank—indeed, I believe that only one has come from the Gaza Strip. I am sure that that unites Israeli public opinion around the feeling that there is a real necessity for the fence, for the sake of their own security. We wish to urge upon the Israelis that while we acknowledge that and see the difficulties they are facing, we hope that they will be a good deal more sensitive than they being are at present about the routing, which is causing a real problem and real hardship.

Chess in Schools
3.1 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to develop and implement the recent Department for Education and Skills initiative to promote chess in schools and colleges; and what benefits they expect will be derived from this initiative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we are keen to explore innovative ways of raising levels of motivation and achievement among school pupils. For this reason, we have engaged the British Chess Federation to undertake a small project working with a wide spectrum of school types to explore ways in which this can be achieved within and outside the curriculum through the medium of chess. We will be expecting to learn from the project more about how chess raises achievement.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Given that chess is a young person's sport, that it appeals to them because it is artistic, logical, sociable, vandal-free, and a clash of skills, wills and ideas, can she clarify for the House who is in charge of chess to ensure that such a promotion takes place across the whole gamut of government? Given that Britain has experienced much success in recent years on the chess board, does my noble friend share my sorrow that we were unable to send England's top team to the most recent European championships because of a lack of finance, and that England's and Britain's premier international tournament—the Hastings Open—suffers each year from a lack of the finance and funds that would ensure its continuation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure who is in charge of chess. It certainly is not me; it certainly is not. and should not be, Her Majesty's Government. I would say it is in the hands of the British Chess Federation and, more importantly, chess players themselves.
136
On the important point my noble friend has raised about funding, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport funds the British Chess Federation directly. It is the only governing body in a recognised sport or other activity that receives money directly from the Exchequer. The funding was £60,000 in 2003–04. In addition, the funding chess has received from the lottery over the lifetime of the New Opportunities Fund is about £450,000. I cannot comment on the specifics of why we have been unable to send our chess players, as my noble friend has indicated; I merely point to the fact that funding has been available.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I suppose I should declare an interest as the mother of two boys who once played for the England under-10 championship.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I will pass on your Lordships' congratulations. In their school team, there were 11 boys and one girl. I wonder whether this initiative will encourage girls to take up chess.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I certainly hope that the project we are running with the British Chess Federation, which will ultimately involve eight schools, will encourage all children to participate in chess and see the benefits. I add my tribute to my noble friend's sons, who will probably be very embarrassed to read this in Hansard.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all after-school activities, not just chess, are of benefit to children? Can she tell us what is happening to the funding of the Kids' Club Network, which has been funded by the New Opportunities Fund? I believe that new arrangements are being made, but I am not sure what is happening.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness meant to say all "appropriate" after-school activities. That was the interpretation I put on her phrase, although perhaps friends in other parts of your Lordships' House did not.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness: after-school activities, particularly study support and opportunities to involve children and the community in what we describe as extended good, are critical to the development of educational standards and the support we offer our young people. I pay enormous tribute to Kids' Club Network and to Anne Longfield, who runs it. It has been hugely supportive of the Government's programme of after-school activities and hugely important to their delivery. We support it financially and will continue to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister say how much is being spent on the project referred to in her first Answer? What is the source of that funding? Will the noble Baroness further accept that every time

137
a national initiative is announced and a sum of money is made available for it, that means less money going into the classrooms in our schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the sum involved is £9,000.I think that the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is an appropriate sum of money to enable a project to be kick-started but not so big that its loss will be felt by schools. As a result of that project, we hope we will see a handbook showing how chess can be used to raise levels of motivation and achievement, a report on how the schools work together and guidance on using chess in the curriculum and on setting up out-of-school-hours chess clubs. I think that is real value for money.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, many of us can appreciate in our own mind what the benefits would be from a government initiative on chess playing, but the Question asks what "benefits" the Government think,
"will be derived from this initiative".
I do not think the Minister answered that Question, and I would be obliged if she did.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thought that I answered the Question perfectly with my previous answer, when I talked about what the British Chess Federation would produce—specifically, a handbook showing how chess can be used to raise levels of motivation and achievement and how schools can work together. These things are very important in terms of children's development. We know, too, that studies in New York indicate that students learning chess have improved significantly in other curriculum subjects. We would be keen to see if that were the case here.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I was taught to play chess at the age of II—whilst evacuated—by my religious instruction master during periods of religious instruction? That blessing enabled me later, during national service, to win a very modest competition, as a result of which I now possess the station's chess set. Far from having affected my religious beliefs, I think, if anything, it probably enhanced them, and I have continued to offer thanks for that and the many other blessings I have received over the years.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I feel very unqualified to respond to the noble Lord. Perhaps I might refer his remarks to one of the right reverend Prelates.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that chess is not and should not be regarded as a substitute for sporting activity in schools on any future occasion? It should be regarded as a game that should be integrated into the curriculum, not a substitute for any form of sporting activity.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, under the 1937 Act, chess is not regarded as a sport, and there are
138
no indications that it should be. Schools regard it as a leisure activity, an opportunity for children to stretch their minds. It is critical, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, knows, that we continue to push for 75 per cent of our students to have two hours of PE and sport in schools to enable them to have a healthy lifestyle. That deals with some of the issues affecting our children, particularly lifestyle and obesity, and ensures they get the fitness and fun they deserve.

Police Force: Racism
3.9 p.m.
Lord Parekh Lord Parekh asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to respond to the recent revelation of racism within the police force.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, racism in any public service is unacceptable, unequivocally so in the police. In conjunction with forces, we have introduced new recruitment processes for police officers. These processes are already in place in 13 forces and are being phased in across the remainder of the service. Candidates' attitudes towards race and diversity are tested at least seven times across all exercises in the new assessment centre, including at interview. Those who do not meet the standard are not recruited, regardless of performance elsewhere in the assessments.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Although only a small percentage of our police forces—I am told between 5 per cent and 7 per cent—have engaged in racist behaviour, does the Minister not think that it is very striking that in recent years racism has taken on rather vicious and venomous forms, particularly targeted against the Asians, who all seem to be reduced to "Pakis"? Is she aware that we need to do a lot more? In spite of the fact that so much has been done over the past few years, racist practice has gone on and has taken vicious forms. Should we not therefore be thinking in terms of more imaginative and fresh measures, such as covert monitoring of training, or even perhaps sting operations, in addition to more effective selection of recruits and more sensitive training?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend when he says that racism of this nature is and can be venomous. However, it is right that he should emphasise that a small proportion of police officers is thus affected. We have taken energetic and imaginative steps to change the issue. For that reason, we have introduced assessment centres and are considering carefully, with others, how we might further improve the system to ensure that those who wish to make improper use of their power are not given the opportunity to do so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Minister please explain why those who were training those police officers had no idea that this sort of behaviour

139
was going on—or, if they had an idea, why they did not stop it? It is the trainers who should have known that that appalling behaviour was going on; they should have stopped it right in the bud, but did not. The fault goes much higher up the line of command than the poor, wretched, ignorant, repellent oafs who made those jokes.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can tell the noble Earl that of course we—or, rather, the police— are reviewing all the circumstances that arose as a result of the programme. However, it is right to tell your Lordships that these things were discovered as a result of covert filming, and it is clear that many of the comments that were made were made in private. That is by no means to take away from the horrendous nature of what was said or done, and it has absolutely been taken on board chat the training and those who trained have a responsibility. Together with the police, we shall consider how to address that issue with a greater degree of particularity.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this recent exposure by the BBC has created considerable unease among the black and Asian minorities in this country? More importantly, it has caused much hurt to Mrs Lawrence and has damaged much of the good work that the police have been doing.
How is it possible that, despite all the attitudinal indicators in the recruitment process, we still have sympathisers of the British National Party finding their place in the police force? Will she encourage whistle-blowing within the police so that such recruits are identified at a much earlier stage? In the mean time, will she use the full force of the police disciplinary system against the officers who have been identified and ensure that the victims are suitably compensated?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join the noble Lord to say that one of the most distressing aspects of this matter is the unease felt among many black and Asian people. Indeed, I had the privilege of meeting Mrs Lawrence shortly before coming into the Chamber. I share with noble Lords the horror that has been expressed by many who have worked so hard and diligently to make the system better and who have succeeded in doing so. They are devastated that the programme has demonstrated that there are still those who wish to behave in that way.
As I said earlier, the introduction of the new selection process is being rolled out right the way across the field. That is an important initiative. Since May, 1,822 candidates have gone through the new assessment process. Of those, 79—that is, about 4.5 per cent—have failed due to their attitudes to race and diversity. In addition, all candidates are advised that their behaviour will be observed throughout their time at the assessment centre. ACPO has agreed that all forces should implement the new assessment processes, and we expect all to have done so by the summer of 2004. Thirteen forces have implemented new procedures already, and 21 more are implementing them before April 2004.
140
I want the House to know that we are energetically pursuing the matter, and there are some very good results. We will not be put off by what we have discovered but will continue and work even harder to ensure that those people are eradicated from our forces.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although these are very important issues for the police service, they are also important issues for us all and for all the organisations with which we are associated? Is it not the responsibility of us all to ensure that our culturally diverse society works well for everybody?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree with every word that the noble Lord has said.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister join me in expressing her confidence in the many excellent police officers who risk their lives patrolling Britain's streets and deal impartially with those involved in crime and disorder? Will she also undertake to stamp out racism whenever and wherever it occurs in the Police Service, to ensure that public confidence in the police is not eroded?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. There is nothing between the noble Lord and myself. One of the tragedies of these things coming out is that many police officers who have worked so hard and diligently feel besmirched and discouraged that they are all going to be targeted in the same way. They are not; they are fighting with all of us to make our streets a better place for all citizens, irrespective of race, religion or culture. I have no hesitation in saying that we shall continue to give those officers all our support.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 78 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 25, after "privileges" insert "as a party or"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment

141
No. 1. This is the first of a sequence of amendments, which I trust will not be contentious, because they are either technical or are in many respects a response to this Chamber.
The first amendment puts beyond doubt or peradventure that Clause 2 explicitly requires that a person, whether they are a party or a witness, must be served with an explicit notice that makes it clear that, in responding to a right of attendance abroad, they may not be accorded the same rights or privileges as a witness in domestic proceedings.
There is no a division between us on the purpose. The only doubt was whether it was as explicit as it was felt that it should be in primary legislation. To avoid further suffering, we have agreed to put it in the Bill, so it can be in no further doubt.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I get the sense that the House is keen to move on to the next business of the day, so I have given notice to the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Goodhart, that I shall speak only on this amendment and none other.
The Minister is right to say that the amendments are a response to concerns expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank the Government for introducing Amendment No. 9, which is a response to the only remaining bone of contention on Third Reading, when we won a Division supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It raised a question about the behaviour of officers from overseas when carrying out surveillance in this country. I believe that the Government's Amendment No. 9 fully achieves the objectives that we had hoped to achieve in our own amendment and is superior to our amendment in that it fully keeps within the normal realms of a statute and how it affects behaviour. I gratefully accept that, and I have no objection to any other amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as Amendment No. I was moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr David Heath and accepted by the Government, I support it with pleasure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 18, page 11, line 20, after "constable" insert "or customs officer"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.I shall seek to respond to the spirit of the House by being succinct. This amendment would insert "or customs officer" to ensure that customs officers in Scotland have the same powers regarding warrants as they do in England and Wales, and no more than that. I commend Commons Amendment No. 2 to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 28, page 16, line 19, leave out from "means" to end of line 22 and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. Commons Amendments Nos. 3 to 23 update the Bill in light of the fact that the framework decision on freezing orders has now been agreed. Therefore, the amendments try to ensure that the primary Act is as accessible for its users as possible by making it as up to date as possible.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Filkin,)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Page 16, line 31, leave out from "in"' to "of in line 32 and insert "Article 3(2)"
5 Page 16, line 33, leave out "such an order" and insert "an order made by the Secretary of State"
6 Page 16, line 40, leave out from "by" to "or" in line 42 and insert "the form of certificate annexed to the relevant Framework Decision"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 After Clause 81, insert the following new Clause—
"Driver licensing information
Information held in any form—

(a) by the Secretary of State under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or

(a) by the Department of the Environment under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/ 154 (N.I.I)),

(licensing of drivers of vehicles) may be disclosed for the purposes of the Schengen information system (within the meaning of section 81)."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This amendment seeks to make it clear that it is possible to put information about lost or stolen driving licences on to the Schengen Information System. We believe that that is necessary both to comply with the convention and to help to protect British citizens whose driving licences might be used elsewhere. That will help to counter identity fraud.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I just want to put one question very briefly. Whereas all the other amendments are relatively minor, this amendment is of some significance. I just wondered why the Government felt it necessary to introduce it at such a very late stage in the proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that we have done it simply because it was not apparent at an earlier stage that the existing statutory provisions were not sufficient. That is the short and nakedly honest answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 82, page 55, leave out lines 41 to 43
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, indicated, the amendments seek again to put on the face of the Bill what we have said many times in many happy hours in Committee—that in the very limited circumstances where foreign police officers are conducting undercover surveillance in the United Kingdom, they have no right to stop and question or challenge.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 page 56, line 7, at end insert—
"but no surveillance is lawful by virtue of this subsection if the officer subsequently seeks to stop and question the person in the United Kingdom in relation to the relevant crime "
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 93, page 62, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) Any day appointed for the purposes of Part 1 (other than sections 32 to 41), and the related amendments and repeals, is to be one decided by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers."
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This amendment simply deals with the commencement arrangements and makes it explicit that the UK and Scottish Ministers will co-operate on bringing in the measures at the same time in both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom as that will be in the interests of comprehensibility and effective implementation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Schedule 4, page 67, line 18, leave out from "means" to end of line 21 and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"
12 Page 67, line 23, leave out "a prescribed provision" and insert "Article 3(2)"
13 Page 67, line 34, leave out "a prescribed document" and insert "the form of certificate"
14 Page 71, line 19, leave out from "means" to end of line 22 and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"
15 Page 71, line 24, leave out "a prescribed provision" and insert "Article 3(2)"
16 Page 71, line 35, leave out "a prescribed document" and insert "the form of certificate"
17 Page 75,line 13, leave out from "means" to end of line 16and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"
18 Page 75, line 18, leave out "a prescribed provision" and insert "Article 3(2)"
Schedule 5, page 75, line 29, leave out "a prescribed document" and insert "the form of certificate"
20 Schedule 5, page 80, line 17, at end insert—
"The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) 12A The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
12B In section 24 (business etc. documents), in subsection (4), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003".
12C In section 26 (statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings or investigations), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003".

12D In paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 (evidence before courts-martial etc.)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003", and

(ii) for "letters of request or corresponding documents" there is substituted "requests for assistance in obtaining outside the United Kingdom evidence", and

(b)in sub-paragraph (4), for "letters of request or corresponding documents" there is substituted "requests for assistance in obtaining evidence"."

21 page 83, line 19, at end insert—
"The Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17))
33A The Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 is amended as follows.
33B In Article 4 (business etc. documents), in paragraph (4), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003".
33C In Article 6 (statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings or investigations), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003"."
22 page 87, line 20, at end insert—

145
"54A In section 27 (Lord Advocate's direction), in subsection (2), for "section 4(2B) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 15(4) of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003"."
23 Schedule 6, page 90, line 19, column 2, at end insert—

"In Schedule 4, paragraphs 6(2) and 8."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 23.I have already spoken to the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 23.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hunting Bill
3.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Hunting: defence]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from "he" to end and insert "conscientiously believed that the hunting in which he was to take part ought to be exempt"
The noble Lord said: I do not hunt, and I am now too old to take it up and thus be made a criminal by this wretched, mean little measure. It comes to us, of course, to satisfy the consciences and feelings of zealots who care little for the consciences of others. It is a Bill which is a mixture of prejudice and nonsense, which my amendment would do something to redeem. I am, however, dreadfully conscious of the fact that there would be no chance whatever of it being accepted by those people down the other end of the Corridor.
Mr Tony Banks—one could describe him perhaps as the other Tony, the one who says what he means—has brought to the proceedings a degree of stark clarity. On 30th June, he said that,
"the matter is now highly political and, in many regards, has become totemic".
We were, he said, in,
"a situation in which passions and subjectivity rule the day".— [Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 91.]
I just pause to wonder—I think that your Lordships might all reflect upon it—what on earth would happen if the rule of passions and subjectivity were to become the norm. I think that our fragile democracy might be mortally damaged by it. Certainly Parliament would enter into a decline even steeper than exists today.
I turn for a moment to a very different speech made by Miss Kate Hoey in another place on 30th June from which I shall quote one passage of some length. I think that it is so important that it is worth taking up a moment of your Lordships' time to repeat it here. She said:
"The Bill is inconsistent. Why is it not okay to hunt hares when it is okay to hunt rabbits? That shows that the Bill has been devised by people who take an attitude of zealotry towards those who hunt. They are opposed to hunting, and they are not prepared to listen".
Miss Hoey had met people in Parliament Square. She said:
"I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of women who spent last night and all day in Parliament square. If only some of my hon. Friends had had the decency to go and talk to those young, middle-aged and elderly women who live in the countryside and know what this is all about, rather than treating them with contempt.
The saddest thing about this whole process is that there has been no listening at all. At Portcullis House, everyone involved in hunting produced a huge amount of work and put in a great deal of effort, but it was all simply ignored because some of the facts did not fit in with the Minister's or the Government's intentions".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 116.]
I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is supporting this amendment. He spoke at Second Reading of his hope that the Government were looking for a middle way. It has been rudely dashed but that thought of an opportunity missed now leads me to ask, what of Mr Alun Michael? How did he manage, I wonder, to perform such an about-turn at such dazzling speed? Perhaps he had in mind the fate of the "late" Lord Chancellor who nourished the old-fashioned idea that a promise was a promise. His successor on the Woolsack has altogether a more accommodating dictionary.
I would not like to end my remarks without a word of admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She has shown the most extraordinary courage and determination in pursuing a cause in which she believes. At Second Reading she lamented that the Bill would make criminals of herself, her husband and her children. She went on:
"I am sorry to say that, to some, all of this does not matter one jot because they are prepared to sacrifice not just animals but people— their homes, their jobs, their way of life, their communities, especially in places such as Exmoor, which I love—for the sake of some transient peace from a section of the parliamentary Labour Party. If that is allowed to happen, the lasting sense of injustice and resentment in those communities will dog the Government who were responsible, not just for a Parliament or two but for a generation".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 782.]
Coming from the West Country as I do, I believe that those words of the noble Baroness are absolutely true and justified and should receive the respectful attention they have not yet received from the Benches opposite.
I marvel how such speeches as those have been swept aside and how the conclusion of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has been ignored simply because it was not what they wanted. Scientific opinions, too, have suffered much the same fate. I refer to the verdict of Dr Lewis Thomas, a vet already quoted in these debates, who said that,
"any legislation that bans or seriously restricts hunting… cannot be regarded as having the welfare of wild animals as its primary objective".
One hears no words from those who support this Bill to indicate that they have even taken notice of such arguments. Adverse opinion polls count for nothing. So too, rather strangely, do the strongly expressed views of the media. I quote only today, that of the Guardian of 2nd July which states:
"The majority should hesitate before it rides roughshod over the minority".
I should have thought that the Labour Party would have that fairly close to its heart as it has had reason to complain of it in the past. The article in the Guardian continued:
"The peacefully expressed fears of many in the countryside, who see things differently and feel their way of life is under threat from people whom they think do not understand them, have made a persuasive case for a less absolutist approach. This was the spirit that underpinned Mr Michael's bill, and it will be both legitimate"—
I hope that the noble Lord will note this—
"and desirable if the Lords reinstate clauses in a similar… spirit.
Like many of your Lordships I have had hundreds of letters on this subject. I had one in favour of the Bill. I quote from one single letter from Mrs Rutherford of Plymouth. In a very short space she encompassed what seems to me to be the whole issue. She wrote:
"I neither hunt nor follow a hunt but felt I must write to you in defence of hunting and I fear a ban would have far-reaching, adverse consequences for our beautiful countryside, the rural way of life already affected by poor public transport, school closures and inadequate policing"—
She can say that again! One reason I might just for a moment feel well disposed towards this Bill is because there would be just a chance—an outside chance perhaps—of seeing a policeman in the village in which I live. Mrs Rutherford went on to say,
"and for this country's long tradition of liberty and tolerance".
For those who espouse this Bill, liberty and tolerance mean nothing except in the most limited subjective sense.
I want to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—if he will bear with me for a moment—one further point which I have mentioned two or three times but so far without an answering echo. At Second Reading the noble Lord said quite clearly:
"The threat of disruption—
I am not concerned with that now—
"and unenforceability is not one to which the Government or Parliament can or should succumb".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 771.]
Does the noble Lord seriously mean that unenforceability is not a matter which should be in the minds of legislators when they contribute to the torrent of legislation which his Government pour through Parliament? The noble Lord might even care to discuss the point with the police.
I shall finish now but I want to end on this note. I find it very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government abandoned their search for a middle way in order to placate a bunch of their Back-Benchers who might otherwise embarrass the Government on a host
148
of subjects. Hunting and the countryside, and perhaps your Lordships' House as well, would serve this Government as useful diversions. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I have been asked by Members with widely differing views on the Bill before us to remind Members of the Committee to speak to the amendment which is before us rather than to make Second Reading speeches. The particular amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, deserves consideration rather than Second Reading speeches.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should just like to say that the whole of my speech was inspired by the way in which a section of the party opposite has paraded its own conscience and ignored that of other people.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I shall quote George Washington, who said:
"Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience".
I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment. For those who hunt, the many more who support hunting and the even many more whose livelihoods depend on it, this is a matter of conscience, deeply felt. Those who oppose the Bill in the form in which it has come before the Committee do not do so out of arrogance or prejudice, attachment to selfish advantage or indifference to rational argument, or simply out of a perverse desire to perpetuate a long-established pattern of life and leisure. They do so out of a passionately and conscientiously-held belief that hunting is right and good—good for animal welfare, social well-being, conservation, wildlife and landscape management.
It is that combination of conscience with rational argument that makes the case for hunting so strong and convincing, and makes resentment and opposition to the Bill in the form in which it has come from the other place so strong and unrelenting. There is in this matter more than a little spark of that "celestial fire called conscience".
I shall move from the philosophical to the practical and pragmatic. There is a real risk of unwitting contravention of this deeply unpleasant and undesirable Bill, if by any mischance it were to become law. Imagine an elderly farmer walking with three or four dogs and unexpectedly flushing out a mammal that is not exempt. Do we have to rely on the good sense of the police not to prosecute because that man, or whoever else may be in that position, will technically be guilty of infringing the new law? Do we have to rely on the restraint of those who administer the law?
It has been said many times that we can rely on that restraint and moderation, but is it really sensible? Would it not be better to acknowledge that there is real risk of gross injustice of the prosecution of someone who conscientiously believes that the activity in which he or she is engaged should be exempt? I support the

149
amendment. It is a matter of conscience, and there is a risk of the misuse of law if the point is not acknowledged.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I, too, support the amendment, moved for very strong reasons by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I wish to put forward yet another reason. Unless we are very careful, we shall find that foxes suffer terribly if hunting is abolished. I speak not merely as one who hunted regularly in Huntingdonshire until I was 70, but because I live in the countryside. We find there that if foxes are not controlled in numbers, they spread terribly and do enormous damage. They kill lambs, poultry and game. In the interests of life in the countryside, it is therefore essential that the number of foxes should not be increased by the abolition of hunting—and it certainly would be. We cannot get away from that fact.
If hunting is abolished, foxes, because they will become so numerous, will have to be killed by other means, all of which are most cruel, except one. Shooting is all right if a fox is killed, but if it is wounded it goes away and dies of gangrene, a terrible death. Poisoning and snaring are both illegal, but of course take place already and would do so to a much greater extent. They are horrible ways of killing foxes. The only other way is trapping, but that is ineffective. Foxes are difficult to get into traps; they somehow instinctively do not get in.
If hunting were abolished, foxes would run the risk of dying of gangrene or being poisoned or snared. I have seen foxes snared; they were still alive and suffering terribly. Of course, one has to go up to the snare and kill the fox. Poisoning is horrible and we do not know how long it takes, because it must vary depending on the poison.
People say, "Yes, but chasing a fox a long way is cruel". Being of light weight I was able to keep up with hounds, and I got into the habit of counting the number of seconds between hounds closing in and the fox being killed. I never counted more than four seconds. That is a very quick and certain way of killing foxes. In the cubbing season, of course, young foxes are killed without much of a chase. Old foxes are sometimes killed quite quickly in the cubbing season also, as they are during the hunting season. Only those foxes in the prime of life have to be chased.
I quite understand that what I am about to say will seem incredible to some Members of the Committee. Sometimes I have seen foxes in the prime of life being chased with what looked to me like a grin on their face. I do not think that they minded being chased. When hounds closed in, the end was quick.
Lord Hoyle: If they had a grin on their face and were being destroyed, they might even vote Tory.
Lord Renton: That is an irrelevant comment, quite outside the debate.
150
I would like those Members of the Committee who want the Bill to be retained in its original form to bear those factors in mind. For the reasons that I have given, if hunting is abolished foxes will suffer terribly. The amendment does something to avoid that.
Baroness Byford: The whole issue of hunting is a non-party and free-vote issue, but I should support the Government and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in her remarks. It is important that we stick to the amendments. Much though I love my noble friend very dearly, I think that his contribution would have fallen under Amendment No. 28. It might help the Committee all round if we tried to focus on the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall speak exactly to the amendment, which is totally about conscience. The right reverend Prelate talked about conscience, and I am rather struck by the fact that all of us here who vote on the Bill shall do so on the basis of a free vote, as did all those who voted on it in the House of Commons. Therefore, that was voting on the basis of conscience.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wants to give other people the benefit of conscience. Since we are allowed to have a conscience about the issue, and bearing in mind that about 60 per cent of the British electorate do not believe in a ban on hunting, other people should be able to have a conscience about it as well.
There is another point about conscience. In the Labour Party, and in other parties, we have always held that if a person has a conscientious objection to an order, he is entitled to take action against it. The person whom the amendment describes would be doing what many people have urged their Members to do for a long time.
Finally, the Bill is about more than fox hunting; it is about hunting with dogs. One is entitled to point to the Labour Party manifesto, which undertook to bring forward a Bill to ban fox hunting. The Government have gone far further than that. Anybody who hunted deer with dogs would therefore be able to say, "Look here. You did not have a mandate to extend your hunting ban to deer hunting".
Although the amendment may seem strange to a number of people, who perhaps believe that it should not have been moved and that laws passed by Parliament should be obeyed, that point of conscience should be addressed. Moreover, how far outwith the people's expectation at the previous general election should the Government and Parliament go? We have had a worthwhile discussion. I will be interested to hear the Government's response.
Lord Eden of Winton: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He spoke with that cogency and moderation to which we have become accustomed in your Lordships' House. I strongly support the views that he expressed.
When speaking about conscience, most people in this country become rather embarrassed. We feel a little bit uncomfortable when talking about our conscience. We do not like people who parade their conscience publicly.

151
I remember well, when I was at school, that the more unpopular boys were those who tended to do just that. They became somewhat isolated for that reason.
It is important to emphasise that people feel very strongly. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in his opening remarks at Second Reading, people feel strongly on either side of the matter. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for example, has strong feelings about it. He has spoken frequently about the matter and expressed his views powerfully.
Conscience, therefore, traverses both sides of the argument and is not the exclusive preserve of those who are opposed to hunting. There are those who are conscientiously opposed to killing animals full stop. They do not like to engage in any form of killing animals. If they carry it to its logical conclusion, they tend to be vegetarians. Many of those who oppose hunting, ostensibly on the ground of conscience, do not oppose eating hamburgers, chicken or other forms of meat at their dinner tables, yet there are those who clearly and conscientiously object to the taking of life for those purposes. The Bill does not defend that, because Schedule 1 exempts certain forms of hunting on the grounds that the hunted species can be eaten. "Conscience" is therefore a fairly loose term in some people's books, but is rigidly applied in the case of others.
My own attitude to the whole of the Bill, and to the amendment in particular, derives from my conscientiously and deeply held view that hunting with dogs of the quarry species entails least suffering and preserves that degree of utility, which are the two yardsticks by which the measures should be judged, according to Mr Alun Michael when he started out on this course.
Like the right reverend Prelate, my prime motivations for supporting the continuation of hunting with dogs are the proper management of the quarry species, the proper management of the environment and the conservation of the countryside. I conscientiously believe that it is far less cruel to hunt and kill with dogs than it is to use other methods, as my noble friend Lord Renton made clear. That view was strongly supported in 2000 by two vets, who explored the subject in great detail in an interesting pamphlet, A Veterinary Opinion On Hunting With Hounds. The vets pointed out the grave suffering that could arise from shooting and wounding animals without being able to retrieve them. The shooting and wounding of a fox was anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in the Bill. He expressly indicated that shooting a fox because it is too big to retrieve with a dog would not be exempt under Schedule I. So what hap>pens to the wounded fox? It suffers. It suffers a cruel death as a result of the wounding. The vets to whom I referred said that that,
"represents an unacceptable degree of animal suffering, particularly if, as with foxes and hares, the wounded animal is not followed up and dispatched. No such risk of failure occurs with hunting. The quarry species are not injured and abandoned".
I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harrison: Perhaps the noble Lord will reflect on the fact that so far as estimates go, four out of five foxes
152
that are dispatched are dispatched by shooting. As that is the current situation, we therefore have a cruelty problem now. Would the noble Lord's solution be to eliminate shooting and to introduce universal fox hunting with hounds? I think not.
4 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My conscience is quite clear on this subject in that hunting with hounds is the least cruel method. In wild animal control, shooting occurs right across the board. There is shooting of deer, hare, rabbit, fox, wild boar and other animals which I shall not detail. But shooting takes place, and one has to hope that it is carried out by skilled marksmen and that it does not cause undue suffering. But the fact remains that shooting does cause suffering and hunting with dogs causes least suffering.
Therefore, if I may put it at its mildest, there is room for exercise of one's conscience on both sides of this argument. Members of the Committee may well call to mind the words of Mark Twain:
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practise either of them".
On this particular occasion, I do choose to practise my conscience, and I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Baroness Mallalieu: I do not like to sound a discordant note and I agree with all that has been said in the course of this debate, save for one thing. I do not believe that the amendment should appear on the face of the Bill. As currently drafted, it would be unworkable and, in my view, would drive the proverbial coach and horses through the registration and licensing scheme which Mr Alun Michael devised and which I hope this House will try to restore and improve.
However, in one sense, this amendment is one of the most important and fundamental on the whole Marshalled List because it raises the topic which underlines the enactment of any new criminal legislation. The Bill that we received from the House of Commons was designed to turn into a crime something that has been done for hundreds of years with the approval and encouragement of the communities where it takes place and with the approval and encouragement of those without whose co-operation hunting could not happen—namely, the farmers.
Without exception, all the major farming organisations opposed that Bill. Organisations such as the campaign of which I am chairman—the Labour supporters' Leave Country Sports Alone campaign—undertook the production of some maps in a number of marginal rural constituencies. Every farmer was interviewed and a map was coloured accordingly. In no constituency did the proportion of farmers who wanted hunting to continue fall below 90 per cent.
This spring on Exmoor, where I farm in a small way, 722 farmers in the area hunted by the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, whose farms accounted for more than 90 per cent of the total area hunted by those

153
hounds, signed a declaration stating that they regarded deer hunting as the only practical way in which the herd of red deer could be managed and preserved there.
Those who have direct responsibility for the management of populations of wild mammals in this country are overwhelmingly the farmers and landowners who want hunting to continue. Not merely do they believe overwhelmingly that hunting is an option which should remain available to them in doing that job; there is also a widespread opinion that the effect of a ban would not be, as others have already said, to decrease numbers killed but probably the reverse. As noble Lords will remember, there was evidence to that effect in the Burns report and at Portcullis House. But, even more importantly in the context of this amendment, there is among very many a firmly held view based on evidence and their own experience that the other methods of control that would be left to them are likely to increase and not decrease animal suffering. So far, we in this Committee have changed that Bill to permit registered hunting, and the extent of it is something that we shall go on to deliberate in due course.
But I ask those who oppose hunting to reflect on this. If, for example, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and those who support him were asked whether they would comply with a law which required them to do something which in their view caused an unnecessary increase in suffering to an animal, I suspect that I know what their answer would be. Yet that is the very position in which the majority of country people, who have responsibility for managing wild animals, would find themselves in the event of a ban.
A criminal law which does not have the support of the law-abiding community to which it applies because that community holds the belief that it is being asked to do something wrong, and a law which requires the members of that community to adopt methods in their ordinary, essential tasks which they believe deliberately cause unnecessary suffering—the original definition of "cruelty"—is a recipe for bad law. It is a recipe not only for a law which is unenforceable but for one which brings the legal process generally into disrepute.
Once one passes legislation which offends the conscience of the community to which it applies, one strikes a blow at the administration of justice and, just as significantly—perhaps even more so—at the unity of those communities and of our nation. To force such legislation on to the statute book would—as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, reminded me I have already said— create lasting resentment, I believe, not only in rural communities but among those who care that we live in a free society. As the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—a true liberal—reportedly told the Prime Minister, it would be widely perceived as,
"the most illiberal measure in the past 100 years".
The difficulty of enforcement of a measure which does not have the support of the community and which offends that community cannot be exaggerated. Time and again I have heard people say, "The police are our
154
friends. Many of them come hunting with us. This would make them our enemies". Enforcement is a matter that we must consider at every stage of the Bill.
A chilling picture of what might happen is contained in an article in the Police Review of 19th September this year, written by Mr Hamish Rogers, an RSPCA chief superintendent. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Simon, who drew it to my attention. In an article in which the RSPCA inspector dismisses the arguments against a ban and says that there will be no difficulty in enforcing it, he says:
"It would be nearly impossible to prepare dogs, horses and riders for a hunt without going unnoticed. Where reports of illegal hunting are received, intelligence-led operations could prevent a meet taking place".
He goes on:
"The successful prosecution of offenders is often reliant on information from members of the public, and there is no reason to suspect this will change".
What a picture of life in rural Britain in 2003 or 2004. Are we to have spies and snoopers peering through the gap in the fence to see whether the little girl next door is plaiting her pony in preparation for the meet the next day and then ringing the authorities? What a problem for rural police, who rely on the good will and co-operation of local people to do their general policing job effectively. And what a problem, ultimately, for the administration of justice. We have already heard about that from a number of very senior police officers, not to mention the Magistrates' Association.
Who are the new criminals to be? The local vet? Five practising vets used to hunt with the pack with which I hunted until quite recently. One can brand people as criminals, one can change the law and one can tell people that they are criminals, but in the dock will be elderly people, women, children, vets, doctors and nurses. No matter how much one calls them criminals, it will be apparent to the nation that they are nothing of the sort. The law will be brought into disrepute and so will a Government who devoted their time in office to such nonsense and allowed their zealots to have their way. Bad law does not last.
There is general agreement, at any rate in this Chamber, that much as many of us dislike the idea of still more regulation, hunting which is properly conducted, which serves a useful purpose and causes no greater suffering than other available methods, should be permitted under strict control. Mr Alun Michael spoke over and over again to that effect: he wanted a law to emerge which stood the test of time. A banning Bill will not end this matter; rather, it would be the start of a new and more unpleasant period of division.
In his evidence at Portcullis House, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made that very point; namely, that a quick fix, a quick solution, would not be the answer. He said that something which would work needed co-operation and agreement. When one tells people that they must do something they believe to be wrong they tend to take no notice. I cannot forget the day when I and others in this House walked down Whitehall past the Cenotaph at the front of a column of people who numbered over

155
400,000. That was just over a year ago and was then the largest demonstration this country has ever known— there have been larger since. The silence as we walked past the Cenotaph was something that those of us there will never forget.
Freedom of conscience is what this country is about. We do not readily give in to bullies or to people who use their power in office to force us to behave in ways which we believe are wrong. The amendment is right to remind us that those who seek to do so are embarking on a course which would have unpredictable and unpleasant consequences for the whole of the nation, but to put it in this form on the face of the Bill would be a mistake.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: We should take it as read, as an assumption, that those who oppose a ban and those who support it are likewise motivated by conscience. Having listened on more occasions than this to my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford speak with very great force on this matter in a direction opposite to the one that I hold, I could hardly think otherwise.
It is clear that those who support the continuance of hunting with dogs do so in the belief that it is best for the country and the countryside that that should happen. It is also clear that those who oppose it do so from a Christian perspective because they believe that whatever may be the utilitarian arguments, the control and, indeed, even the protection of animals, should not be made a matter of sport if that evinces an inappropriate attitude between humankind and animals. So there is conscience on both sides of the matter.
I want to speak entirely on the inclusion of the reference to conscience on the face of the Bill and to agree on that particular matter, if on no other, with what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just said. It is important that we live in a country that recognises conscience, but it is also important to be clear that conscience is not simply what we feel strongly about. Conscience is about being informed by convictions. I believe that in our society and, I regret to say, in our Church, we have reached a situation where the word "conscience" is used rather more freely than it should be.
On this matter the word "conscience" probably is entirely appropriate to the views of some people, but it is also appropriate to the views of those people who would see it as their business to obstruct hunting if it were allowed to continue. It concerns me greatly that there should be written on to the face of the Bill a reference to something which will be used on both sides of this particular argument which will allow both sides to appeal to this amended clause as justification for their attitudes.
I believe that we live in a country with freedom of conscience. However, I also believe that freedom of conscience involves being prepared to pay the consequences of breaking the law if you believe that your conscience drives you to do that. The words here are witness to the seriousness of the debate and to the fact that for many people this is a religious issue which has come to us from the other place for that reason. For many others
156
their conscience is motivated by more humanistic instincts. However, to write such words on to the face of the Bill sets a precedent in our attitude to law which would be disastrous. On how many other Bills will there be written a right of conscientious dissent not just in one's mind but in one's action?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I thank the right reverend Prelate for giving way. It may save him a good deal of pain and anxiety if I tell him at this stage that I agree entirely with what he says: these are not words which should be written on to the face of the Bill. However, he is right in thinking that my aim is to ensure that the people who espouse the Bill recognise that conscience is a two-edged weapon.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I would not want to continue a speech in favour of a course of action which those supporting the amendment no longer support. So I am happy to sit down and trust that we can proceed to consider the amendment.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: In her excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, began and, indeed, ended by telling us that the amendment was unworkable. I perceive a rather dangerous situation arising. When those on the Government Front Bench insist on passing a law which they have been warned is unenforceable, it is hardly surprising that noble Lords table amendments which are also unenforceable. I think that we are getting into a rather dangerous position.
I have not sought previously to intervene in the debate. I have never hunted and cannot claim to know anything about the finer points of the sport. However, I strongly support freedom, conscience and tradition. As soon as I read the amendment I felt that I must speak, albeit briefly, in support of it.
I am very well aware of the need to destroy foxes. Surely, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that there is that need. I have lived in the country for most of my life and know all about the harm these vermin can do. I have seen a hen-house in which every single bird was killed by a fox for absolutely no reason. One chicken was quite enough for a good meal for him. Foxes kill far more than just chickens. I believe conscientiously that foxes must be destroyed. I believe conscientiously what I read in the reports of those who have studied the matter, which tells me clearly that the other methods to be used if hunting ends are far more cruel and far more likely to cause pain to the fox. So I was greatly impressed when I read the amendment.
It seems to me that the Bill came into being because a section of the public declared that they conscientiously objected to hunting. Everyone has a right to their conscience and to hold views that he or she thinks are right and in accord with that conscience. However, I think that those people reserved quite a large part of their conscientious objections to country people and their traditions; they did not understand the first and they disliked the second.

157
Apparently, they had no conscientious objection to lambs, pheasants, quail or hens being torn to death. It was only the fox who was enjoying himself, after all. That seemed to be perfectly acceptable and perfectly in line with their consciences. But no government should run a country which allows some of its citizens a conscience but not others. They should not adhere only to what they hear from the section of the public that they believe in and agree with because others have a right to their conscience too.
In a free country—and I sometimes wonder whether this one is still free—everyone has a right to a conscience, whether or not the Government agree with what he says. The amendment makes that point. On two occasions at least hundreds of thousands of people took part in hugely impressive demonstrations in London. They were expressing their wish and their conscientious belief that hunting should continue: some because their livelihoods were threatened; some because they followed the hunt; some because they knew that foxes must be controlled; and some because they believed in freedom. But all of them, in their different ways, were expressing what their conscience led them to believe. Only the Government believe that their wishes and their words should be ignored and that their consciences are not as important as the consciences of the anti-hunt lobby.
How can it be right on an issue of this kind—which has nothing whatever to do with national politics, which sets country against town and which is deeply divisive—to pass such a hated law and to ignore what free people are expressing as their conscience. If country people truly believe that hunting breaks no moral code, who are this Government to criminalise them?
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord who moved the amendment has now, quite rightly—albeit belatedly— admitted that it would be wholly wrong to put on the face of a Bill a provision which states that, taking part in 'X' is criminal, but you don't need to obey that; you can get off it if you thought that the legislation should be something different.
Surely, it is now time—if not past the time—for the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment and to enable the Committee to get on with its proper duty of considering amendments made to the Bill and intended to alter it, rather than those merely pegged for Second Reading speeches.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I go further than the noble Viscount: as one who is totally opposed to the abolition of hunting and totally in favour of returning a Bill to the Commons that is more nearly like the one introduced to the Commons, I believe that this amendment is inimical to that tactic. It gives a hostage to fortune; and it will be held up by those against hunting and against this House
158
as an example of how out of touch—indeed, in some ways how unrealistic—we are. I wonder why the amendment was ever tabled.
Earl Peel: With—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It seems to be the Committee's wish to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment. I am finding this difficult. I am trying to go with the mood of the Chamber. It seems that the Committee would like to hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Earl Peel: With the leave of the Committee, it was not my intention to speak to the amendment, but one or two points have been made which have inspired me to rise to my feet. I refer to some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Renton. It is absolutely essential that we understand from the outset that the ways and means of controlling foxes in this country have evolved over the years. Different practices suit different places, and hunting plays a hugely important part in that process.
However, and I say this with the greatest of respect to my noble friend, to condemn snaring as being automatically cruel is wrong. Snaring, if done correctly, is a perfectly humane way of controlling foxes. The same applies to shooting. The noble Lord referred to poisoning. Poisoning is an illegal activity. You are not entitled to poison foxes, and quite rightly so. So my only point, which I regard as very important, is to try and clarify that, unless we get our facts absolutely straight, we compare one form of control against another at our peril.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would bear in mind that snaring is illegal also.
Earl Peel: No, snaring is not illegal.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am not altogether sorry to have annoyed both Front Benches. I seldom succeed in annoying both Benches on the same day in the same context, but I shall recover.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that these words on the face of the Bill would be just what I would object to most; namely, unenforceable and hopeless. But I thought—and I absolutely make no apology whatever for this—that when the authors of the Bill used words to show, as they did, that passions and subjectivity are the rule of the day, one was entitled to table amendments like this which perhaps have an element of unreason in them to remind them and others that there are strong beliefs on the other side of this argument and that they have no right whatever to continue their bullying tactics.
I am happy to have made that protest. I make no apology for that. I shall nevertheless respond to the obvious will of the Committee and beg leave to

159
withdraw the amendment. But I hope that the Minister will take an opportunity sometime to answer the point that I have repeatedly made about enforceability.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 1, line 18, after "was" insert—

"(a) registered, or

(b) "

The noble Lord said: The amendment is consequential on an earlier one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Campbell-Savours Lord Campbell-Savours moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"DEFENCE: PROTECTION OF SHEEP IN SHEEP GRAZING AREA IN DESIGNATED NATIONAL PARK

(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of using dogs for the control of foxes for the purpose of protecting sheep on a fell or moorland within a sheep grazing area in a designated National Park.

(2) In this section "designated" means designated in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: In moving my Amendment No. 25, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26. I shall speak narrowly to my amendment. The case for Amendment No. 25 was; very usefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, at Second Reading. The noble Lord, who is a former Minister for Agriculture, said:
"It is essential that we build into the Bill an exemption for foot packs, which play such an important role … I [the noble Lord, Lord Jopling,] hope that the Government will look sympathetically at an amendment to exempt mountain foot packs from the Bill".— [Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 306.]
I come to the debate from a very different position. I presume that the noble Lord will be supporting the principle of registration that I have been opposing and will further oppose, as I am in favour of a ban on hunting. That was the position I took throughout my 21 years as a Member of the other place. I represented a constituency that contained a number of fell packs, but where there was a constant and heated argument about hunting in the community. I can tell the Committee that of all the issues I had to face as a Member of Parliament, hunting raised the most correspondence. During general election campaigns, the number of letters I received on the issue of hunting was often 10 times or more the total volume of correspondence on any other issue, because it was a live debate.
While recognising that, I had to take into account the considerable concern about the Lake District National Park and what would happen if hunting were to be banned. I must say that the majority of correspondence that I received during all those years was always against the hunt, but an argument was being advanced that had to be addressed. Essentially, it was that there were problems in the Lake District in lambing season and if
160
hunting were banned, that would lead to an invasion of guns in an area subject to intensive tourist penetration throughout the year.
I shall cite two letters from the many that I received— these are not the photocopied letters that many of us will have received—from people who live in Cumbria. A chap called John Hayton of Thackthwaite, near Cockermouth, writes:
"I am an upland sheep farmer in the Lake District National Park, who every year suffers losses to foxes. The local hunt does a great job in fox control by keeping numbers in check and are on hand in the spring to help farmers if they have a particular problem with worrying by bringing hounds to the lambing area, even if hounds are unable to catch the culprit, the very fact that hounds have been about can sometimes have the desired effect. Without hounds to carry out this very necessary task we would have to rely on shooting"—
that word is in capitals.
"surely no one really expects us to do that in an area where we already have up to 14 million visitors a year".
I cite another letter from a chap called Paul Renison of Troutbeck, near Windermere, who writes:
"I work on a farm called Braesteads—a traditional fell farm near Ullswater in the Lake District National Park. Through my work as a shepherd especially in lambing time I have witnessed the damage foxes can cause. We lost 15 lambs to the fox last year. If this is multiplied by a replacement cost of £50 per animal (not including time and effort) the damage lost the business £750. Would any business suffer this unnecessary expense (which will be higher) if a tried, tested natural preventative measure were to be outlawed?"
This evening, I have sought to introduce amendments to deal with that problem. Let me tell the Committee where the amendment came from. It was drawn up in 1987. Some of my noble friends may be interested to know where it was drawn up. It was drawn up for a meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, because we were considering whether it was then possible to include in the 1987 Labour Party manifesto some reference to the problem that existed in national parks. As a result of that amendment, words were included that I understand have subsequently been withdrawn.
I have hawked the amendment around for the past 15 years on the basis that one day a Bill would be presented and we would have to face the reality of what we were going to do in the parks. I now present it to the Committee. However, there is a problem. There is an inconsistency between the Bill and my amendment. The amendment does not sit well with the principle of registration. I accept that, but I ask the Committee to be realistic.
We all know what the Commons wants. If we are truthful to ourselves, we all know what will happen to the Bill when, or if, it finally makes it back to the Commons and is further considered. All the clauses on registration—well argued as they certainly will have been in this place—will inevitably be removed. If my amendment is left in the Bill, it will cause substantial discussion in the other place. Indeed, it is the bottom line and only amendment that is credible in the context of the 2:1 support for the Bill in the other place.
So I ask the Committee to take that into account. Simply be realistic. If you knock out my amendment tonight, all that will happen is that the Bill will go back;

161
it will be kicked around; registration will be removed; and the whole question of exemption for national parks will not even be considered. On that basis, I move my amendment.
Finally, another issue will be raised in the other place if my amendment were to succeed in this House. A good briefing was produced by the animal welfare lobby on whether the case for Lake District exemption is valid. It was argued in its document that there was an abuse of the use of artificial earths by the hunts in the national park. If that is the case—I am not unconvinced that there may be some merit in it and artificial earths may have been used on occasion—the answer is simple. Legislate against them; make them illegal; stop the hunts using them, if they do. On that basis, I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I have one reason for objecting to the amendment in its present form, which has been well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I want registration. I am deeply sceptical of the idea that if the Bill returned to the other place, an amendment such as this would be accepted in any case.
However, I have a quite different set of reasons for being critical of the amendment—to which, in a way, I should be sympathetic. I happen to live in a national park. I used to represent another national park in Pembrokeshire. As Secretary of State, I suppose that I was responsible for a third: the Snowdonia National Park. I find it impossible to understand why we should support an amendment to allow hunting to protect sheep in a national park but not in all the other places in which sheep are just as vulnerable.
If I stick to Wales, it happens that to the west of the Brecon Beacons National Park, which embraces the Black Mountains and the Brecon Beacons, is a vast area of upland of almost identical character, where the sheep are just as threatened. In my former constituency of Pembrokeshire, the national park was a narrow strip around the coast. Most of the sheep under threat would have been outside the national park. If we consider North Wales, the amendment would include Snowdonia but not the Berwyns. The amendment would also exclude the whole of mid-Wales.
If it had not been for the rather ruthless cull of hereditary Peers, I have little doubt that Lord Davies of Llandinam would be sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches today. He, and his family before him, have run one of the most formidable foot packs anywhere in the country with magnificent long-haired hounds. I find it extraordinary that we should be considering an amendment that would exclude the area in which Lord Davies's hounds operate. I take the opportunity to suggest that Lord Davies's foot pack is a splendid example of a refutation to those who believe that hunting is only for toffs. Few toffs would keep up with Lord Davies's hounds on the very hilly country in which they operate.
Equally, I could turn to the south of the Brecon Beacons National Park, to the industrial area of south Wales, where many sheep have been, and continue to
162
be, hunted by miners' packs. Those who took part in the splendid march to which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred—
Viscount Bledisloe: Does the noble Lord really mean that a very large number of sheep have been hunted to death by foot packs?
Lord Crickhowell: I did not say that that number of sheep had been hunted to death by foot packs. I am saying that sheep are just as much, or perhaps more, under threat from foxes in the industrial areas in south Wales, where foot packs usually almost entirely composed of miners and ex-miners seek to protect them.
Those who participated in that march will remember that among the largest and most vociferous groups were miners from south Wales. Indeed, at a later demonstration, which got out of control and where some people attempted to climb over the fence of Parliament, I fear that among the leaders were those probably trained by Mr Scargill. They were certainly south Wales miner's packs.
The amendment would select for protection a relatively small area of the threatened uplands but leave out the rest. One must also ask why we are to protect only sheep in those areas. Unfortunately, foxes in the uplands, as elsewhere, are just as destructive of chickens and other livestock and animals. We are confronted with an amendment lacking in logic and against the principle that emerged clearly in the consultations undertaken by Alun Michael that animals should be treated on an equal and comparable basis, and that we should not discriminate. Surely if we are to select particular areas or forms of hunting for special treatment, we should leave it to a registrar, with all the ability that he would have to take evidence and to consider the individual facts to reach a sensible arrangement for dealing with the matter.
Although the amendment is no doubt moved with the best intentions, it cannot be justified in logic or reason. It would also undermine the important principle that we should opt for registration and the proper control of hunting throughout the United Kingdom. On that basis, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Most unusually, and worryingly to me, I have reached a different conclusion from that just reached by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Of course I agree with him in the simple position that the law should deal with hunting on an equal and uniform basis and, as I believe, by a registration scheme. But I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who moved the amendment, is coming from: his old constituency, which extends over the delectable hunting country of the Blencathra, the Ullswater, and, for all I know, the Eskdale and Ennerdale and perhaps the Coniston and the Melbreak.

163
I, too, have the good fortune to know those hunts and over many years, off and on, to have gone out with them. I know what they mean to the dalesmen and women of those parts and, as the noble Lord graphically made clear, to those who owe their exiguous livelihood to their sheep. In the horrid language of this horrid Bill, I, too, have engaged,
"in the pursuit of a wild mammal [when]… one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit".
What was that wild mammal? It was a most efficient and savage killer of lambs born and reared, as they must be, on the fell side.
Who were my fellow followers? They were about as far removed from the stereotypes so lovingly hated by those behind the Bill before the Committee as is possible to imagine. They follow the hounds and climb, not on horses but on foot. Their boots are those of the farmyard, and their clothes are those of every working day, which happens to come round seven times each week. Typically, their lives in the dales are lonely and very hard. The hunt is the linchpin of what social life they have. If I may quote from the old song:
"When the fire's on the hearth and good cheer abounds,
We'll drink to Joe Bowman and his Ullswater hounds".
I know that it is hard for people who live in the South, as I do, to understand what the hunt means to those people. For people living in the South, the fox gets only at their dustbins and never at their incomes. For their social lives they have an embarrassment of riches. I just want the supporters of this blunderbuss Bill to know that in all seriousness I fear for the very lives of many people living in the dales if their hunts were destroyed.
The law should deal with all hunting on an equal basis and by a system of registration. I shall support an approach to the Bill that would achieve that in later votes and opportunities. If people wish to hunt on horses, with hounds and in customary hunting kit, that is no reason to single them out for criminal punishment. I have had the good fortune to hunt in that way, too.
The amendments, provokingly selective though they are, confront me with a dilemma. I shall resolve it by supporting them for the moment, without prejudice to my main position, because if the worst came to the worst, one bit of hunting preserved, in any event, would be better than none.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgartti: My name is attached to the amendment. I wish to speak in favour of it, but not quite from the same perspective as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I support registration; that is extremely important. I want to see the uplands hunted, indeed over the widest possible area. In that., I agree with most of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. But, as I understand it, an amendment of this kind is the only one that may be accepted in the House of Commons. I regard it as a last-ditch amendment.
My name and that of my noble friend Lord Hooson are attached to Amendment No. 100, which will not be discussed. It covers foot packs in the area outside
164
national parks and is preferable to this amendment. I am looking at it from a last-ditch point of view. Very specifically, I understand that it is the only amendment in the whole Bill that might be acceptable to the House of Commons. I do not know whether that is an accurate assessment but, given what happened when the House of Commons introduced a complete ban, it is in the realms of possibility.
I represented the Brecon and Radnor constituency for 11 years in the other place. Farmers frequently hunt on foot in the Brecon Beacons National Park. Foxes are a big menace to lambs. The hunts go to the highest mountains to track down foxes. Hill fanners must be able to protect their sheep from the predations of the fox and maintain the sustainability of the national parks so that ground-nesting birds are not eliminated. The call of the curlew in the days of my youth in the Brecon Beacons National Park was a frequent harbinger of spring. Now it is practically not heard at all because of many changes in the environment, one of the most significant of which is the predations of the fox on ground-nesting birds. Basically, the amendments mean that hunting in national parks will be exempt and that a person cannot be charged with the offence of hunting.
I also recall what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said about miners' hunts. There is one hunt in particular— the Banwen Miners hunt—which frequently hunts the Brecon Beacons National Park. It plays an important part in the social life of the area and in ensuring a sustainable population of foxes in the southern part of the Brecon Beacons National Park.
Another important proviso should be discussed in relation to this amendment. There is a lot of open access now to national parks, and the issue of shooting in national parks obviously has an important bearing on the matter. I support this amendment which is why my name is attached to it, but I regard it as a last ditch amendment that will secure hunting at least in national parks if the House of Commons is minded to ban it everywhere else.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I understood him to have degrouped Amendment No. 100. He seemed to be sorry about that. Is he now speaking to that amendment with this group?
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thought that I had made it clear that I was not speaking to Amendment No. 100 at all. It has been totally degrouped. If Members of the Committee look at the groupings, they will see that Amendment No. 100 is the last but one at present and addresses a much wider issue than this narrow one of national parks.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he enlighten my ignorance? If this last-ditch amendment

165
were to be accepted by Members in the other place, would it deprive them of the opportunity of using the Parliament Act?
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I did not hear the noble and learned Lord's final words.
Noble Lords: The Parliament Act.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I would have to defer to the noble and learned Lord in that case and take legal advice about whether that would happen. I have not thought the matter through and have always found it a good idea not to have an instantaneous response to a question of that kind.
Lord Harrison: I find myself in some agreement with speakers in this debate in so far as I think that this set of amendments may trespass the principle of uniformity of approach. However, my approach is entirely different. The issue of the morality of chasing foxes for sport is identical whether we are talking about upland or lowland areas. However, I am conscious of why my good friend Lord Campbell-Savours has moved the amendment and his purpose in so doing.
In my noble friend's opening speech, he acknowledged that he was in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs. We have heard evidence of the paraphernalia of fox hunting that exists elsewhere in the country, including artificial earths and the dumping of livestock in order to encourage foxes. However, I seek clarification. As far as I understand the Bill before us, flushing foxes for pest control is allowed under certain circumstances, albeit with two dogs only. If my noble friend is unable to confirm that, perhaps the Minister can do so.
I conclude my remarks on this set of amendments by referring to the general case that has been made elsewhere about the fox predation of sheep. I, like many colleagues who contributed to the Second Reading debate, received many letters for and against fox hunting. I have attempted to reply to them all. One letter that I received was from a sheep farmer in Cumbria. I wrote back to him thanking him for his letter and asking him for his view on the ground of whether foxes do indeed predate in the way that it is suggested. This is his reply:
"In answer to your request as to my views on the extent of fox predation, I have to say that I find it difficult to come to any clear conclusion. Foxes definitely take quite a lot of lambs, but lambs spend most of their short lives dreaming up ways of dying before they can be turned into a chop. It is usually impossible to say whether a particular lamb taken, had succeeded in its endeavour, and the fox was merely recycling the resulting carcass, or whether the fox did the killing.
"When our flock is lambing in by, I have to say in support of your argument, that if a particular fox is being a nuisance, the easiest solution is a gun, this does not, however apply when they are back on the fell".
I have tried to be even handed about the reply that he sent to me, because he also gratuitously told me that drag hunting, which I fully support, is Bulgarian
166
Cabernet Sauvignon compared with claret. We may take different views on the wine that we drink. However, there is some doubt about the matter. There have been extensive scientific studies, but I seek clarification from the Minister. I think that what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours seeks is already covered in the original Bill.
Lord King of Bridgwater: I would not want to leave this matter purely in the hands of those in the Brecon Beacons or the Lake District. I would hope to include Exmoor, in terms of the national parks and, in the amendment that is linked with this one that mentions areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Quantocks as well. Certainly, the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are the same in those areas—just as they are in the enjoining land that does not happen to be part of a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty.
I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and disagree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who I thought was rather unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I think that this is a very promising amendment. The first thing that it does is to accept in principle that there is nothing unacceptable about hunting with dogs, which is an important statement. Although the noble Lord does not want to admit it, he wishes that there were some system that allows for certain sorts of hunting with dogs. I thought that that was what the registration principle was all about—to allow properly conducted hunting.
I was interested to hear his reference to the 1987 Labour Party manifesto. I suspect that many people were sympathetic to his amendment, which he subsequently pocketed for further use, for the same reason that we have heard many times in another place. It is not the principle of hunting with dogs, but rather, if I may refer to the Freudian remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, it is the paraphernalia that many people cannot accept. I have received an interesting letter from Mr Douglas Batchelor, the chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, which I mention in connection with the hunt packs of the fells that operate in the national parks mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The letter states:
"I am sure you will agree that people hunt mostly because they enjoy it. Our case is quite simply that they should not enjoy it".
That is accurate. That is the view of many people. It is not to do with the absolute principle of whether one should pursue and destroy predatory foxes with dogs; it is about the way in which one does it.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to the impact of tourism, to the number of walkers on the hills and to the impracticability of shooting in many areas. The Government's case throughout the Bill is, largely, that, at all times, shooting is preferable. We know well the number of visitors and tourists on Dunkery Beacon and on Exmoor. Should people be able to use high-powered rifles at any time in such areas free of hazard? As a former Member of Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will know that, the moment that one shot passes within half a mile of a visiting group of schoolchildren walking over Exmoor

167
or the Quantocks—the noble Lord will know that it is often difficult to tell how close a shot may be—there will be an outcry.
In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has established an important principle: there is nothing wrong with hunting with dogs, provided that it is done in a proper and orderly manner. I commend him for tabling the amendments. I take the same view as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden: the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, should be supported because his amendment would establish a principle. The principle of registration lies behind it, and it fits properly with the registration concept.
5 p.m.
Lord Kimball: Like my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The Committee must realise that, in all the areas, we must look after the national sheep flock. It is a rather special sheep flock.
Does the Committee realise what hefting is all about? Hefting is important in moorland areas. For many years. I had a sheep farm in Sutherland. We used to send the sheep away to winter in Aberdeenshire. They came back at the end of their first year and went to a yield herding, where the tups were not put out. They had a second year not being tupped at home in the same area and did not go back to their original herding until they were two years old. Two shears after clipping, they went back to their original herding.
The interesting thing is that, within two or three days of having been on a yield herding and having been down in Aberdeenshire for their first winter, the sheep would automatically gravitate towards the areas from which they had originally come—the good green burn or a particular green area on a hill. That is what it is all about with moorland sheep. We must look after them, not only in the Lake District but in all other moorland areas and in Wales. I hope that the Committee realises the importance of hefting.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I must first declare an interest: I live in an area of outstanding natural beauty that may, shortly, be designated a national park. The inquiry into whether the South Downs will become a national park starts in three weeks, so I could find myself moving from an AONB to a national park in two or three years' time.
I am interested in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I notice that there is a sort of gradation about them that may have passed by some other noble Lords. The first amendment refers to national parks in a sheep-grazing area. The second amendment drops the phrase,
"within a sheep grazing area".
It refers simply to,
"protecting sheep on fell or moorland".
The third amendment refers simply to,
"protecting sheep in a designated National Park".
168
It has dropped the words "fell or moorland". I have taken the liberty of tabling an amendment to that third amendment that would add the words,
"or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty".
I find myself in a bit of a difficulty. My spirit is with my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and not, for once, with my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton— I mean my noble friend Lord Crickhowell; he and I sit on the same EU sub-committee, so I am sure that he will have it out with me tomorrow morning.
The national park habit is coming southwards. It started around the Derbyshire Peaks, and it is always said that that is where the idea of a national park was first born in the 1930s. Many people working in the industrial cities around the Peaks found it difficult to get access to the land that is now in the Peak District National Park, as a great deal of it was owned by the water companies, which severely prohibited access for any sort of holiday, walk or hike. The Attlee government's idea of national parks was inspired by the Peak District. The Peak District and the Lake District are still the two largest national parks in terms of budget and number of tourists.
I have declared my interest. If the South Downs are turned into a national park—that may happen shortly—it will have more visitors than any other and will be bigger than any. We have a lot of sheep that graze. We do not have any fell or moorland. The traditional and difficult way of making money farming the South Downs was not from cereal—the Downs were ploughed during the Second World War only under pressure from the Ministry of Agriculture for more cereals to be grown—but from sheep. There is still a breed of South Downs sheep, which I recommend to noble Lords for the next time that they are shopping. If one can buy South Downs sheep, buy it, rather than New Zealand or even Welsh sheep. South Downs sheep are a traditional means of profit for a farm on the Downs, and we are trying to propagate the South Downs brand, so that farmers may have a bigger income. I declare an interest that I have often declared before: I am chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board.
I sat on the Benches opposite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for many years in the other place. He finds himself this evening with a surprising number of supporters whose support he may not be used to. I am sure that he would not wish to have some national parks allowing hunting with dogs in order to protect sheep on fell and moorland, if it was not allowed in other national parks, such as the New Forest, which is about to become one, or the South Downs, which may become one, because they do not have fell or moorland. That would be ridiculous. I hope that, in considering which of his important amendments to press, the noble Lord will pass over Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 and move Amendment No. 27, in which case I shall move my amendment to Amendment No. 27.

169
I accept that areas of outstanding natural beauty cover considerably more country than the national parks, but they are also getting a higher status. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 encouraged the formation of statutory conservation boards. Those boards are starting to be formed around areas of outstanding natural beauty; the Cotswolds and the Chilterns are two examples. The exception that the noble Lord proposes is important. As my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater rightly said, it shows that there is a noble Lord on the Government Benches who is willing to accept that hunting should be permitted on certain conditions. That is an important point. However, the exception should be extended, for the reasons that I gave, to areas of outstanding natural beauty, to the national parks that are based on grassland and where sheep are often the farmer's only source of income.
Baroness Mallalieu: The subject matter of the amendment is of direct interest and concern to me because I farm in a very small way in a national park on Exmoor and also in an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns. I have sheep in both places, which move between the two. I also subscribe to the Exmoor Fox Hounds, which would be covered by the amendment. I have hunted with foot packs in the Lake District, which I understand to have been my noble friend's constituency.
Because my noble friend supports a ban on hunting generally, I am very glad that he recognises that packs of hounds in his own area perform an important— indeed, an essential—task in relation to fox control and that they should continue to hunt. But I must tell him that the arguments, which have won his support in his area, apply just as strongly elsewhere.
In the national park where I farm, which is exceptionally well-provided with fox hunting, predation, certainly in my direct experience in the past couple of years, has been largely kept under control by the hunt. I see foxes about all the time, but I have had few problems. As many noble Lords will know, whenever there is a difficulty, the huntsmen—whether in season or not—will go out specifically on a lambing call, taking a few hounds with him, to track down a rogue fox and to deal with it. He provides a service to farmers which goes far beyond the usual day's hunting with the meet on the village green. He is a working member of the countryside and is on call. He deals with difficulties on the farm in relation to fallen stock— which we will come to later—and with particular difficulties with foxes.
Where I live in the Chilterns, hunting is much more problematic because of shooting interests, woodland, which is not used for shooting but has widespread public access, and the proximity of a motorway. In that area, I have serious fox predation problems, not only with sheep, but also particularly with poultry, which are out during the day but securely locked up at night. We regularly lose a substantial proportion of the flock each year. At one stage when we had particular fox
170
difficulties, it was necessary to house young lambs for the first three weeks of their lives. Even then, I lost good, strong lambs.
There is shooting in that area and there is wounding. Sadly, one sees the effect of that. On two occasions, foxes have come into the farm buildings to die, which, on examination, clearly have suffered for a considerable period of time. So my problem in the area of outstanding natural beauty is that there is not enough hunting. On Exmoor, the hunting works and works well.
My sheep move from one area to another. Under the amendment, they would be protected on Exmoor, but would have none of that protection in Buckinghamshire. That is discriminatory in relation to the degree of protection that a farmer can give his animals in one area as opposed to another; what of the other areas just outside the national park or the areas of outstanding natural beauty which are not covered?
Seven miles away from my farm in Buckinghamshire, just down the road in Oxfordshire, near Thame, I have a friend who has an outdoor pig farm. Such were the losses of piglets that he called the police believing that he was suffering the attentions of rustlers. When night cameras were set up and a watch was kept, the photographs showed clearly what was happening. Foxes were coming at night and, with a remarkable lack of noise, were taking piglets of a size which he could not have conceived to be capable of being taken and killed. The hearings at Portcullis House made it clear that there should be parity in the treatment of all the quarry species and all the areas of the country in the way in which the registration system applies.
I know the Lake District. It is a particularly strong hunting community, as is Exmoor, where I come from. With an echo of my own experience, I listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said about his concerns for the well-being of some of those people for whom hunting is central to their lives. No one should understate the feeling of threat which they are under at the moment. However, I am concerned. The areas that my noble friend represented as a Member of Parliament are particularly strong in that respect. They played a remarkable role during the foot and mouth outbreak. I know that the staff of all those local hunts were extremely involved in the very unpleasant task of destroying animals belonging to their neighbours and friends, which they did with tact and in a manner which commanded the reassurance of those with whom they were dealing. That is something which must never be overlooked because they are the very people whom this measure is designed to put out of work.
I have great sympathy with what my noble friend said. I wish I shared his optimism about the likelihood of the amendment being acceptable in another place. He knows much better than I how the other place works and the minds of those in it. From what I have seen and read of the debates, so far it seems that the actual arguments are no longer playing any part on the minds of those at the other end. What they want is a totemic victory, regardless of the cost in human or animal terms.

171
However, let us assume that my noble friend is right. Perhaps I may try, with some temerity, to answer as best I can—if I am wrong, I hope that others will correct me —the question that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised about the Parliament Act. As I understand it, the Parliament Act could be applied not just to a Bill which is identical to that which left the Commons, it could incorporate amendments made in this House if the other place agrees with them subsequently. So there is scope for an amendment being included.
I come back to what we are trying to do—at least I am trying to do—in Committee; that is, to reinstate the registration system which Alun Michael decided should apply, based on the evidence. He determined that that system should apply to all hunting. What I think we all want—I speak in so far as I can for the hunting community—is that best practice should be applied to all forms of hunting. There should be a proper form of regulation. There should be proper enforcement of the rule so that the public can have confidence that it is properly conducted. For that reason I am reluctant to see any forms of hunting or any areas of hunting taken outside that scheme. I should like to see the public having confidence that those rules and the new system apply everywhere and to all.
If my noble friend presses the amendment, I cannot go into the Division Lobby with him. I feel that what he is doing does not lie with the registration scheme. But, I am bound to say, nor could I go into the Division Lobby against him and oppose something which, potentially, could have great significance for areas and for people who deserve support.
5.15p.m.
Lord Palmer: I, too, listened terribly carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, particularly in reference to what will happen if, indeed, the Bill, having completed all the stages of parliamentary scrutiny, does go back to the Commons. I was rather impressed with what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. Indeed, we all must bow to the much longer experience of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in another place. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that this, to some degree, is a last-ditch amendment.
One of the most fundamental points about the amendment is that it emphasises the idiotic fact that here we are, yet again, talking about foxes. People outside the building simply cannot believe that we are banging on yet again and wasting so much parliamentary time. I also listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. On balance, bearing in mind that more than 10 per cent of the land area of England and Wales is now part of a national park, I feel that if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does press this to a Division, I shall have to support him.
Earl Peel: I find myself in something of a dilemma over the noble Lord's rather strange amendment. I applaud his concern for his former constituents and for those who live around him. I also suspect that the noble Lord will appreciate the great passion and love for hunting that will
172
be so unfairly wrenched away from people in such areas, were this ludicrous Bill to become law. But, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I am bound to ask two questions: why have the national parks been specified and, indeed, why is the amendment directed specifically at sheep?
I should have thought that, if a form of demarcation line was to be drawn, the "less-favoured area" line would be more appropriate because it would cover a wider area of similar farming conditions. On the question of sheep, it is true to say that sheep rearing is an absolute lifeline for those living and working in the upland areas, but what of piglets? I know of a farm in the North Yorkshire moors where I am sure that fox predation is a problem. What of game birds, which now play such an important part in local rural economies? Why should sheep be given special protection as opposed to ground-nesting birds? Why cannot the curlew and the golden plover—birds that are in decline in many of these areas—be afforded the same protection? There is a degree of inconsistency here which causes me real concern—and, of course, it is that lack of consistency throughout which is causing so many noble Lords difficulties with the Bill. Registration would appear to be the only sensible way forward.
One further point is worthy of discussion. What are farmers in these areas to do if hunting is outlawed? What will happen in the Lake District, where lamping and shooting foxes at night is an impractical solution, not only because of people being present, but because of the very nature of the terrain? In many upland regions, in particular those managed for grouse, lamping is an option, although there are real concerns about the safety aspect of it now that the right to roam has reached the statute book. That is another problem which I do not believe that this Government have taken into account.
As I have said, on many parts of the Lakes hills and in Wales, lamping is not an option and hunting is the only alternative. But, under the terms of the Bill, the only option open to a farmer in such conditions is to flush out a fox and shoot it, using no more than two dogs. However, anyone with even the remotest degree of common sense must realise that that is wholly and utterly impractical. Do we really expect farmers in the Lake District to go out with two dogs, ranging over those huge areas of land, in the hope that they might flush out and shoot a fox? Once again, in this Bill we are entering the world of "Fantasia".
This issue also raises the question of the gun packs, a matter about which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, feels strongly. I am sure that we shall discuss it in great detail when we come to his amendment. If the gun packs and fell packs are removed by legislation, then I put this question to the Minister: what practical alternatives will there be for the control of foxes in those areas? Unless the Government can come forward with a practical

173
solution, I say to them: think again, and think again fast. They are going to devastate—I repeat, devastate— the lives of people living and working in these areas.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: The amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are, in my view, demonstrably illogical, unattractively pragmatic and self-evidently tendentious. For those reasons, in part, if I have the opportunity to give a view, I shall support them. I shall do so because it is better to have an unjust law that applies to only part of the country than to have an unjust law that applies to the whole of the country.
That conclusion is not based on a logic which I have learnt from almost four years in your Lordships' House. In my time here I have come to appreciate debates in which decisions are reached largely on their merits, after listening to the arguments. The conclusion that I shall express, if given the opportunity to do so tonight, will be based rather on what I learnt, as it were, at the noble Lord's knee during my 14 years in the other place. That is a House in which, while sometimes one foot may be dragged down into the vortex of the usual channels, the remainder tries to grab hold of the best of what is left of one's energy into trying to achieve a just conclusion on the issue.
It is, of course, completely illogical to suggest that sheep should be protected from foxes in Llanberis, but not in Llandinam, a place mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, when he referred to my close friend Lord Davies of Llandinam, whose hunt I have followed on foot, along with all those ordinary farmers and other people from far and wide who do not wear regalia or anything of that kind and who follow such hunts.
If one looks at the boundaries of any national park, such as, for example, the Snowdonia National Park, one will find many pieces of land where the boundary actually goes through the middle of farmers' fields. This kind of amendment is, as I have said, self-evidently illogical.
What I really want to say to noble Lords is this: if these amendments are agreed tonight, we should not send to the other place the message offered by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours; that is, that we will grab what we can while we can get it. Rather we should send to the other place the message that this House, while it may be prepared to support these amendments, does not support the grounds given; namely, those of expediency. We might send the clear message that we are asking the other place, for once, to apply the standards which are applied daily in this House; namely, the standards of listening to the arguments and judging an issue on its merits.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Both of these amendments are dedicated to the very worthy cause of protecting sheep, which is all-important for the reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord Kimball. Living, as I do, in the Conwy Valley on the edge of the Snowdonia National Park, in the middle of sheep-rearing country, I have great sympathy with the thrust of these
174
amendments, although I cannot support them for reasons that will become obvious, and I prefer registration.
The annual losses incurred by sheep farmers as a result of the onslaught of foxes on their flocks, in particular at lambing time, are staggering. The fox does not simply kill to eat but, as my noble friend pointed out earlier, he kills for kicks—or whatever is the proper term for the feral killer instinct.
Among the many letters that I have received is one from Mr I for Evans, who runs the Aber Valley Hunt in my neighbourhood. That hunt is a farmers' gun pack with 12 and a half couple of Welsh hounds. They hunt on foot, usually over difficult terrain, and very hard work it must be. For myself, I cannot see much sport in it. Nevertheless, that hunt has already dispatched, within that small area of the Aber Valley, some 60 foxes—above the usual annual average of 50 foxes. I shall quote selectively from Mr Evans's letter:
"One local family [whom I think I know] lost over a hundred lambs [this season] and the losses occurred between the busy A55 expressway and the Holyhead to London main railway line—an extremely dangerous situation to both man and hound".
I know that stretch of land on the coastal fringe of the national park—land on which there are also protected badgers. Foxes, I am told, are crafty enough to use badger setts to earth in and gain extra protection. That creates another problem. This is where the hounds excel because they do not go underground. They leave the badgers alone and hunt foxes in the open.
Mr Evans continued:
"Another smallholder, a working man, in Betws-y-coed"—
in the heart of the national park—
"had the tremendous loss of 41 lambs this spring. All attempts made to catch the fox … by followers with shotguns, lamps and squeegers (giving a similar sound to a rabbit in distress)… were to no avail. The losses continued until finally a dog fox was flushed out by the hounds and shot on May 4th. The losses ceased, much to the relief of the farmer".
That letter gives a cameo picture of the situation on the ground in at least one national park area which is almost entirely grazed by sheep for most of the year. The ewes are brought close to the home farm in the lowland at lambing time, but foxes are seldom far away and can cause extensive havoc in a single night. I have seen a fox on my lawn at home in August but my most surprising sighting was of a fox in the park keeper's garden by the lake in St James's park within 100 yards of Downing Street. The point is that foxes are not confined to specific locations, and that seems to me to be the fundamental defect of the amendments.
The amendments imply that hunting with dogs should not be prohibited when it is undertaken to protect sheep in a variety of specified locations. Of course, all kinds of questions arise in that context, as we have heard. What happens when the fox is chased from the designated area? Does the hunt then become illegal and cease? Indeed, why should not sheep be protected against foxes wherever and whenever they are threatened?

175
The amendments offer a crumb of comfort but I prefer the thrust of later amendments that seek to legitimise hunting to prevent damage to livestock. That such protection is necessary, especially so far as concerns sheep flocks, is beyond doubt in my experience. In my area, certainly, people do not keep poultry in the open because the danger of a fox kill has proved to be very real time and time again. The slaughter of lambs and the ravaging of ewes that try to protect their young against foxes is a very common occurrence in the lambing season.
Thanks to a few expert fox hunters and their essential dogs, the numbers of foxes are kept within tolerable proportions. About 60 to 70 are shot every year in my own Rowen Valley but, like my noble friend Lord Peel, I dread to think what the situation will be like if the Bill becomes law and hunting with more than two dogs is prohibited.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was initially attracted to the amendment. I endorse all the comments made by various Members of the Committee about the Ullswater Foxhounds, which is a foot pack that hunts in the Lake District National Park. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, these foot packs are often summoned during the lambing season by farmers who are perhaps being plagued by a rogue fox, which can do quite a lot of damage. Foxes can bite off the head of even a large lamb and carry it away, leaving behind the remainder of the lamb. This is wasteful and distressing to the shepherds. So the hunts provide a very good service.
The use of dogs is widespread in rounding up sheep and moving them to new pastures and so on. From this has grown a sport. "One Man and His Dog" is a popular television programme. We allow this sport— we call it sheep dog trials—because it takes place using domesticated animals rather than wild animals. So that is all right. We have no idea what might be going on in the head of a sheep while it is being chased along. Does it think, "Oh, that's okay, it looks like the boss's sheep dog", or, "Scarper, ladies, it's that alsatian from the pub down the road"? We make these judgments to suit our purpose, and our purpose is livestock production—or, put another way, raising lambs to kill to eat.
I said I was attracted initially to the amendment because of the protection it affords livestock. For every reason suggested by my noble friend Lord Peel, I understand that the land in national parks or other upland areas may increase the difficulty of fox control by all the other methods mentioned, but what reason can be given for distinguishing between a designated area and a non-designated area? Why do foxes gain protection from hunting by crossing a line on a map? If this is a last-ditch amendment, I view it as humbug and hypocrisy. If hunting is humane in the Lake District National Park, it is humane in Leicestershire. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Mancroft: Like my noble friend, I, too, was attracted to the amendment initially. I fully understand
176
the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for promoting such an amendment and bringing it forward. However, what concerns me most is finding a solution to this very difficult political problem, which has been served up to us by an incompetent government and an irresponsible House of Commons. What really matters is that we should try to solve this problem for all the people out there—some of whom I know very well— who are very distraught, sad, depressed and angry about what is going on. We owe it to the 400,000 who marched through London, if we possibly can, to find a solution.
The Bill we were originally promised was to have been based on principle. Although when it finally arrived in the House of Commons it was a little hard to find out exactly what those principles were—they were enmeshed in expedience, as are so many government Bills—they were there. As we know, principle was removed from the Bill before it arrived here. Last week, in moving the amendments to put back into the Bill the registration process, we were attempting to find a principled solution to this extremely difficult and unpleasant problem.
I completely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seeks to do by moving the amendment. He has told the Committee that he is not in favour of hunting—that he opposes it—but that he recognises the issues it raises for his former constituents. I cannot help wondering whether Mr Banks would have felt the same if he had been standing for a seat in the Lake District rather than in East London. It would have been rather helpful for us to know, I suspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises a number of points with his amendments. He recognises, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that hunting with dogs plays a significant role in fox management for sheep farmers. In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raised questions about the amount of predation that sheep farmers suffer. There is a question mark over this issue—there always has been—but the old Ministry of Agriculture, now Defra, has always accepted that there is a problem. It has been recognised that the amount of predation of lambs is usually around 2 or 3 per cent. That seems a very small figure until one realises that it represents about 300,000 lambs every year—a rather larger figure if you happen to be a sheep farmer. So that issue is worth taking into account, and I will say it again: hunting with dogs plays a significant role in fox management for sheep farmers. The evidence on which the Bill was supposedly based found that as well, although the Government may be tempted to forget that today.
The noble Lord also changed his amendment from an earlier draft with regard to permitting the use of dogs. My noble friend Lord Peel said the idea of hunting with one dog was completely ludicrous. To tell the honest truth, hunting with two is not much better. The idea that people devise the hunting of foxes, deer and hares with packs of hounds because it is better and more amusing to have 20, 30 or 40 rather than two is ludicrous. The reality is that you cannot hunt foxes with two hounds. It is not a sensible thing to do—most importantly, it is not a humane thing to do. Nevertheless, the amendment

177
recognises that dogs are needed. When the noble Lord winds up this little debate, I would be interested to know how many dogs he had in mind.
There is again the issue of why sheep should be protected in one part of the country and not another. Why should calves, piglets and other livestock not be protected? It is important to realise that, as more and more pigs are reared outdoors, the level of predation of piglets by foxes will rise considerably. People have been pressing to reform the way in which pigs are farmed in this country, by getting them out of the iron pens and stys and out into the fields, which is very much nicer for the pig. It does, however, mean that there are very much higher levels of fox predation. So there are swings and roundabouts with all these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises very interesting points. He accepts principles of fox management that the Government appear to have forgotten—the House of Commons has certainly forgotten them. The problem is that by accepting an amendment like this, we possibly deny ourselves any chance of finding a real, long-term and principled solution to the very difficult question raised by the Bill. Therefore, with the deepest regret, I am afraid I shall not be able to support the noble Lord if he divides the Committee.
The Duke of Montrose: We have debated the interests of sheep and a number of other types of livestock quite extensively around the Committee. I begin by declaring an interest as someone who, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, owns sheep and lives in a national park—the only difference being that the park I live in is in Scotland. Noble Lords will understand how, subjectively, I must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for tabling these amendments. I can perhaps understand the limitations he has placed on their effect.
The noble Lord drew to our attention the speech made by my noble friend Lord Jopling at Second Reading in which he described a most telling case. Unfortunately, my noble friend is unable to be in his place today, and he has asked me to remind your Lordships about the Plas Machynlleth hounds and how one of the huntsmen of the hounds had to be recalled during the Second World War because the foxes got so out of control that they were threatening food production in the area.
When my noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned statistics, he was no doubt thinking of those provided in the Burns report, which were taken from studies carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust and other bodies. The studies looked first at lambing in mid-Wales and then at lambing in the whole of England and Wales, not necessarily in national park areas. Burns drew out that the percentage of losses is greatly influenced by the number of sheep that are lambed indoors. He quoted a rate of loss of 0.6 per cent in mid-Wales and a best estimate of less than 2 per cent for England and Wales together. This has perhaps given the impression that, in general, it is not a very serious problem for sheep production. However, he added the
178
rider that the effect of the loss on the individual farmer will vary, depending on his or her circumstances. Most of the circumstances that have been described today have involved people lambing out of doors.
I expect it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that in the recent Scottish legislation, the use of dogs in the control of foxes, particularly underground, has been allowed as a general rule because the legislators in Scotland were impressed by the importance of this kind of control for sheep farming. Like the Lake District farmer whom the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned, I should like to share some of my practical experience, which is in slight contrast to the more general statistics provided by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison.
It so happens that this spring, there was a period when I was not able to have someone controlling foxes in my area. I had 40 ewes running in a couple of fields next to the open hill. In the first 10 days, the shepherd lost between 10 and 15 lambs to foxes. This is a man who knows every one of his sheep individually. In the main, healthy lambs, seen with their mothers last thing at night, were not there in the morning. Does the Minister consider that the shepherd's trauma was limited because nobody was there to witness the lambs being killed? This represents about 25 to 30 per cent of the lambs we would expect from these ewes. Our impression was that it tailed off only because the man further up the hill started lambing by the end of this time so the foxes moved on to pastures new, as they will do.
I have more ewes whose lambs were not affected to this extent so, overall, it was not a disaster of the proportions that it might first have appeared. But perhaps this serves as an illustration of what happens in particular areas at particular times if one or more foxes in a sensitive area escape the most effective method of control available. We will come back to this issue later when we debate a number of amendments on the use of dogs underground.
In the mean time, my difficulty with this amendment is that, like a number of other noble Lords, I know that a lot of sheep and livestock do not reside in a national park, and we have before us a Bill which is now to be based on registration. This will allow rational decisions based on individual areas across the country, and it will allow those making the judgment to tailor their decisions on the threats that actually exist.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I shall speak in this debate very briefly. If I am slightly more benign towards my noble friend's amendment than I am to some others which are before us today, it is not because I agree with it but because he, at least, shows some consideration of the fact that the Bill before us, from the House of Commons, has a structure, and his amendment is geared to that structure. Most of the other amendments before us would effectively delete that structure and replace it with something entirely different.

179
It is therefore important to recognise that my noble friend's amendment could sensibly be considered by the House of Commons within the structure of the Bill originally before us. It could, with some tweaking— some significant tweaking—also be considered in the context of registration, which was agreed in earlier proceedings, although it would not be appropriate to do it in precisely this form.
As to the substance of the proposition, the protection of sheep, particularly in upland areas, was considered as a separate issue when the Government were discussing the Bill at previous stages. Because there were fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting with dogs in other areas, this may not be appropriate in all upland areas, particularly the more remote upland areas, most of which are within national parks. It was therefore suggested that some sort of exemption should be provided there.
On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Harrison indicated, much of this is for flushing out, and the Burns report recognises that the welfare of foxes could be affected adversely unless dogs could be used at least to flush out foxes from cover in upland areas. That, therefore, is a different situation from that which prevails in the rest of the country where, in the estimation of the majority of the House of Commons and the Government in both the original Bill and the Bill which is now before us—or was before us—in most circumstances there will be less cruel methods of conducting the control of foxes. In the upland areas, there is an argument that that might not be so, but most of those could be covered by the exemption in the Bill for flushing out, as my noble friend Lord Harrison suggested.
Earl Peel: What evidence does the Minister have, either from Burns or Portcullis House, that hunting is actually crueller than other methods? That is what he is implying.
Lord Whitty: We have discussed that at great length, as we have discussed many amendments at great length. I am not prepared to respond to that question, as I have responded to it in various forms at various stages. Those who supported the Bill originally before this Chamber strongly felt that the cruelty was greater in relation to fox hunting with hounds than in other circumstances. That may not apply in some areas, and it is reasonable therefore that my noble friend should ask the Committee and, subsequently, the House of Commons, to consider whether a further exemption might be necessary.
I do not believe there to be an overwhelming case for that, although I believe that the Committee should consider it. If this Chamber supported it, the House of Commons should consider it—whether by way of the amendment introduced by my noble friend on grounds for defence, or by the method proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in Amendment No. 100, which would add to the exemptions and which we shall reach later. Both those amendments respect the original structure of the Bill, which can be adapted.
I do not believe that the case has been made, and I am not therefore prepared to advise acceptance of the amendment. All that I am saying is that the discussion
180
is somewhat different from some that will come, where the amendments would in effect construct an entirely different Bill from the one sent us by the Commons.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I thank the Committee for the serious and frank way in which it has considered my amendment. I shall comment briefly on the observations made by those noble Lords who have spoken.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who was wise enough to acknowledge that under my amendment at least one bit of hunting would be preserved. Those were his words. I thank my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for his balanced contribution and his use of the correspondence. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for his recognition that this is a last-ditch attempt. That is precisely what it is.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for his reference to the dangers from the use of high-speed rifles and for his irony; the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for bringing to the debate his great knowledge of the countryside; and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his good eye in recognising the gradation of the three amendments. I am afraid that I cannot cede to his request to press Amendment No. 27, as it would be amended in the way he wants. In doing so, I believe that what left this Chamber would not be taken seriously by the House of Commons.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who referred, in the absence of my reference, to the services provided by the hunt, especially during the period of foot and mouth. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his understanding of the position in the national parks, coming as he does from the north of England. I fully understand the dilemma faced by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who does not want to compromise the principle of registration, which is the position taken by a number of Members on his side of the Committee who are wavering on the amendment.
I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for his colourful combination of irony and sarcasm, which I so often enjoyed listening to when he was a Member in another place. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, felt unable to support my amendment. I would ask him to recognise that I am putting to the Committee tonight only what I believe to be credible in the other place. I am being as frank as I can; that is my objective.
I am afraid that I have to reject the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who described my amendment as "humbug". Oh, that we could have perfection and consistency in all legislation! I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for at least understanding the problems.
My noble friend the Minister referred to his contribution in response as benign, and I took it in that way. However, in light of the debate, and because there are many people in the Lakeland and in the national park in Wales who are watching what happens during our proceedings this evening, I now wish to test the will of the Committee.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 68.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Marlesford, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Biffen, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Boyce, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bragg, L.

Monson, L.

Bramall, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Moynihan, L.

Bridges, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Noakes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northbourne, L.

Buscombe, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Palmer, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carter, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Chorley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Coe, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

[Teller]

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rees, L.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Fowler, L.

Rogan, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Roper, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Sandwich, E.

Henley, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hogg, B.

Sharman, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Kingsdown, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Wakeham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Walpole, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.[Teller]

Warnock, B.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Weatherill, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Wilcox, B.

L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Byford, B. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Chan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Bach, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Barker, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blatch, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Brett, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

182

Crawley, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dixon, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Donoughue, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

[Teller]

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mishcon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Moran, L.

Fearn, L.

Morgan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nickson, L.

Fookes, B.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

Parekh, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Paul, L.

Pendry, L.

Goudie, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Grocott, L.

Slim, V.

Guildford, Bp.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hams of Richmond, B.

Stoone of Blackheath, L.

Harrison, L.

Strange, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Tenby, V.

Hoyle, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Jones, L.

Ullswater, V.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Laird, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): We come to Amendment No. 27A. It follows that that is not moved, I take it.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: In the circumstances, and with regret, it is not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is pre-empted in any event. Thank you very much.
[Amendment No. 27A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In moving that Clause 5 shall not stand part of the Bill, I speak also to Amendment No. 101 to which I have put my name and which is consequential. I should also declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Conservation and Wildlife, which has some relevance to this debate.
In the run-up to Mr Michael Foster's Bill, in 1997, I asked Lord Cranbrook, the then chairman of English Nature, for a bibliography on the fox which I then pursued comprehensively. I cannot claim a similar prolonged background on the hare, although I have had a love affair with the species since I was a schoolboy. One of the principal reasons that Dürer was my favourite painter in my early teens was his enchanting painting of a hare.
The only hunting I have ever done in my life was a brief spell of beagling in County Down when I was a Minister there. I never recall our killing a hare, but

183
I had to desist when the Irish Times revealed that I was doing it, as hunt sabotage in the Province could have carried extreme personal overtones.
My wife and I live on the edge of a woodlanded sheep farm in Wiltshire which has hares in profusion for almost daily observation. I once picked up a newly dead leveret in a field yards from our cottage. Your Lordships' House will know that hares, in giving birth, drop their young in open fields. I have rarely held in my hands anything more beautiful.
One of the ironies of hare coursing, which this clause is about, is that it is the mirror image of Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare. In the hare coursing version, the greyhounds play the hare and it is the cunning and skill of the tortoise that enables the vast majority of the real hares to survive unscathed.
The fundamental argument in favour of dropping Clause 5—which was of course also in the original Bill—from this Bill was the consistent advice at the Portcullis House hearings that all species should be given parity of treatment. Those views were underpinned by the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, at the same hearings, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, quoted last Tuesday (col. 1507 of the Official Report). He said that,
"the bulk of the concerns the Burns Report raised about hunting might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunts".
The consequence of dropping Clause 5 from the Bill would be to allow applications in respect of coursing to be made to the registrar in common with the other currently lawful forms of hunting. The registrar would then decide, assuming other amendments to the Bill are subsequently carried, if the application passed the twin tests of utility and least suffering. If it did so, a licence could be granted. If it failed in either respect, it would not.
The opposition to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill does not of itself permit coursing, or even support it, except vicariously. It returns the Bill to the state of affairs pertaining at the Portcullis House hearings.
Ministers can scarcely say that they have explained why they resisted the Portcullis House advice, nor was any evidence adduced or produced at Defra's hunting consultations to show that these activities should be banned. Mr Alun Michael, in charge of the Bill in another place, said on Second Reading of the original Bill that hare coursing was indefensible. I have no grounds for supposing that he raised his voice, and therefore did not follow the advice of a Latin American delegate at the United Nations whose text was marked in the margin "weak point, shout", but the use of a categorical word such as "indefensible" in the light of centuries of coursing is probably hazardous from the lips of a Minister who said Professor Bateson's evidence on stag hunting was "incontrovertible" when even Professor Bateson himself would, not dream of making such a claim.
In the debate on coursing in Committee in the other place on 13th February, the Minister, Mr Michael, got himself into a massive semantic tangle about the difference between dogs hunting and humans hunting
184
with dogs in language worthy of Alice Through the Looking Glass. More precisely, all coursing is hunting but not all hunting is coursing. If, however, the Minister really believes that coursing is indefensible and that his case, to borrow a word at random, is incontrovertible, why does he not leave it to the registrar to determine the matter and leave the intellectual honesty of the Portcullis House hearings intact? Competitive coursing, which the Burns inquiry said was essentially carried out for recreational purposes, also falls into the same category as shooting or fishing, which are not to be banned, with all the attendant environmental and species management benefits which apply.
I am not going to enter the detailed argument about coursing and its practices because in doing so I should be going beyond my own articulation of why Clause 5 should be dropped from the Bill, but possibly others in your Lordships' House may be less prone to self-restraint, including even possibly the Minister. I appreciate that there may be future points to which I should respond when I wind up the debate.
In the mean time, I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the National Coursing Club, which was founded in 1858, has responded to each one of the reports that were produced in the past 50 years of the 20th century. Whether it was the Scott Henderson report of 1951—I remark parenthetically that the eponymous author appointed by a Labour Home Secretary who gave his name to that report was coincidentally a resident of the village of Sutton Mandeville from which I take my title—or the admirable Stable and Stuttard review of coursing of 1971 (now a rare volume but still immensely worth reading), or the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the hare Bill of 1976, or the Burns inquiry of 2000, the National Coursing Club has always responded positively and constructively to the recommendations of each report, including five specific changes to practice since the Burns report was published; and the number of hares killed during hare coursing has fallen precipitously over the past quarter of a century.
From the narrative I can see no reason why that responsiveness will not be maintained, not least because of the praise lavished on the National Coursing Club for the exceptional tightness of its regulations. I shall also quote a single sentence from the Lords Select Committee report of 1976 which states that,
"the welfare of the hare would not be appreciably affected by it [the hare Bill] since the amount of physical suffering caused by competitive coursing is probably less than 1 per cent of the amount caused by hare shooting and non-competitive coursing".
As to stewardship of the countryside, which I regard as contributing to biodiversity, and thus indirectly to the Government's Rio target of doubling the brown hare population by 2010, there is similar praise for the conservationist practices of the estates where competitive coursing occurs. The Minister will be aware of the significant article in the much respected magazine, Nature, on 29th May this year by four researchers of the Durrell Institute of Conservation

185
and Ecology at the University of Kent on the notable beneficial effects of field sports on conservation in the UK.
I shall close with three further quotations. The first illustrates the hazards of governments interfering with our ecosystem. In 1896 the Reverend H A Macpherson in a book entitled The Hare, lamented the passage of what he called the mischievous and uncalled for legislation of Sir William Harcourt's Ground Game Act of 1880—ground game being hares and rabbits. Mr Macpherson wrote:
"A great change has taken place in the numbers of hares that are annually bred in England. Go where you may, one meets almost universally with the same lament, that where you would formerly have seen 20 or 30 hares feeding in the fields on a summer evening, you will now hardly see a single animal".
That was written 16 years after the passage of the Act. This dirge was despite the reactive and recuperative alternative legislation, the Hare Preservation Act, which was introduced in the summer of 1892 in order to rectify matters.
My second quotation is from the Lords Select Committee of 1976 which stated:
"It has been argued that public opinion is increasingly opposed to coursing matches. The Committee point out however that if those canvassed by the societies—"
those were the animal welfare societies—
"are as ignorant of the facts as members of the Committee were before the inquiry, the value of the statement must be considered debatable".
Finally, and most briefly, but with all the directness of Yorkshire, I quote the verdict of a farmer in that county who takes considerable care with the preservation of hares on his land who said, "If they ban coursing, the hares will have to look out for themselves".
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I hope that in the space of two or three minutes I may be able to persuade some Members of the Committee at least why Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill and why hare coursing is a practice that needs to be outlawed.
I remind the Committee that the original decision to outlaw hare coursing was taken in the House of Commons as long ago as 1970, and it is a measure that has been the subject of Private Members' legislation which has been approved in the other place on numerous occasions since. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, rightly pointed out, even in the Government's original Bill introduced by Mr Michael, hare coursing was described as an "indefensible" activity and would have disappeared.
It was interesting that the noble Lord chose not to describe exactly what happens at hare coursing meetings. When one studies what happens at those events, one finds it almost impossible to believe that there can be any grounds whatever for allowing it to continue. It is an activity—I refuse to use the word "sport" in relation to it—whose purpose is to give pleasure to bystanders by giving them the opportunity to watch a beautiful animal, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, rightly said, being subjected to a
186
gruesome and agonising death. The animal in question, the brown hare, is the subject of a biodiversity action plan, the aim of which is to maintain and expand their population following a huge decline in their numbers over the past century largely as a result of intensive methods of farming.
The Burns report—I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, should have quoted the Burns report in evidence—concluded that,
"there is little or no need to control overall hare numbers".
It also stated that,
"hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes".
Hare hunting is covered by Clause 1 of the Bill and we do not need to concern ourselves with that now.
Clause 5 deals with hare coursing events. These involve the setting of two dogs, usually lurchers or greyhounds, on a single hare. The season for hare coursing runs from September to March, which means that the season does not end until after the first litters are born. Hares may be heavily pregnant or nursing when coursed, and the leverets obviously die if their mother is killed.
Competition coursing is funded largely by gambling, and watched by spectators in a coursing arena. The hares are beaten on to a field where handlers are holding the dogs. The hare gets a head start before the dogs are released. As the dogs are bred for speed, they catch up with the hare in seconds. The only chance the hare has of escaping is by turning sharply. It sometimes happens that the two dogs catch the hare simultaneously and then there is a tug of war with the hare in the jaws of both animals. That goes on until the picker-up gets on to the scene and removes the hare, which may still be alive but in intense agony. The officials then try to break the hare's neck, but do not always succeed the first time.
The RSPCA engaged the services of an independent vet to examine the corpses of five hares killed during the 2001 Millennium Cup coursing event. He found that none had died instantly from a bite. The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare carried out 53 post-mortems on coursed hares. None of those had been killed by a bite to the neck. The research commissioned by the Burns committee found that, out of 12 coursed hares, only one was definitely killed by the dogs. Of the remaining 11, five were killed only after the picker-up arrived and broke their necks. In the other six cases, the cause of death was uncertain.
The Waterloo Cup is the highlight of the hare-coursing year. It is held near Southport in February, on the Altcar estate of Lord Leverhulme. It is an area where the number of native hares has been declining since the 1970s, so the organisers have to round up hares in other parts of the country, with Norfolk being the favourite county from which to take them. That increases the cruelty, because hares are confused in unfamiliar territory. When hunted, they tend to run in a large circle in fields that they know.

187
One courser at the Waterloo Cup this year spoke to the Daily Mirror after the experience. He said:
"It's not illegal but it is immoral. One day I sat down and thought about it and I just couldn't do it any more.
The captured hares are released on to land that is unfamiliar to them, they don't have any runs and they're so scared it's impossible for them to find an escape route. It's like me being taken from my house, blindfolded, driven a hundred miles away and then dumped, being chased".
How can any decent, civilised person argue that that is a sport worth preserving?
The Earl of Caithness: I am very grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because a lot of what he said was emotional and, unusually for him, wrong. If he cares to look at the evidence—there is plenty of it—he will see that the picture is not as he painted it.
We are on a totally different argument from that on fox hunting. The fox is a predator, whereas the hare is probably one of nature's most complete prey animals, but we are still talking about hunting. It is also wise for me to declare my non-interest. I do not have any land. I have been hare coursing once. I have not been fox hunting; I tried once to see what it was like, but I was fogged off so I never got there. As I shall explain, I take a very different view about hare coursing from my view a year ago.
There are two types of what one might call chasing hares. The first is uncontrolled. I have witnessed that in Scotland. It is not a pretty sight—for the hare or for the poor farmer, who is terrified by the mobs that drive on to his land in 4x4 vehicles. Their idea is actually to cause damage and catch the hare. If one looks at controlled coursing by the National Coursing Club, a very different picture emerges. In 116 A.D., Flavius Arianus said:
"The true sportsman does not take out his dogs to destroy the hares, but for the sake of the course … and is glad if the hare escapes".
Unlike chasing hares in an uncontrolled manner, the intention is not to kill the hare. No points are awarded in a hare course for killing the hare, and there is great joy for everyone when the hare escapes. As notified in the Burns inquiry, the average course is something like 40 seconds out of the hare's lifespan of three to four years.
Coursing has won every argument, be it on fear, terror, suffering or preservation of the hare, or conservation, diversity or biodiversity. However, it is still persecuted. It is the most investigated country sport. As my noble friend Lord Brooke reminded the Committee, there have been four reports on it since the Second World War. It is the most controlled. The National Coursing Club implements very strict rules on hare coursing, and it has accepted all the recommendations made by the four reports since the war, most notably and recently that by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It also has an inspector on site who is on the side of the hare and is able to stop coursing meetings—he has done so in the past—if he feels that, for any reason, the hare might be at an unfair disadvantage.
188
Coursing is the most misunderstood country sport. My noble friend Lord Brooke quoted, as I would have, the point made by the Select Committee of this House, which felt that it was totally ignorant of the subject before it began to try to understand it. I, too, would have put myself in that position. That was why I went to a hare-coursing meeting. This time last year, I would not have opposed the Question. I believed some of the hype and emotion in the press and on some television programmes. The more I have looked at properly controlled hare coursing, the more I understand its benefits and that it is not as people have portrayed.
Controlled hare coursing brings enormous benefits to both the hare and the countryside. Man is not the only predator of the hare but the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, did not mention any others. He mentioned that the hare might be pregnant. The hare might be pregnant in May, June or July when the fox does the chasing, or when the mother fox might teach the young foxes what to do. If any Members of the Committee have seen that, they will know that it is nastier, more vicious and inflicts more suffering on the hare than any controlled coursing could.
Man does a huge amount to protect the hare in the areas in which controlled coursing takes place. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is, unusually for him, wrong in saying that hares are transported to hare-coursing meetings and do not know the lie of the land. It is perfectly true that in some parts of the country hares were brought in to restock, but the coursing did not take place until the hares had grown accustomed to that land and the area in which they were.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Is the noble Earl not aware that, in 1997, the League Against Cruel Sports filmed hares being netted on an estate in East Anglia, an activity supervised by the chairman of the Waterloo Cup, which was taking place only two weeks afterwards?
The Earl of Caithness: There has been evidence of some of that. Where anything like that has happened in the past, huge attempts have been made to rectify it. The situation that the noble Lord presents is thoroughly overplayed.
Lord Mancroft: I am not sure whether my noble friend is aware that the allegations by the League Against Cruel Sports were examined by the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and were found not to be correct.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that, which goes to prove my original contention that a lot of the argument, most unusually for the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, was emotion rather than fact.
Hare coursing can be justified, but that is not the point of the debate. The point of the removal of Clause 5 is to treat hunting on a level and fair basis. What applies to one wild mammal should apply to all wild mammals. If hare coursing is permitted and there is a regulator, I strongly believe that it will be a

189
deterrent for those who course in a manner that is not controlled. That is the activity on which we should focus our attention.
Baroness Mallalieu: I, too, oppose the Question whether Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. If one could identify a point at which the Government's Hunting Bill began to run to difficulties, it would appear to be the moment when Mr Alun Michael departed from the principles and the evidence that had been established during his consultation period. He had heard from all sides that whatever direction his proposed legislation were to take, all animals and all forms of hunting should receive the same treatment; in other words, all forms of hunting should be prohibited or all forms should be capable of registration if they could pass the tests that were set. It seems, however, that he took a political decision at that stage to exclude coursing, presumably because he thought that he would be unable to sell that to another place. He said that coursing could never pass the tests, so the registrar should not be entrusted with any applications.
Mr Michael also took a decision about rabbits. He said that the registrar should not be bothered with applications concerning them either, because rabbits would always pass the tests. His intellectual dilemma is now as follows: chasing and perhaps killing a hare with a dog or dogs cannot ever pass the twin tests of utility and least suffering and so must be banned, but chasing and perhaps killing a rabbit with a dog will always pass the twin tests, so must always be permitted. How can that possibly be right when, for rabbits, terriers are used often which are much smaller and less powerful than the larger greyhounds, lurchers and salukis?
The intellectual nonsense of the debate has been highlighted by Sir Mark Prescott, a leading racehorse trainer and a keen supporter of coursing, who with others gave a superb presentation to noble Lords. He asked:
"How many MPs can tell a hare from a rabbit? Almost none. How many policemen can tell a hare from a rabbit? Very few. How many dogs can tell a hare from a rabbit? Not a single one".
My opposition to the Question whether Clause 5 should stand part does not reflect a pro-coursing or anti-coursing position. It does not water down the Bill. It applies, as the Minister promised, the principles and the evidence drawn from the consultation process and it allows coursing to be considered by the registrar against the same twin tests as the other forms of hunting. If the information which was so passionately presented by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is right, coursing will fail one or both of the tests. If coursing does not perform a useful task, as utility is defined in the Bill, or if it cannot pass the test of least suffering, no registration will be granted.
My own position is as follows: I like hares; I like to see them about and I would like to see their population increase, not decrease. That is the very object of the Biodiversity Action Plan. I do not like illegal poaching. I am aware that in some areas, gangs of people with their dogs, chasing hares on other people's
190
land without permission, are not just a serious nuisance, but sometimes a cause of real fear and difficulties in the locality. I am also well aware that their activities have proved virtually impossible to police. I do not want to see the activities of such people increasing—quite the opposite.
I own a lurcher that enjoys rough coursing around the farm, with or without human company. A group of friends sometimes gets together—with, I stress, permission—to walk around the farm with their dogs in what is effectively the equivalent of rough shooting. Any rabbit or occasional hare caught is then taken and eaten later by those present. That is not organised coursing of the kind which the clause is intended to prohibit. Although that activity does not amount to a hare-coursing event as defined in the Bill, it would be required—and rightly, if one accepts the principle of the Bill—to be licensed and registered.
I have attended a hare-coursing event, organised by the National Coursing Club. It has already been referred to. It took place in 2001, near Newmarket, and it was held over three days to celebrate the Millennium. I did not know what I was going to find. It was a superb occasion. One could not have seen a wider section of the community present. There were people who owned a number of dogs and had them professionally trained; there were people who owned one dog or even just the leg of a dog in a syndicate and trained it themselves; there were men with tattoos; there were people of every age and there was substantial ethnic representation. It may surprise some noble Lords that coursing is a popular activity in India and Pakistan. So from all backgrounds and all ages the spectators came.
The skill of the hares was breathtaking, as was that of the greyhounds involved in the coursing. The proportion of killed to courses, as I understand it, is some one to eight; in other words, for every eight courses, only one hare is killed. We are debating in this Chamber an activity that kills just 200 hares in a year.
Initially, I found the argument for coursing difficult to follow, but it became more persuasive during the presentation of Sir Mark Prescott. In speaking about the speed of kills, to which reference has just been made, he said that the longest time that those who oppose coursing have ever claimed that it took for a hare to be killed was some 40 seconds. He added that if you were standing and watching, that would seem interminable and I am sure that he is right. However, he also asked which of us, given the choice, either for ourselves or someone we cared about, of a good life, followed by just 40 seconds of suffering at the end, would not say, "I'm for that. Give me that". I suspect that few noble Lords will have the good fortune to suffer for such a short period when their time comes. The kills that I saw, which were very few, were rapid.
It was particularly telling that, as I left the meeting, I saw hares which had already been coursed grazing in a field immediately beyond the course. That was within a short time of them having been coursed.
I saw no one take pleasure in the few kills that did take place. I saw considerable anger at a small group of demonstrators on the opposite side of the field, who,

191
by their activities, frightened hares away from crops that had been grown there to give them an escape route and who, in one case, caused a death which would not otherwise have happened.
What is our purpose in opposing the Question whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill? Is it wrong that people should go to watch an activity that may lead to the death of an animal? In no way do I wish to be thought to be attacking racing, but many more racehorses are killed every year on the race courses of this country than are hares by coursing. The Bill would make it an offence even to go to watch a hare-coursing event. I need not be involved with a dog or anything of that kind. If I simply go along to watch, I shall be committing an offence. Are we to make it a criminal offence to watch David Attenborough's programmes on television, where impala, gazelles and zebras are coursed, pulled down and eaten alive night after night with literally hundreds of thousands of people watching and where, in many cases, the death of the animal takes a great deal longer than 40 seconds?
We are talking about some 23 greyhound clubs. There are other lurcher clubs and clubs which practise coursing with salukis and deerhounds. Every year, approximately 16,000 people enjoy the biggest event in the organised coursing calendar—the Waterloo Cup. I pause to say that the seasons have been shortened over and over again in order to comply with recommendations, as has the slip or the distance at which the greyhounds must remain behind the hare. All that has changed. Whenever recommendations have been made following an inquiry, the coursing community has responded by doing what has been suggested. As I said, the biggest event—the Waterloo Cup—is attended by 16,000 people every year.
What would be the result of a ban on coursing? In the words of one of my noble friends—he is not in his place at the moment—who spoke in the debate on foxes, it would do the hare no favours. Research carried out by coursing organisations indicates that on estates where there are currently large numbers of hares and where coursing takes place, it is very likely that a substantial number of hares—the published research indicates some 30,000—would be shot for the very good reason that, without coursing, poachers would move into those areas.
Interestingly, a ban would also remove the one effective way of policing at least some of the illegal poaching—that is, it would remove the legal hare coursers, who operate under the rules and obtain permission and warn off those who do not do so. Therefore, without question, not only would one increase the number of areas in which illegal poachers would move but one would remove the very people who can be effective in stopping them.
There would also be a vast increase in hare shooting because such shooting is lucrative. There is a great demand for it from, in particular, people from the Continent. In a single day of hare shooting, several hundred animals can be killed. At the presentation attended by those of us fortunate enough to do so, I asked about the wounding rates relating to the
192
shooting of hares. Research, which I am sure we shall discuss later, has recently been carried out on fox-wounding rates. Hares are an even smaller target. Dr Douglas Wise of Cambridge University said that, in his view, the wounding rate for the shooting of hares was some 24 per cent and, of those, some 10 per cent were not picked up. Coursing leaves no wounded animals. They are grazing in the next field or they are dead. A ban on hare coursing would lead to a drastic reduction in hare numbers—the very opposite of what the biodiversity scheme seeks to achieve—and an increase in suffering caused by wounding.
If I am wrong and if my noble friend Lord Faulkner is right in his description, those who apply to the registrar for licences to go hare coursing will fail the tests of utility or of not suffering cruelty. If that is right, no licences will be granted. From what I have seen, personally I believe that hare coursing can, in some places, pass both tests. But, if I am wrong, as I said, the registrar will simply refuse the application.
Therefore, removing the clause from the Bill would reinstate the principle of fairness. I hope that those who have reservations about hare coursing, together with those who, like my noble friend, have made up their minds very firmly the other way and those who, like me, feel that it has an important part to play in conserving and, indeed, encouraging the hare population, will, on that basis, find it possible to support our opposition to Clause 5.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: I believe I am right in saying that during the course of the Second Reading debate the Minister did not particularly defend the retention of Clause 5 in the Bill. I hope that I do not do him an injustice in saying that. Therefore, I hope that, when he comes to reply from the Front Bench, he will take the opportunity of this short debate to make clear the reasoning for the clause being in the Bill. In doing so, perhaps he will say to what extent he is supported in his case by the evidence submitted at Portcullis House and elsewhere. I believe that, in our consideration of the Bill, it matters a great deal to some of us to know how far the clause is backed by those who are most concerned about the protection of wild mammals and their conservation. That is the point of my interest in this clause.
I turn to the Burns report. Paragraph 7.21 refers to the Game Conservancy Trust. It states:
"The Game Conservancy Trust found… that coursing estates had made or retained habitats which benefited hares, for example areas of grass instead of cereal and root crops; that they had prohibited organised shooting; and that they had taken active steps to protect hares from predation and poaching".
It so happens that the other day I met a landowner who had followed the precepts outlined in that quotation. At one time, he suffered a serious decline in the hare population on his land, which he attributed very much to illicit coursing and poaching. I strongly agree that coursing needs to be controlled, regulated and registered. The activity on his land was taking place without his consent and it was clearly totally wrong.

193
The result—particularly as a consequence of the poaching which took place—was the decimation of the hare population on his estate.
Noble Lords who have seen hares know that there is something particularly beautiful and exciting about seeing a wild hare. I am sure that everyone in this Chamber wishes to see the hare population increase rather than reduce. It happens to be the case that where regulated, controlled, licensed or authorised hare coursing occurs, the hare population increases.
The friend—the landowner—to whom I referred gave me chapter and verse on that very point. As a result of authorising and controlling coursing, the poaching has ceased. The same people participate at the coursing but the hare population on his estate has increased substantially. That must be something that noble Lords opposite want to achieve as much as I do. It is one reason that, for the moment, I believe that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will go out of his way, if he can, to corroborate his justification for it with the evidence that was produced in his support.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I disagree strongly with those who oppose the Question whether Clause 5 stand part. I am sorry that those who have spoken in support of that position saw fit to do so in a spirit of a win-lose situation. I feel strongly that there is a case for hunting to continue where utility is proved. However, I do not believe that utility is likely ever to be proved in the case of hares.
Here, we are considering the inability to compromise. If we want to see hunting continue in some form, we shall have to accept some compromises. Indeed, the hunting of hares is not a compromise. I believe that it is wrong. One point on which I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken is that hares are beautiful and do not deserve to be hunted. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, who has been widely quoted, states that there is no need to control overall hare numbers. Other noble Lords have said that he makes the point that they are a biodiversity action plan species and a ban would have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.
I do not believe that hares are comparable to rabbits. There are enormous numbers of rabbits, which, therefore, can be classed as pests. I do not think that hares are in that class.
Lord Tebbit: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she saying that rare animals suffer less pain or more pain than common animals? It seems to be a rather curious point of view that the degree of pain and therefore whether or not we should prohibit hunting depends on the number of animals there are. Perhaps the noble Baroness would tell me whether she is happy for me to continue shooting hares.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not think that I have yet advanced an argument either way, although I shall address that point when I come to it.
194
I believe it is also wrong that all mammals should be subject to registration. Some years ago both Houses of Parliament decided to remove otters from the list of species which could be hunted. No one is saying now that we should hunt otters again, even if that is not seen to be cruel. They are recognised as a species which should not be hunted. I believe that hares fall into the same category as otters as being a species which people are pleased to see in the countryside.
I would ask those opposing the Question that Clause 5 stand part to give serious thought to the fact that the public are largely with them when they say that they do not want a ban on all forms of hunting. Indeed, I do not want a ban on fox hunting. However, there are limits to what the public will find acceptable. We see that 59 per cent oppose a ban on hunting. When I ask members of the public how they feel about the hunting issue—I receive many letters on the subject— they are strongly in favour of not banning fox hunting but almost to a person do not want to see hares hunted.
The argument that just because a lot of illegal coursing takes place we should continue to support legal coursing does not hold water. We should continue to clamp down on illegal coursing. I hope that those opposing the Question that Clause 5 stand part will bear in mind that by pressing it, if that is what they choose to do, they will largely lose the sympathy of the public.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may make an observation. I am not a follower of hare coursing. Indeed, I have never been to a hare coursing event so I am in no position to speak about it. I admire the advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who made an extraordinarily robust and acceptable defence of hare coursing.
I am concerned about Clause 5 and what it does. I can understand the Government saying, "We don't want hare coursing. Therefore, it shall be an offence knowingly to facilitate a hare coursing event". It is an offence to permit one's land to be used for the purposes of a hare coursing event, so that stops people using their land. It is wrong for a person to participate in a hare coursing event. Presumably that means that he must not bring his dogs or ensure that the hares will run into the right place. If all that worked there would be no hare coursing.
However, to my mind the coup de grace comes in subsection (l)(b) which states that it is an offence to attend a hare coursing event. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, why should it be an offence to attend an event? If one sees an event taking place, of course one stops and looks. Everyone knows that the world is full of ghouls and if an aeroplane crashes one cannot get along the roads because everyone is stopping and looking. It is not an offence to be present when a burglar burgles a shop, if one happens to be

195
there. It is not an offence to witness someone throwing a brick into a window, but it is an offence to watch someone's dog chasing a hare.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. It is an offence to attend a cock-fight because cock-fighting is illegal.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say that it is but the point I make is that if hare coursing is made illegal, it should not be a requirement to tell people that they cannot attend. What I find offensive is the Government telling people what they must and must not do, particularly when it comes to people's sport and preferences. When communism was at its height we used to worry a lot and people used to say, ''Big Brother is watching you". Big Brother is watching you and telling you what to do now. I think that that is deeply offensive. That is why I do not like Clause 5 and why I hope that it will go.
Lord Best: The question for us to consider is whether or not coursing is so different and so beyond the pale that it should be banned even if other forms of hunting are allowed. Is it such an awful sport that there can be no argument but that coursing should be prohibited in all circumstances?
I have had absolutely nothing to do with coursing in my life but I went to see two coursing events in North Yorkshire not far from where I live to discover what it is all about. I went with some trepidation because I am as squeamish as I guess many noble Lords are. The thought of two greyhounds tearing a hare apart was fairly difficult to imagine. My last similar experience was to witness bullfighting in rather too much gory detail on Spanish television. I found that appalling and was totally disgusted by it.
Nevertheless, I steeled myself and went to visit these two coursing events and watched the morning's proceedings. I have to tell Members of the Committee that on those two consecutive occasions, to my astonishment no hare was killed. No one was distressed by that. It turned out that the whole purpose was not to kill a hare. Indeed, no points are awarded if the hare is killed. It does happen and I am sure that it is the case, that some 200 hares are killed per year. Apparently some 20,000 are killed on the roads, but the coursing events that now happen under very strict regulation are not about killing hares. I did not appreciate that and I rather suspect that a great many members of the general public do not appreciate that coursing is not about killing these animals. I saw eight pairs of greyhounds being let go to chase the hare. In 16 races between the two greyhounds no hare was killed. I thought that noble Lords would be interested to hear that one example.
That led me to question the sport, if that is what it is, of watching and following greyhounds performing in this way. It is certainly magical to watch. These are very sleek and wonderful dogs. Set in glorious countryside, one can think of very few things that are more pleasurable than standing as I did on a sunny day watching people from all walks of life enjoying
196
themselves. This seemed to me to be a very simple and honourable pastime and not one associated with cruelty, at least in the events that I witnessed.
Is it useful in any way? Utility is the other test. Is it so obvious that it is not useful that it should be banned even if other forms of hunting through a registration and licensing scheme are allowed? It seems that it is useful in the conservation of the countryside. People who enjoy this activity ensure that the woodlands and countryside are in a state that is welcoming to the hare population. As noble Lords have said, hare populations tend to multiply where coursing takes place. It seems to have a beneficial effect on the countryside.
On other interests, I found it useful in the sense that this was a community activity. People came from, I suspect, rather lonely farm lifestyles to participate, to bring their own dogs, which were sometimes nothing to do with the event, and just to share the experience with others. It gathered people together from a wide area of rather remote countryside in north Yorkshire that seemed to me to be useful in a communal and social sense.
So, without prejudging how a registration or licensing system would determine whether coursing should be allowed, I came to the very firm conclusion that it is not self-evident that the cruelty or lack of utility are so obvious in the case of coursing that this clause should stand and that a ban should apply irrespective of whether it applies to any other form of hunting.
7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, with great respect. I acknowledge that this is a much more difficult issue than the one we debated earlier today. It is more difficult because one side can be argued with even more—perhaps a great deal more—passion than we heard in support of the Bill earlier today. A very good example of that was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. His speech, if I may say so, represented the high water mark of the passionate case against hare coursing— the high water mark perhaps after a very high spring tide; and none the worse for that.
Equally, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and of course earlier we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the less passionate but possibly more cerebral case. I oppose the question because I think that Clause 5 is too widely drawn. I am satisfied that the law at the moment on hare coursing is exactly as it should be. The clause is too widely drawn in prohibiting it altogether.
I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Best, by quoting—and I can do so very briefly as the points have been argued so well on both sides—from personal experience, which I admit at once is slight on my side. In the mid-1970s I was a new Member of Parliament. Once again the legality of hare coursing was a public issue. I was perfectly happy about hunting with dogs—as one must call it—

197
because I knew something about that, but I knew nothing about hare coursing. I had many anxieties about hare coursing.
So I took myself to a meeting on Romney Marsh of the Jack Jones coursing club, which is one of the oldest coursing clubs in the country. I went incognito. I have to say to noble Lords that I did not find much problem about that. I watched to see what happened. I was completely reassured. There was a long line of followers or supporters in the form of a gentle crescent. At each end a greyhound was held on a leash. The line moved slowly forward across the great marsh meadows. When a hare jumped up and had a lead of some 75 or 100 yards, the greyhounds were loosed at each end and off they went.
Noble Lords have said very clearly—and with much better access to it than I can describe—what the purpose of coursing is. It is not to kill the hare; it is to judge the agility of the hounds as the hare jigs. The hare was killed on one occasion out of many courses. I was very glad to find that the purpose was not to kill the hare. I came away feeling very reassured. I thought it was proportionate, fair and, as I say, the hare nearly always won.
I must be frank with the Committee, I have not been coursing again. However, from the arguments today— and I have listened with care and great sympathy to both sides—I certainly am not persuaded that the law should be changed so that no one else should ever go coursing again.
Lord Hoyle: I am totally opposed to Clause 5 being deleted. I want to return to something that I said last Tuesday. I said, amid protestations from the other side, that the idea was not to return the Alun Michael Bill to the Commons. Indeed, that has been proved today because far from that—the noble Lord shakes his head—the noble Lord is seeking to delete one of the main clauses from the Bill that was introduced by Alun Michael. So it is not the Alun Michael Bill. It is being added to, despite warnings from noble Lords on the other side, in particular from the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, who said: "I support hunting generally but I do not support hare coursing because it is cruel; it affects a beautiful animal".
Pest control cannot be used in support of the issue. This is not about pest control. It is about a sporting activity that I believe should have been banned long ago.
I want to make one other comment. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that in 1997 the League Against Cruel Sports spotted hares being netted on an estate in East Anglia. One of the people supervising the exercise was David Midwich, the chairman of the Waterloo Cup—hare coursing's premier event—which was taking place two weeks later. I understood him to say
198
that the Burns report had disproved that. I will willingly sit down if he can show me where Burns even examined that.
Lord Mancroft: I would love to, but I do not have the Burns report with me.
A noble Lord: I will pass it over.
Lord Mancroft: That is very kind of the noble Lord. I will look and check and come back to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Hoyle: The noble Lord will not find the matter because it was not even examined by Burns. So, if we are going to make statements in the Chamber, there should at least be some clarity and legality about what we are saying.
I do not want to take up a great deal of the Committee's time in relation to the matter. I think it would be wrong to bring it back. But I want to quote what the Burns report had to say on hare coursing. The report stated:
"We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. It is clear, moreover, that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly. There can also sometimes be a significant delay in 'driven coursing', before the 'picker up' reaches the hare and dispatches it (if it is not already dead). In the case of 'walked up' coursing, the delay is likely to be even longer".
I stand by that. I am sorry to see an attempt being made to bring back such barbarity when at least the Alun Michael Bill was seeking to get rid of it.
Earl Peel: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has shown quite clearly that there are those who support the principles of fox hunting, some who take an ambivalent view and some who, like the noble Baroness, oppose the notion of hare coursing. I can fully understand her view. It seems to me that, from the outset, the common strand that any animal welfare Bill should contain is consistency. To discriminate against a rabbit in favour of a hare, or a rat in favour of a stoat, displays quite clearly the inconsistency that exists within this piece of legislation.
The noble Baroness said that hares are beautiful and should not be hunted. Any child reading The Wind in the Willows may come to the conclusion that a rat should not be killed. So I suggest that that is an illogical and rather dangerous precedent on which to base the legislation that we are discussing today.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To be clear, in The Wind in the Willows it was a water rat and not a common land rat.
Earl Peel: But the same principle applies, whether we are discussing the water rat or the ordinary domestic rat. The same principles of consistency must apply throughout legislation; that is my point.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It is a serious point: one is a pest and one is not. A hare is not proven to be a pest in the way that a fox is. A rat is a pest; a water rat is not. That is my point, which is serious.
Earl Peel: I do not want to enter a debate with the noble Baroness about whether a hare is a pest, but I can think of a number of farmers in East Anglia who regard the hare as being a considerable pest. However, that is another issue.
One difficulty that we face when dealing with legislation concerning animals is that we fall into the trap of substituting human thought processes and emotions for the instinctive way in which an animal will react. Furthermore, there is the additional trap of assuming that wild animals will respond in a similar fashion to the domestic pets with whom we share our lives. Those are misleading and dangerous assumptions that can lead only to misguided actions in how man carries out his responsibilities—they are responsibilities—of management of habitats and their associated species.
That is not to say that we should not show the highest respect for all that we manage, including all pest and quarry species, but we must not abandon reality. It is against that need for consistency— coupled, I must say, with the lack of evidence—that I can see no justification for not subjecting coursing to the same registration process as fox or, indeed, hare hunting. I therefore urge those who have supported the principle of registration to do so again and not discriminate against coursing. If we believe in registration, allow the registrar to consider the facts and reach proper conclusions.
As an aside, I am bound to say that as for so-called cruelty, I cannot distinguish between the hare being killed by a dog and by a fox. Does the hare feel some sense of betrayal by being killed by a dog rather than a fox? I hardly think so.
Lord Hoyle: The difference surely is that the fox is a predator, whereas the dog is being set on the hare by a person.
Earl Peel: I can quite see the distinction, but I am discussing the act of cruelty. Is it more unfair on the hare to be killed by a fox than by a dog? I suggest not.
Of course, other Members of the Committee have raised other important issues. One is the correlation between hare coursing—and, indeed, all field sports— and the creation, retention and management of habitats that are such a benefit to a whole range of other species. We have heard many quotations from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, this evening; perhaps I may cite him again:
"In the case of the hare ‖ a ban might lead fanners and landowners to pay less attention to encouraging hare numbers. The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals".
But that principle cuts right the way across the countryside and applies to all field sports. It is important that we should not forget that habitat and species management often comes at no cost to the taxpayer.
200
Finally, I mention illegal coursing, as have several Members of the Committee. The problem is that it is not simply against the law but indiscriminate. Most people who course are highly sensible to the number of hares and take animals only when a cull is appropriate and populations have reached a point at which they need to be controlled. Get rid of coursing and the men with the long dogs will simply rub their hands in glee. That could have a serious effect on the biodiversity action plan for the hare.
I finish on what I regard as a salutary note. I know that in County Durham the police have now admitted that they have virtually washed their hands of dealing with poaching offences. I am certain that that will spread to other counties. Get rid of hare coursing and indiscriminate poaching with long dogs will increase, to the detriment of the hare population.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I want to say only one small thing. It has been established beyond peradventure that when man hunts, he protects his quarry species. The fact that big game hunting in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, when it is not in total chaos—
Lord Addington: How many times in our history have we hunted to extinction?
The Earl of Onslow: There was the quagga in South Africa, I quite agree, but what I know to be true is that where there are big game farms for shooting in South Africa and other African countries, there is a sustainable quantity of the quarry species. Where quarry species are properly managed, which involves private property, private rights and so forth, the quarry species thrives.
Those of us who indulge in field sports know that if we want to go fox hunting, we want to find a fox to hunt. If we want to go coursing, there must be a hare to course. If we want to go grey-legged partridge shooting, someone must have gone to enormous expense, time and trouble to preserve grey-legged partridges.
All I suggest is that when we think about how to deal with quarry species, we do not get over-influenced by long floppy ears and beautiful paintings by Dűrer, because the hare looks so much prettier than anything else. It is a quarry species; it is part of what the Church used to call the animal kingdom. For that reason, it is our duty to look after and preserve it. I suggest that sensible and well managed sporting and hunting maintains quarry species, which is what we should all want to do.
To ban coursing just to save the lives of 200 hares but to put at risk those of a lot more seems to me the wrong way round. I have gone hare coursing only once with my godfather and his long dog, when we wanted a jugged hare for lunch. It was great fun catching it and even better eating it.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I oppose the Question but I speak as a recent convert to that point of view. I

201
take seriously what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I might have made a similar speech a year ago, although without his passion and eloquence. I also take seriously what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. She told the House that public opinion would not support a similar attitude towards coursing as, by and large, it would towards fox hunting. The Committee will have to weigh that argument in deciding on the matter.
A year ago, I would have taken the view that hare coursing was self-evidently wrong and should be banned. It has been part of my slow, painful and rather shameful education to have found out enough about coursing to know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and others have said, it is not as the public generally understands it to be. There is a huge amount of ignorance, but I see no reason why coursing should not be subject to the same conditions as fox hunting, or that the decision should not be made by the registrar.
I speak as a convert. I hope and believe that if the same principle were to apply to hare coursing as to fox hunting, the general public would come to understand it—as the great majority of the public has come to understand a great deal more about fox hunting than it knew five years ago. I oppose the Question; I hope that the Committee will also do so.
Viscount Ullswater: I ought to declare an interest, because my wife is a member of a coursing club in East Anglia. I have therefore attended a number of coursing events. I must start by saying that the coursing events to which I have been, which are whippet coursing, bear no relation whatever to those described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. There is no crowd; there is a single line of people with their dogs. There is no driven game; it is all walked up. There is no betting; there are no people such as that.
What the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described, happens—certainly at the Waterloo Cup and other venues—but much coursing happens in a simple way, which is a competition between two dogs. They may be whippets, salukis, greyhounds or deerhounds; there are various sorts of clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Best, gave the other view by describing his recent experience of what happens when coursing. It would be wrong if Members of the Committee listened only to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and took that view of what coursing is all about.
The Game Conservancy Trust says that on estates where coursing is practised hare stocks are maintained at some of the highest levels in the country. My contention is that coursing plays an important part in hare conservation. Recent surveys suggest that there is a wintering population of some 800,000 hares, and the Biodiversity Action Plan suggests that by 2010 our countryside should support at least 2 million animals in winter.
I have turned to the Burns report to see what it says about hare and animal welfare. It quotes from the report of a House of Lords Select Committee that
202
examined a coursing Bill in 1976—it was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. I shall quote from a part of the report that I do not believe he cited. It concluded that,
"the total physical suffering caused by coursing matches is negligible compared with the suffering of hares wounded by shooting".
The Burns report concludes at paragraph 6.69:
"In the event of a ban on hunting and coursing hares, it seems likely that a few more would be shot than at present. There are concerns about the welfare implications of shooting hares because of wounding rates".
That is not a ringing endorsement for the most common method of hare control used at present— shooting.
As Members of the Committee know, coursing clubs have their strict rules. The few hares caught are usually caught extremely quickly, and the number caught has been demonstrated as being very low. Why single out coursing for special treatment in Clause 5?
The Government have ratified the UN 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, which urges signatories to,
"respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity".
I started by saying that, where coursing is practised, the number of hares is at some of the highest levels in the country. The Government should support the practices of local communities and recognise that hare coursing plays a useful role in the Biodiversity Action Plan.
Baroness Byford: I shall explain briefly my own views. I have never been to a hare coursing event. Had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford not said what he said, I would have said it. I was very sceptical about hare coursing until I went to the presentation. I feel much more confident in organisers' ability and the thinking behind the way in which they organise coursing events.
I was grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he introduced the debate. It is perhaps the most controversial and difficult issue that Members of the Committee face today, as has been explained by other noble Lords who spoke. We are asking the Government to treat this clause in the same way as they treat other parts of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked whether it was so bad, and why it should be considered differently. I agree. The House of Lords Select Committee, which has been referred to several times, has said that hares suffer less than they would as a result of shooting.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, made a very impassioned speech. I understand that it is a very impassioned debate, as it is the one about which people feel strongest. My noble friend Lord Peel stole my thunder, but I repeat the Burns report's conclusion that,
"in the case of the hare, on those estates which favour hare coursing or hunting, rather than shooting, a ban might"—

203
I use the word "might"—
"lead farmers and landowners to pay less attention to encouraging hare numbers. The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals".
Many views have been put forward today. I hope that it has been made clear that we are talking about legal hare coursing, not illegal hare coursing, which we have sometimes debated at length in the House of Lords. We are all against illegal hare coursing, and the sooner it is stopped the better. We are talking about organised legal coursing. We must decide whether we oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part and believe that hare coursing should be treated in the same way as other areas of hunting. In my view, that is what we should do. I will support my noble friend.
Baroness Strange: I did not mean to stand up, but I could not resist doing so. I went coursing often as a child. Unlike my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I have never been unlucky enough to see a hare killed. However, I admired how the hares ran and very much admired the dogs. The question is that of killing hares. We all love hares. But should we not ban cars? We once found a hare that had been run over on the road and had its back leg badly broken. We took it home, amputated its back leg, kept it in a box of hay for two weeks and then released it. It was perfectly all right. Three years later, we saw the same hare, with three legs, perfectly happy and feeding all right. I am very worried about cars. I do not think that we should ban cars, as they are very useful, but that is part of the argument.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My first point is technical. Some Members of the Committee, latterly the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have said that all they are trying to do is to put hare coursing events on the same basis as everything else. That is not what the deletion of the clause would do. It would leave hare coursing totally unregulated—in an area where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, there is huge public anxiety about such events.
As the Bill now stands, if we go for a registration system, hare hunting falls under Clause 1. Sometimes the term "coursing" is used for informal hare hunting. This clause is about organised hare coursing events, the purpose of which is to test the skill of dogs, not pest control or conservation. It is defined in Clause 5 as,
"a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares".
It is true that the main purpose is not to kill the hare, but frequently it is killed. The whole point of the event is to bet or otherwise compare the skills of dogs in chasing a hare. In terms of the registration system, that has no utility in pest control, and I would dispute whether it has any utility whatever in conservation. The Biodiversity Action Plan for the hare in no sense depends on hare coursing being maintained.
The technical point is that if the clause is deleted, there will be no regulation. It is not treating hare coursing differently from everything else. Hare
204
coursing events will not be covered by the registration on which we voted last week; they will be excluded. Yet it is an area of huge public anxiety.
Lord Mancroft: Will the noble Lord explain that again? Why would it not be covered by the registration system as so much else is?
Lord Whitty: It is not hunting. If you go out over your farm with dogs chasing hares, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, described, that is hunting and falls under Clause 1. But an event where one simply compares the skill of dogs is not hunting under the definition of Clause 1 or any dictionary definition. It will therefore fall without Clause 1.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: With great respect, the noble Lord is wrong. In the Government's own words, hare coursing is hunting. He should look at the penultimate word in Clause 5(3).
Lord Whitty: We are talking about the dog's skill not the person's skill. We are making illegal what people do, not what dogs do.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: With respect to the Minister, does hare coursing involve "hunting hares"—the words used by the Government in Clause 5(3)—or not? If not, why is it in subsection (3)?
Lord Whitty: The long title of this Bill refers to hunting with dogs, meaning people hunting with dogs. In that context, we are talking about dogs chasing hares, not people hunting with dogs. We are not making action by dogs illegal in any of this; we are making action by people illegal. Hare coursing does not fall under Clause 1 by all the legal advice that I have sought. I suggest that noble Lords seek their own legal advice and I am sure that people involved in hare coursing events will also consult lawyers. If noble Lords delete this clause, there will be no control on what is regarded by many people as a pernicious sporting event.
Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful. If I could help the Minister a little, I suspect that what has happened is what some of us rather felt would happen when this Bill was first published. Suddenly, out of the woodwork, the Government's legal advisers have decided, after goodness knows how many years, that coursing is not hunting. Therefore, it needs a separate definition. It is prohibited in the long title of the Bill because it could not be covered by hunting. That is odd, because it was perfectly happily covered by hunting in all the Private Member's Bills throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
It would not be right to describe this person as a rogue lawyer, which would be rather unfortunate, but it appears that we have got into a muddle because of the Government's legal advice. Everybody else thinks that coursing is hunting and because the Government are so hooked on the idea of the competition, that is where the problem lies. Welfare is the most significant

205
thing that we are all worried about, and the two protagonists that do not know that hare coursing is a competition are the hare and the dog.
Lord Whitty: I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. that, on all occasions that hare coursing has been discussed in another place or here, the legal advice has been that hare coursing events of the type that we describe and define in Clause 5 are not hunting. This is not a sudden back-pocket intervention by the Government's legal advisers.
Lord Mancroft: That is the very point: it is a hare coursing event. Clause 5 refers not to hare coursing but to hare coursing events. All the rest of the hare coursing in this world—99 per cent that is not an event and not organised in the way described in Clause 5— will continue. It is pointless.
Lord Whitty: No. If someone is hunting over hills with dogs and that person is hunting hare, that is hunting under Clause 1. That is why we need a separate provision in relation to organised hare coursing events. Members of the Committee who wish to treat this in the same way as everything else under the registration system would need to put down an amendment that enabled that. However, simple deletion of the clause would not achieve that. It leaves such events totally unregulated.
Viscount Bledisloe: Does the Minister agree that, if his rather esoteric interpretation of the Bill is right— or even if it might be right—the matter could easily be put right at the next stage by including hare coursing in Clause 1 by a simple amendment? It is obvious that everyone who has spoken intends and wishes it to be regulated. Even if the Minister fears that there is a slight risk that his interpretation is right, it would be incredibly easy to remedy the matter and get hare coursing controlled and regulated in the way that we want at the next stage.
Lord Whitty: The noble Viscount is an eminent and distinguished lawyer. Nevertheless, over decades of legal advice, the burden has been to support my interpretation. Of course, if we delete this clause it is always open to Members of the Committee to table an alternative amendment at a later stage. However, as of tonight, what Members of the Committee will be doing is leaving hare coursing events totally unregulated under this Bill, not treating them the same as other forms of what everybody accepts is hunting.
My second point is frankly a heavier one. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle indicated, this clause—word for word— was in the original Bill presented to the House of Commons. Committee Members have tabled amendments and argued in this House that they want the Government and the House of Commons to go back to the original Bill and start again. They say that they are rejecting the last stages of the Bill in the House of Commons and the decision on Report to move to a
206
complete ban. If they delete this clause, we are on course to reveal a degree of deceit and hypocrisy in that approach.
When we come to other amendments, it will be even clearer that it is not true that the mainstream amendments before us tonight are trying to return to the original so-called Alun Michael Bill—the original government Bill—but to go way beyond it. They would dilute it beyond recognition and remove from regulation many forms of hunting. They would exempt a whole swathe of what the original Bill was intended to cover. Such a story might as well be abandoned here and now if members of the Committee vote to delete this clause.
You are crossing the line if you delete this clause. Your argument that all the Government need do is to return to its original position falls if you delete this clause. By all means, this House has the right to do that, but Members of the Committee should recognise what they are doing.
Baroness Byford: I challenge the Minister on that point. Last Tuesday, we voted to alter the Bill as it was, so it is already an altered Bill.
Lord Whitty: It is an altered Bill, but the main alteration was, broadly speaking, back to the form of the original Bill. By passing Amendment No. 3, we effectively returned to the basis of the registration system under the original Bill. That is not the case under the amendments coming before us after dinner and I will make the same points when we debate them. A vote in favour of deleting the clause would be crossing the line. Members of the Committee will be abandoning any pretence that they are asking this House and the House of Commons to go back to the original Bill. That will no longer be true.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but if my memory serves me right— I do not have my copy of Hansard with me—the amendment that we agreed in my name last week featured the words, "knowingly permits", which were not in the original Alun Michael Bill at all.
Lord Whitty: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. Clearly, there was another amendment that was rather misguided but did not destroy the basis of the Bill. It was a small amendment defining offences. I suspect that the Commons, even if it accepted the argument about going back to the original Bill, would wish to alter it. I certainly would. However, the amendment did not destroy the basis of the Bill. Deleting the clause does destroy a significant part of the basis of the Bill. I repeat: Members of the Committee are crossing the line if they delete this clause.
The substance of the issue—
Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way, I do not wish to interrupt and I am sorry if I am slowing up proceedings. It is our intention to return to the original Bill—it always has been—but with a number of exceptions. We have always said that

207
and we stick to it today. We want those exceptions because we believe that certain areas of the Bill abandon principles that the Government and the Minister identified at the start of this process.
If the Minister is so convinced that hare coursing is appalling, it will not pass the registration process at the heart of this Bill. The whole purpose of this Bill is to have a registration process that is fair and takes these activities out of the hotbed of political argument. It is as simple as that. To assume that an activity that affects 160 hares a year and 5,000 people at the most is destroying the centre of the Bill is really ludicrous. It is not true. All we want to do is go back to the original principles. It is perfectly reasonable, perfectly justified and pretty easy to explain.
Lord Whitty: I have explained and will explain on subsequent amendments how that argument is a complete travesty of where the noble Viscount is coming from. Under the cover of purporting to return to the original Bill, the Bill that would result were we to pass all these amendments would be a complete distortion of the original Bill. In that context, it is not as simple as that. If we delete the clause, it will not mean that hare coursing will be subject to the same tests by the registrar as everything else; it will be subject to no such assessment. That is why I argue strongly against the deletion of the clause.
There are ways in which, at a later stage, the noble Lord could change the Bill, but deletion of the clause now would delete all regulation of hare coursing and, therefore, significantly change the original Bill. I ask noble Lords not to do it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale): The Question is—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I assume that I am entitled to reply to the debate. I apologise to the Chair. It has been an excellent debate, and I thank everybody who took part in it. It has been good humoured.
If I single out the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, it is because he constituted the major opposition to deleting the clause prior to the Minister's speech. The noble Lord said that people gathered to watch an animal subjected to an agonising death. When journalists ask if they may take pictures, the National Coursing Club takes them to the top of the course. If the journalists ask why they have been taken there, it is explained to them that, if a death is to occur, that is where it will occur. The reason that the crowd is so far away, not watching the death, is that it has come to see the skill of the greyhounds and the hare in competitive coursing.
The noble Lord said that I omitted to refer to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had indicated that there was no conservationist plus to be had from hare coursing in terms of numbers. I did not say that. First, hare coursing is not engaged in for that purpose,
208
and, secondly, it would have been wrong for me to contradict, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, when I believe him to be right. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said that the hare coursing season went from September to March. I am not a lawyer, but there is a touch of suggestio falsi in that. The season starts on 1st October and ends on 28th February. I mean no disservice or disbelief, but the noble Lord was pushing it a bit with that observation.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater referred to the disappearance of the bookies from hare coursing and, thus, the disappearance, effectively, of gambling. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said that the autopsies that had been done on five hares indicated that none of them died as a result of a bite. That is not surprising, as it is not how hares die in hare coursing. They are hit by a greyhound that is much heavier than they are and is going at extreme speed. As somebody once remarked, it is like a Reliant motor car being hit by a truck. I am not suggesting that that is not a painful process, but it is not the process that the noble Lord described. That applies also to the remarks that he made about hares being found in the jaws of both animals. It might apply to a dead hare, but it would not apply to a live one.
My noble friend Lord Caithness dealt with the rules that the National Coursing Club has about movements. My noble friend Lord Mancroft dealt with the subsequent allegation from the League Against Cruel Sports.
Lord Hoyle: I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to produce the evidence, and he could not. I do not want that to be repeated.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, will wait. I was saying that that matter would be determined outside the Chamber, rather than inside it tonight. Before the noble Lord becomes too supportive of the League Against Cruel Sports, I must say that, in a recent advertisement, it said that hares that survive the experience die of exhaustion. That was taken to the Advertising Standards Authority, which found it unsubstantiated and ordered the League Against Cruel Sports not to repeat it. The noble Lord must be careful about the quality of at least some of the evidence that he quotes.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The noble Lord corrected something that I said about the season for coursing. Paragraph 2.54 of the Burns report says:
"Coursing by registered clubs takes place from 15 September to 10 March".
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am happy to take that intervention from the noble Lord. However, he did not pay attention to what I said. The National Coursing Club has changed its rules in five respects

209
since the Burns report, and that is one of them. I acknowledge what the Burns report said, but the up-to-date situation is different.
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for their support. They put more eloquently the things that I might have said, if I had not subjected myself to a degree of self-restraint at the beginning of the debate.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I must say that approximately 200,000 acres are used by the coursing clubs on coursing estates. Since the Burns report, the National Coursing Club has carried out an investigation of the consequences of ending coursing. The figures from Dr Wise that were quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, are accurate. It looks as though ending coursing would lead to the shooting of 30,000 hares on those 200,000 acres. That is an area four times the size of Birmingham. I acknowledge that, according to Dr Wise, only one quarter are not shot cleanly and that only 10 per cent are not then picked up by gundogs. However, that still leaves 720 hares that will die an extremely painful death in order for the noble Baroness to stop 220 deaths by hare coursing, almost all of which happen instantaneously.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his personal initiative and his exceptionally objective speech. I also congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who went to similar trouble.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, has already been engaged in a degree of disagreement. I will not carry that further, except to say again that I never said that the issue was one of pest control. The noble Lord said that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had said that the process,
"seriously compromises the welfare of the hare".
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has since said that he regrets using those words because he did not have a basis of scientific certainty for saying them. He did not know one way or the other.
I thank my noble friend Lord Peel. I also thank my noble friend Lord Onslow, from the heart of the countryside, for the common sense of his observations, even though he found fault with my championship of Du"rer. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who joined the noble Lord, Lord Best, as a thoughtful convert. I thank my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for winding up the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft responded to the first point that the Minister made. In my opening speech, I said that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had emphasised the recreational purposes of hare coursing and that, therefore, it fell into the same category as shooting and fishing. It is curious that shooting and fishing are fcoutside the Bill, while hare coursing has been put in, unless that is because coursing has always been linked with hunting in all previous Bills.
210
The Minister said that we would cross a Rubicon if we deleted the clause. However, as I said, the Minister in the Commons said that hare coursing was indefensible, whereas any number of Members of the Committee have shown in eloquent speeches that it is defensible.
I shall end with Dr Stoddart's evidence to the Lords Select Committee. He was giving evidence as a witness for the RSPCA, which he advised. His evidence has not been specifically refuted since 1976. Incidentally, I hope that the quotation will repair my standing with my noble friend Lord Onslow. Dr Stoddart said:
"The hare is a prey species, that is to say it has evolved with the capacity to move with great speed and to escape from its predators by that means and by jinking. Its flight is a natural instinctive and behavioural response; it is, in fact, a normal state of affairs.
"Just as it is biologically necessary for an animal to heed the warnings of physical pain, so also it is biologically necessary that an animal of a prey species should not suffer psychologically by being chased. "If an animal did so suffer, its capacity to escape would be impaired and the species would risk elimination by a process of natural selection. In addition to these considerations, it must be observed that an animal of a prey species like a hare has also evolved the capacity to instinctively resume, very quickly after the chase is over, exactly what it was doing before the chase began".
On the basis of the debate, I believe that a majority of the Committee wishes the matter to be put to the test, and I therefore ask that it should be.
7.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bach, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Barker, B.

Grocott, L.

Barnett L

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harrison, L.

Brookman, L.

Higgins, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Howells of St.Davids, B.

Carter, L.

Hoyle, L.

Chandos, V.

Jones, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Judd, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Larid, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Craigavon,V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Miler of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dholakia, L.

Morgan, L.

Dixon, L.

Newby, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Northover, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Parekh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker, L.

[Teller]

Roper, L.

Fookes, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gale, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

211

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Turnberg, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Arran, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Attlee, E.

Liverpool, E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Lyell, L.

Best, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bhatia, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Biffen, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller]

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bragg, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bramall, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Monson, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Montrose, D.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moran, L.

Buscombe, B.

Moynihan, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Northbrook, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Chalfont, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chorley, L.

Onslow, E.

Cobbold, L.

Palmer, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Palumbo, L.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Peel, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Darcyde Knayth, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Denham L

Rawunson of Ewell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Reay, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Dundee, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B

Rotherwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

St.Johno f Bletso,L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Erroll, E.

Sandwich, E.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Feldman, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Selsdon, L.

Flather, B.

Sharman, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Sharpies, B.

Fowler, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Freyberg, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Simon, V.

Goschen, V.

Slim, V-

Hanham, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hams of High Cross, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Taverne, L.

Hogg, B.

Tebbit, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kilclooney, L.

Waddington, L.

Kimball, L.

Wilcox, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 5 disagreed to accordingly.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before two minutes past nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Thurrock Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2003
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order was approved by the other place on 15th October. If approved today, it will establish an urban development area coterminous with Thurrock council's administrative boundary and an urban development corporation to regenerate it.
The Sustainable Communities Plan identified the crucial role that the Thames Gateway will play in regenerating existing communities, accommodating new homes and providing new jobs. On 30th July, the Deputy Prime Minister announced five priority areas in the Thames Gateway; Thurrock is one of those areas. We are now putting in place the appropriate delivery mechanisms to ensure co-ordinated and timely progress.
As I have said, the urban development corporation boundary will be coterminous with the borough boundary. This would provide the UDC with the flexibility to consider development opportunities across the borough, to create new settlements and to improve the sustainability of existing communities. It would also enable the UDC to undertake a detailed appraisal of current land use within the borough and to develop strategic proposals for regeneration, housing and economic development.
Within the proposal, housing, commercial and industrial growth would be focused predominantly, but not exclusively, on brownfield land south of the A13. The UDC would operate in line with the development principles established within Thurrock council's local plan as this relates to the protection of the green belt.
It is the Government's intention to place an order to give the Thurrock UDC powers to determine large-scale and strategic planning applications. Such a transfer would not change the nature of those powers, nor would it lessen the transparency of the planning process. The UDC would be subject to the same obligations as any other planning authority.
Responses to the consultation on the Thurrock UDC were received from individuals, the voluntary sector, the private sector, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and government agencies. Around half of all respondents, including Thurrock

213
council, explicitly expressed support for the proposals. No respondents stated an opposition to the principle of establishing an urban development corporation in Thurrock. I therefore commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I can see that the Minister has taken to heart the recommendation that 10 minutes should be allotted to this order. Perhaps I may slow the procedure down for a moment. As the Minister said, this matter was raised in the Sustainable Communities Plan. The Thames Gateway has been identified as a part of that plan, and Thurrock is an important element.
It has been clear for a number of years that this part of southern England requires attention and therefore there is no objection to the principle of what is being proposed. As always, however, any concerns there may be lie in the practical application of what is to be done. That has raised a few questions which I should like to put to the Minister.
The boundaries of the UDC are to be the boundaries of Thurrock council. As the Minister mentioned, those include a substantial tranche of green belt land. While the consultation paper makes it clear that it is the Government's intention to work within Thurrock's UDC as far as protection of the green belt is concerned, it also makes it clear that not all development will be on brownfield sites, and that housing, commercial and industrial growth would be focused predominantly, but not exclusively—those are the words used in the consultation paper—on brownfield land.
Again, in the words of the consultation paper, there should be regeneration of undeveloped green belt land and the green belt should be used as a key driver for the regeneration of the borough's less attractive and under-utilised green open spaces. These words do not inspire confidence that there will be proper observance of the green belt. My first question to the Minister is this: what constraints will be laid to prevent encroachment on to green belt land?
The Minister also pointed out that the urban development corporation is expected to have planning powers. Will those planning powers include powers of compulsory purchase? If so, will they fall within the confines of the forthcoming Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, or under the previous legislation?
The consultation paper refers to the urban development corporation having "strategic planning powers". The Minister has made it clear that these powers will be for large-scale developments only, so can we assume that the local authority will remain responsible for all other planning applications within its area? Where the UDC has planning powers, will it be required to consult in the normal way, not only with local representatives but also with those who might be affected by any planning decision—for example, local
214
people living nearby within sight of or surrounding a proposed development? Will the UDC's planning decisions be made in public? Will these be for both outline and full applications?
The local Essex Council for the Protection of Rural England has sent me its response to the document. It is anxious that the UDC should be required to produce a strategic framework and master plans for regeneration; acquire, assemble and prepare previously developed urban land and buildings on brownfield sites; promote specific regeneration opportunities on individual sites; ensure that any development is of the highest standard and quality; and regularly monitor and publicly report on performance and progress. Will these requirements be laid down within the terms of what the UDC is required to do?
The membership of the UDC, it is said, is to have a strong local representation. Who is expected to fulfil that role and from what organisations? Will they include representatives from heritage and preservation societies such as the CPRE, which has briefed me on this issue? Will the Government lay down the structure of the representation, particularly in view of their assertion that they do not believe that any one interest group should have a majority on the board of the UDC?
Finally, the UDC is required to ensure that matters of the environment, air quality, adequacy of water supplies and infrastructure are taken into account and that employment is generated. But no mention is made of a requirement to ensure that there are adequate schools, hospitals and leisure facilities in an area where it is proposed that more than 17,000 new dwellings should be provided. What is the position in regard to those issues?
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I concur with many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Can the Minister explain how the consultation process will operate with local people if planning powers are taken over by the urban development corporation? Many local people are concerned about that issue, although I accept that within the local area most people are in favour of the corporation going ahead.
How will the infrastructure be dealt with by the urban development corporation? As I understand it, the population of the area is approximately 170,000 people. They have no local hospital with an accident and emergency facility and they are concerned that the infrastructure should not be lost in the development. People recognise that housing is needed in the area but they are concerned that the necessary facilities will not be provided.
Some people are a little surprised that the whole of Thurrock district was included given that a high proportion of it is green belt and this is an urban development corporation. Can the Minister comment on that issue?
The consultation documents refer to the regeneration of previously underdeveloped green belt. They state that this could be utilised as a key driver for the regeneration

215
of the less attractive, under-utilised green open spaces. People are confused about precisely what that means. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that issue and the other points I have raised.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses and I shall do my best to answer their questions.
On the issue of compulsory purchase, I presume that the urban development corporation will have the same compulsory purchase powers as other development corporations have had in the past. The legislation vehicle is exactly the same. As with all compulsory purchase authorities—that is, local authorities—there will be changes under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but that Bill will not become an Act for some months to come. I cannot be certain when the new powers for compulsory purchase will come in but they will affect all relevant authorities at the time Royal Assent is given and the Act comes into being.
The normal rules will apply. There has been no attempt to short-cut the rules. All other planning applications in Thurrock—for house extensions and so on—will be a matter for the local planning authority, which is the local council.
As part of the overall sustainable community plan for the Thames Gateway, Thurrock Borough Council looked at the situation, as did other authorities, and said, "We would like a UDC operation in our area". It was not a question of imposition. The normal rules will apply for treating planning applications by the urban development corporation. It will be required to consult in the normal way a local authority would, using powers of public consultation and written notices, with nothing behind closed doors in the sense of circumventing the normal planning rules. It is not our intention to do that.
I realise that the green belt is a sensitive issue. I was at a meeting in the east Midlands today on the sustainable communities plan and was questioned by a member of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It is an organisation that I support—I have no intention of ripping up rural England. But I have to repeat that the green belt has a purpose. It is not to do with areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks. They are quite separate. The green belt is around the urban fringe to stop towns joining up. It therefore tends to be a much less environmentally pretty amenity than areas of outstanding natural
beauty and national parks. That is not an excuse for building on green belt land—its purpose is to stop towns joining up and urban sprawl.
We have said repeatedly, as part of the plan for the Thames Gateway, that it is highly likely that more statutory green belt land will be made through the years to stop the new settlements and communities becoming a 40-mile mini-city, because that is not our intention. Our intention is to put the green belt and countryside into the gateway.
To give a fuller answer, I will put the paragraph I have in front of me on the record, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. While there is
216
likely to be some re-examination of the green belt, the urban development corporation will maintain the purpose and integrity of the green belt. The focus of any development within the green belt will be on existing settlements, where in some cases there is a need to achieve a critical mass that will help create more balanced, rounded and sustainable communities. By including Thurrock's green belt within the urban development corporation's operational boundary, the UDC will also be in a better position to protect and conserve the countryside and enhance its civic function as the borough's green lung. I hope that makes it absolutely clear that it is very restrictive, narrow and specific but it made sense, looking at it in the round, to use the UDC boundary as the borough boundary rather than leaving a part out of it.
On representation, we have made it clear there will be no overall majority of any group in particular. I cannot give details; we have appointed the chairman designate. If this House approves the order, the UDC comes into force tomorrow. The other House has already approved it. It will be useful to have the chairman in place for appointing the rest; it will be done by normal Nolan rules for everybody concerned.
The proposals have been welcomed by Thurrock council. It recognises that the delivery of regeneration and development in the borough relies on a powerful, focused delivery mechanism. The UDC will, in any case, work closely with the council and Thurrock's local strategic partnership. Four of the 13 seats on the UDC board will be filled by elected council members, but no one section or group will have a majority on the board. It will take time and obviously the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We are not planning that many UDCs—we have already highlighted one in the Northamptonshire area and another one in the London area. Some delivery mechanisms will be led by English Partnerships while others, as in Ashford, will be led by the local authority.
On infrastructure, I can only state what has been repeatedly said. There will be no sustainable growth or sustainable communities unless the infrastructure—by which I mean the social, economic and transport infrastructure—is dealt with. Therefore, education, health and transport mechanisms need to be part and parcel of the whole of the development, otherwise the private sector will not invest, because most of the investment will come from the private sector, people will not move there and it will not be sustainable. The whole genesis of the sustainable communities plan published last February depends on that, and we are determined to bring that about by the way in which we are operating in the department and driving forward the communities plan.
This is a cross-government plan, not an ODPM plan. It is led by a Cabinet Committee and teams of civil servants across Whitehall so that we can get other departments bending into the mechanism of the communities plan in their own planning. They need to know we are trying to take this forward in as co-ordinated a way as possible, otherwise we will not fulfil the aim of the plan and the department, which is to

217
create sustainable communities. We are desperately trying to indicate that we have learnt the lessons of the past.
Only last week, along with Keith Hill, the Minister for London and for the gateway, former members of urban development corporations—which are non-existent, obviously, as they have all been wound up— shared with us their various experiences of starting them up, running them and even winding them down. We want the best possible experience to hand for carrying out this operation. If the infrastructure is not put in place, we will have failed; without the infrastructure, we will not get the growth and it will not be sustainable. We stand to be tested and judged by that commitment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Gaining Machines) Order 2003
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th September be approved [25 th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It extends the payment methods which can be used in gaming machines. Currently, the machines covered by the order can use coins only. The order amends Part III of the Gaming Act 1968, which sets out the law on gaming machines. It applies to England, Wales and Scotland.
The order affects two types of gaming machine. First, there are jackpot machines, which are found in licensed casinos, bingo clubs and registered clubs. They have a legal maximum stake of 50 pence and maximum prizes of £250 to £2,000. Secondly, there are all-cash "amusement with prizes" machines, which are found in pubs and other alcohol licensed premises, betting shops, bingo clubs and adult-only parts of arcades. They have maximum stakes and prizes of 30 pence and £25. Both types of machine can be used by adults only. The order does not affect the third type of gaming machine—the so-called "coin or token amusement with prizes"—which are the only ones that can be used by children.
The all-cash "amusement with prizes" machines will be able to take and pay out in banknotes. Jackpot machines will be able to take and pay out using banknotes and smartcards. The order abolishes a requirement that the two types of machine must be able to take payment for a single play. The order allows jackpot machines, but not "amusement with prizes" machines, to let players keep any winnings in the machine to play again, if they want to.
The smartcards that the order will allow work in the same way as phone cards. Players buy them from the casino, bingo or club operator and use them to play machines. If they win, the money they have won is
218
credited to the card. They can then cash in their card to collect their winnings. The order does not allow the use of bank debit cards or credit cards.
The order is backed by detailed guidance drawn up by the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the gaming machines industry. The order and the guidance contain important safeguards. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House has considered the order in great detail, as has the Regulatory Reform Committee in another place. Changes were recommended and have been made, and both committees now recommend that the order is suitable to be made.
As will be known, the Government are proceeding with a gambling Bill, which will allow the use of smartcards and banknotes in all gaming machines not playable by children.
The independent review of gambling controls chaired by Sir Alan Budd concluded in its report, published in July 2001, that the Government should proceed with the proposals for the use of banknotes and smartcards in gaming machines in advance of any gambling Bill. We believe that it is right to make the changes in the order in advance of the Bill. Apart from anything else, it will save the gaming machines industry around £2 million a year. There has been extensive public scrutiny of the proposals.
I can confirm to the House that I am satisfied that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th September be approved [25th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive explanation of the objectives behind this order. As the Minister explained, the order amends the provisions in Part III of the Gaming Act 1968 and will revise and extend the methods of payment in gaming machines. The order relates to two types of machine: jackpot machines and higher value "amusement with prizes" machines. Section 31 of the Gaming Act imposes restrictions on the methods of payment and forms by which prizes can be delivered. The purpose of the order is to remove these burdens and allow payment in a form that constitutes money or money's worth. Both types of machine will continue to be able to operate using coins, in addition to the new payment methods. However, important distinctions, such as location and stake applicable to each type of machine, remain.
On the 13th March, a draft order was laid before Parliament for scrutiny in accordance with the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. In addition, the guidelines that accompany the order detail the operation of gaming machines that take banknotes and smartcards and have been agreed by the industry's trade association, BACTA.

219
We on these Benches welcome the changes proposed by both the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. The House of Lords Select Committee expressed concern about the two-pound cut-off and recommended that that cut-off should be included on the face of the order rather than the guidelines. We support that position. The guidelines do not have statutory force and may be amended without parliamentary consultation. Placing this requirement on the face of the order will guarantee the necessary protection afforded to the player by the two-pound cut-off. We therefore welcome the Government's decision to adopt this proposal and amend the order in accordance with that recommendation.
The House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that the draft order should be amended so that it stipulated that higher value AWP machines may accept only coins and banknotes as payment for play. In addition, the committee made recommendations about the Gaming Board/BACTA guidelines. The Government have subsequently amended the order in accordance with those recommendations. We agree with the committee's conclusion on that point.
In essence, we support the adoption of the Budd report recommendation to modernise machine payment methods without the need for primary legislation. While the concerns relating to use of credit cards in gaming machines are justified, no such concern arises with relation to the use of smartcards or banknotes. We welcome the Government's move to address industry concerns and amend their policy in accordance with these recommendations.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly what is contained in the draft instrument. I shall not even attempt to rehearse the details of what is contained in the order as it has been done so well already by the Minister and the noble Baroness.
We are dealing here with a balance which has been struck by the Government—who I know I have been pressed for some time by the industry to introduce changes of this type—between the industry's requirements in the light of advancing technology and the appropriate implementation of that technology and the public interest. There are many public interest elements in gambling, which nowadays often includes machines. Some £39.1 billion annually is gambled in the United Kingdom and the figure is increasing. One expects that the number of machines will increase in ratio to that total figure and perhaps to a greater extent. They are enormously popular and the industry is very sophisticated.
The principle in the public interest, of course, is to ensure that those who use these machines do not get themselves into a mindset whereby they have a certain amount of money and continue playing until that sum
220
is gone without allowing themselves a chance to contemplate the various stages at which they play. Quite sensibly, the order deals with that. Under this new measure, which allows staking methods other than coins, there has to be a stage at which people can consider their actions by means of the credit available and the money they have for playing on that particular occasion. It is a delicate and complicated matter.
I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee which is looking at the gambling legislation that the Government are putting before us. I think that it is a pity in a way that the proposed gambling commission has not been created ahead of the committee and the introduction of the main body of the gambling Bill. I think that a proper regulatory body such as the Government envisage would be very useful in considering at least the public interest involved in these matters.
Problem gambling is undoubtedly increasing. I have to be fair and say that the Budd report underestimated the amount of problem gambling in this country, although not purposely. The matter will be looked at thoroughly. I am quite sure that the Government have the best interests of the public in mind. I am optimistic that the results will be good and that we will be an example to the world when the Bill has gone through Parliament. This is an interim tranche, as it were, with some of the implications of the issues that we have to address. By and large, however, it is a sensible measure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount for their welcome for the order. I do not think that they asked any questions to which I need respond.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure, resuming at two minutes past nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 to 9.2 p.m.]

Hunting Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Mancroft moved Amendment Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

REGISTRATION
Introductory
Tests for Registration: Utility and Least Suffering

(1) The first test for registration in respect of the proposed hunting of wild mammals is that it is likely to make a contribution to—

221

(a) the prevention or reduction of damage which the wild mammals to be hunted would otherwise cause to—

(i) livestock,

(ii) game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (interpretation of Part 1)),

(iii) food for livestock,

(iv) crops (including vegetables and fruit),

(v) growing timber or regenerating woodland,

(vi) fisheries,

(vii) other property, or

(viii) the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992), or

(b) the maintenance of sustainable populations of any particular species of wild mammal, or

(c) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992).

(2) The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that it is unlikely to cause significantly more pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted than would be likely to be caused by any other reasonably available method of achieving the contribution mentioned in subsection (1)."

The noble Lord said: The Committee is rather more peaceful, I am delighted to say. At the start of last week, on the first day of the Committee, Members of the Committee accepted the proposal that some of us made to reintroduce the Government's concept of registered hunting. The Minister whose Bill this is, Mr Michael, had previously made it clear that the Bill would be based not on a simple list of activities to be banned, but rather on a set of principles. Those principles would emerge first from the Burns report and, leading on from that, from the public consultation that he proposed to hold, followed by the three days of hearings at Portcullis House. That is pretty much what happened.
The original Bill that Mr Michael introduced set up what one might loosely call two classes of hunting, exempt and registered. By inference there was therefore a third class, hunting that was neither exempt nor registered and was therefore effectively prohibited. Prohibited hunting was to be hunting that was not exempt but had failed the necessary criteria for registration. The two tests that anyone seeking registration would have to pass have come to be known as the tests of utility and least suffering.
The purpose of the amendment is to put those two tests back into the Bill. It is a little cumbersome as it would have been more convenient to deal with them separately, but the drafting does not make that easy to achieve. The Committee will forgive me if I am a little long-winded, but the matter is quite complex to try to
222
explain. Realistically, I am taking the role of a Minister at Second Reading in explaining a Bill, and I shall do my best.
The first test that we come to is that of utility. In a letter on 10th April 2002, the Minister described at the start of his consultation process what he meant by utility. He wrote of,
"the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation".
It is reasonable to say that that is the basis on which people responded to his consultation.
That was also basis on which the hearings at Portcullis House took place some months later. The extensive results of the consultation are in the public domain. They were posted on the website and I believe that they were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. They can be seen if anybody so wishes. Many people have looked at them. The evidence is well known. There is nothing secret or quiet about it. Ninety per cent of the evidence received was firmly in support of hunting in its various forms and few respondents offered any evidence that even remotely justified prohibiting any form of hunting.
Most of the responses against hunting came from the organisation which, even at that stage, was called Deadline 2000, although for reasons which have since become clear, it subsequently became expedient to change that name. I believe that it is now called the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal. It comprises three organisations: the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. They were the three main organisations which submitted evidence against hunting. They were joined by a few other individuals and a number of other smaller organisations, but the quantities involved were very low. The only scientific evidence of any substance to be submitted from that side of the debate came from Professor Stephen Harris of the Mammals Society. I am sure that he is a splendid fellow—I have debated against him, so I know that— but one could not regard him as entirely objective. His peers in the scientific word certainly do not, perhaps because a great deal of his funding comes from the three organisations to which I referred. Whether that matters or not, I am not in a position to say.
An enormous amount of evidence was submitted by a wide range of organisations that made the utility case for hunting. Virtually every land management organisation in the United Kingdom submitted evidence, backed in many cases by hard data and independent research, that clearly showed the contribution of hunting to wildlife management, the conservation of habitats, the environment, agriculture, forestry and the social and cultural life of the British countryside, as well as to biodiversity.
Among those organisations were the National Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Land and Business Association, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Countryside Alliance—noble Lords will recall that I am a board

223
member of that—and many other organisations. In particular, the Game Conservancy Trust submitted a lot of hard evidence, from a variety of studies, of the contribution that hunting makes to the conservation and maintenance of the countryside by actively managing and creating habitat that benefits a huge range of wildlife and not just the four species that are relevant to the Bill.
Research shows that hunts manage 10 per cent of the woodland in the areas over which they hunt. One of the few new pieces research to be published since the consultation was completed—it was published in the summer—was from the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent. It was a remarkable piece of research and it brought to light a number of things. Most of the conservation work in the United Kingdom takes place in uplands, moorlands and wetlands. The single biggest contribution to conservation in lowland UK is from landowners and managers who take part in hunting or shooting and who manage their land with that in mind. The report is in the public domain and I hope that many of your Lordships will have seen it. It concluded that the motivation that leads to that conservation work could not be replicated by subsidy, even if that level of subsidy were available.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, is not in his place this evening. At Second Reading, he talked with pride about the work of the Co-op. When I was a master of hounds 10 years ago, my kennels were next door to a substantial estate owned and managed by the Co-op. All the gates were painted that revolting turquoise blue, which I suppose does not matter except that it appeared to infect the villages. There were no foxes on the land anyway— they would not have wanted to go there. There was no wildlife. It may have been well and profitably managed for the members of the Co-operative Society but, as a piece of environmental and conservation work, it was an absolute disaster.
That is one of the problems. Constructive and motivated management is required in order to produce the type of countryside for which we are famous. It only needs a landowner or manager to take his eye off the ball, as the Co-op has done in its Gloucestershire estates, to end up with an ecological desert with no wildlife, no hedgerows and coverts with no bottom in them. That is the other side of the coin.
There are examples to the contrary from the sporting world. I shall give just two; I do not want to detain the Committee for long. The Sinnington Hunt in Yorkshire manages a gorse cover, which contains the last remaining colony of piebald fritillary butterflies in the North East of England. The Butterfly Conservation charity wrote congratulating the Ravenswick Estate Company on achieving what the rest of Yorkshire had failed to do. The management strategy for that woodland was fox hunting. In the
224
New Forest, the survival of the Montagu's harrier is threatened by foxes taking the chicks. In 1997, the Forestry Commission—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful. The noble Lord referred to the absence of my noble friend Lord Fyfe. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that my noble friend is ill and has had an operation. He would have liked to be here. He would have defended himself. However, I rise because of the astounding remarks that the noble Lord ascribes to the management by the Co-op—that is, the CWS—of its farms. He is well aware that members of the Co-op comprise the largest group of farmers in the country. They have an impeccable record. I can assure the noble Lord that I shall seek an early response either from the chief executive, Mr Martin Beaumont, or from the farms manager. I am sure that he will be written to and asked to substantiate what he said. What he said was a slur upon the quality of the management by the CWS of a very large holding. Whatever they say, I resent what he has said.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: I am sure that all Members of the Committee will extend their sympathy and encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, and hope that he returns to us hale and hearty very soon. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for drawing that to your Lordships' attention.
I am very sorry if the noble Lord is upset by what I said about the Co-op land. I know that its members form a large group of farmers. I did not know that they comprised the largest group in Britain, although of course I know that the Co-op owns a large amount of land. I know only that one estate, which comprises perhaps 2,000 acres in Gloucestershire. I do not know it today, but 10 years ago I knew it extremely well. The manager, who was an extremely nice man whom I knew well, and his wife managed the estate as they were instructed, but I know that they were not particularly happy with the conservation policy that they were obliged to follow. I am certain that it was a very successful farm economically but it was not very pretty to look at and it stuck out like a sore thumb compared with some of the farms nearby, which were managed rather more sympathetically. However, I shall look forward to receiving a letter and hearing what the Co-op has to say about that.
I return to the subject of the New Forest, where the survival of the Montagu's harrier was threatened by foxes taking chicks. In 1997 the Forestry Commission called in the New Forest hunt to help. The hunt killed eight foxes within one mile of the nesting site and, using the hounds, was able to locate a den near the nest. A fox was dug out and humanely destroyed. So it is not just the quarry species themselves which benefit from hunting; a variety of other animals benefit from sympathetic management and the things that hunting can do.
The utility is not solely directed at culling or pest control. Both culling and pest control are important but pest control is simply one part of the management

225
of any species. No doubt the Minister will return to the old theme that hunting accounts for only about 10 per cent of foxes killed in places such as the East Midlands. In my view, saying that demonstrates the absurdity of the position which the Government have got themselves into.
Why does anyone think it is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a wildlife management department but not a pest control department? It is because wildlife management is the aim. Pest control is just one part of it. Wildlife management is about conserving healthy and balanced populations of species in numbers that are sustainable for very different environments up and down the country. I say that with one exception, on which we have not touched in these debates, which is that of mink. I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is not in her place. I am sure that she would have something to say on this subject.
We want sustainable, manageable, balanced populations of fox, hare and deer. We want, I think, no population of mink. Hunting is just one way of getting rid of them. I should like to see more ways of getting rid of them—of course humanely. Everyone accepts that and would like to see that, but we must get rid of mink.
It has to be remembered that in lowland Britain, where every man's hand is against the fox, hunting is the great preserver of foxes. Of course, in the uplands and moorlands the role of hunting is as the main or sole reducer of the fox population. We do not need to go over ground that we have been over earlier today to talk about hunting on moorland and in hill country. There, it is absolutely vital and the role of hunting is very different. Hunting in its many forms is an extraordinary activity and adapts to the local environment. It finds its way in so that it is suitable in lowland country, hill country and moorland country. Rather like the animals, it adapts to the circumstances required for the management of the environment. The object is that the level of livestock predation does not become untenable or that foxes encroach too heavily on fragile populations of ground nesting birds, another subject that we have discussed.
We were frequently told—we discussed this earlier—that foxes account for only 2 per cent of viable lambs. I do not apologise for repeating what I said earlier. Two per cent is 300,000 lambs. That is not so paltry for those who have to derive a living from them. It must be remembered also that that is against a background of intensive hunting—in any area where hunting accounts for over 50 per cent of the annual cull. I ask Members of the Committee to imagine what it would be like in Wales, the Lake District or the moorlands if we did not have hunting and it was not managing 50 per cent of the cull in an area where it would be difficult to find another way of culling.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, who is not in his place, asked why the country was not overrun by foxes in the year of foot and mouth when there was no hunting. There was hunting for three-quarters of the first year and for half of the second
226
year. So a great deal of the cull during the foot and mouth year had taken place at the front end and at the back end. But, as the Farmers Union of Wales said in January 2002,
"The ban on fox hunting over the last year has led to an explosion in the fox population to unprecedented levels".
In some cases farmers who lost six or seven lambs to foxes normally have seen numbers they lose jump to between 35 and 40. That is not an easy issue either. It is an important factor. One of the most difficult things about this debate is the sweeping statements that are made, possibly on both sides, which bear no relation to the facts.
There are two sides to the management of wildlife which are unique to hunting. The first is dispersal. Hares are not a pest in my part of the world in Gloucestershire or in many other parts, but they are in East Anglia and in the North East. One factor that leads to damage, whether it be hares in root crop— deer in young forestry is another example—or foxes among poultry and game, is concentration of numbers. In fox terms that occurs usually in the early autumn.
Whereas a small grass farmer in the Quantock Hills, for example, may tolerate half a dozen deer eating his spring grass, he cannot accept 40 or 50. All keepers know that they risk losing a few young partridges, but when three or four foxes get in among partridge coveys after they have been released, the economic loss is too great. Of course you can cull them all if you can get at them, but only hunting has the ability to disperse numbers.
The reason farmers in East Anglia invite in the beagles or the harriers is not because of the one or two hares that they kill, but to disperse the 20 or 30 hares that would do all the damage. Fox hunting alone can disperse the litters of cubs in the autumn that do the kind of damage I have just talked about.
Furthermore, hunting does that which no other method of culling, control or management can do: it encourages survival of the fittest, which is immensely important. The stronger foxes, hares and deer get away and the weaker ones get caught. There was some very interesting research done in Canada some years ago. Wolves had become extinct and over a period of time the caribou herds became listless and the quality of deer deteriorated enormously. The Canadian wildlife department reintroduced wolves to hunt the caribou. After a relatively short period of time—two or three years—the quality of the herds and their vigour improved beyond all recognition. They regained their previous energy and quality. They are a natural prey species. When such species are not preyed upon, clearly they start to deteriorate.
Hunting has a unique ability to despatch the weak, the injured and the old. No other culling method can do that. I draw your Lordships' attention to the recent report from the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting by Professor John Webster, the professor of animal husbandry at Bristol. In the last year to which this report refers—last season—of the deer killed by the deerhounds in the West Country, 44 per

227
cent were casualty deer, which means that they had already been injured either by shooting or by motor car accidents, illness or some other injury. Without hounds it would be impossible to find those deer and despatch them.
About three or four months ago I spoke—it was nothing to do with this; debate—to the warden of the National Trust's Holnicote Estate in the West Country. It must have been in the early summer. He told me that in February he had seen a hind with a broken leg. She was too far away for him to get to. Because he could not use scent hounds he could not catch up with that deer for more than six weeks. He finally found her. Her leg had not repaired. It was still gangrenous. She was in considerable pain and unable to feed. If he had had access to hounds—they are there, but as the Committee will know, they are not allowed on National Trust land—he could have caught up with that deer and put her out of her misery in probably half an hour. That is half an hour versus six weeks—an interesting equation in suffering.
Lord King of Bridgwater: Perhaps I may say that, having had the honour to represent that part of the world for 30 years, there were many instances of deer with half their jaws shot away and with other appalling casualties from poaching because carcasses are valuable and venison fetches a good price. The reality is that that the work of the Quantock and the Devon and Somerset staghounds was vital. Otherwise, those animals would never have been tracked down. You cannot just flush them out because you do not know where they are and you need a pack of hounds to find them.
Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comments. The same applies to foxes, but obviously on a much larger scale because fox hunting is on a larger scale. I understand that 43 per cent of the foxes caught in the past season by hounds were casualty foxes—which means casualties of shooting, injury, illness or car accidents. As we know, an awful lot of them are killed by cars.
So why, one wonders, did the Minister in another place, in drawing up his test of utility, or when he reached Committee, allow it to be restricted to pest control only? I know that he has argued that we—by which I think he means the Countryside Alliance and Council of Hunting Associations—have made the case only for pest control, but that is not so. Our response to his consultation states:
"The Alliance supports the view that utility in the context of hunting can be described as including hunting's effectiveness as either a controller or manager of wildlife populations; its contribution to rural economy; its value in terms of conservation and ecology; and the social and cultural contribution it makes to rural areas. And as we have previously suggested, the value of hunting cannot be limited to its role simply as a pest controller".
So the concept that hunting is just pest control certainly never came from us.
228
I have a suspicion about where it came from. If the Committee will forgive me for a moment, I shall explain. On Second Reading and in previous debates, I said that the Government were right to consult as they did; they were right to set up the Burns inquiry. The public hearings in Portcullis House were an extraordinary and effective exercise in open democracy.
The Minister, Mr Michael, met everyone that he could have and listened to everybody. I have no doubt that when he set out on this journey, which he is probably not much enjoying now, he intended to do his level best to find a resolution. Early in that consultation, he kindly agreed to meet me. We had a nice dinner together and covered a lot of subjects as we chatted away. Obviously, we talked a lot about hunting. I shall of course not reveal private conversation—that would be entirely unacceptable—but one part of that conversation that I do not think is especially private or confidential may shine a light on what happened.
At one point, I said to the Minister, "If your consultation process shows that hunting is pretty useless in most areas and is really very cruel, I expect your Bill will ban it, won't it?" He said, "Yes, that is a reasonable thought; it probably will". So I said, "On the other side of the coin, if your consultation shows that hunting is actually, in the scheme of things, not very cruel and causes little suffering and, in a number of areas, is useful and fulfils a lot of needs, your Bill won't ban it. will it?" He thought for a minute and said, "Well, theoretically, I suppose that that is quite right". I then said, "The problem is: that is where you will get to". He said, "How on earth can you know that? What on earth do you mean?" I said, "Listen, I have been in this hunting and politics game for about 10 years and there is not really any new evidence. There is a bit of research here and there but, to tell the honest truth, it is all in the open. There is nothing new to be told about this great debate, this great argument. If you conduct the consultation as you plan to"—and, indeed, the way that he did: very openly—"that is where it will take you. It will take you to the conclusion that hunting is not very cruel but is pretty useful. What will you do then, because your Back-Benchers will not buy that?"
That was the only unhappy moment of our entire happy evening. I suspect that that is exactly what happened. The consultation arrived there and the Bill was moved to here.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I could remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that none of the timings in the Companion fits with 25 minutes spent to move one amendment; we are drifting towards the time for not one but two Second Reading speeches.
Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness; I hope not, but, as I said when I started, this is fantastically complicated. This is an amendment, but it is

229
like a Second Reading because this is what should have been done at Second Reading; we were unable to do so. I shall attempt to finish quickly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record, I am not aware that anyone constrained any noble Lord's ability to speak on Second Reading.
Lord Mancroft: I did not suggest that for a moment; I do not know where that came from. I agree that no one constrained anyone.
The second test that your Lordships are being asked to reintroduce to the Bill is the test of least suffering. We must remind ourselves that Burns found no cruelty and that is why he talked about suffering. The other important point that emerged from the hearings was that suffering cannot be measured on the Richter scale. At Committee stage in another place it was referred to as the Õpik scale, in the name of Mr Lembit Õpik. The other immensely important principle to emerge was that man's motive in those activities is irrelevant.
A vast amount of work has been done on the issue, but none of it produces any evidence that hunting creates any more suffering than any of the other activities. We have chosen the words in the amendment to reflect the test in what we believe to be the most reasonable way possible. The amendment would put the two tests back into the Bill in nearly their previous form, with two small changes. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 28A:
Line 21, at end insert—
"( ) the control of nuisance animals"
The noble Lord said: I am very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, is unwell. I am wearing my Co-op tie especially to please him, so I am sorry that he is not here. I wear it out of respect more for the Co-op's retail movement than the countryside management aspect of that enormous operation. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the largest landowner in the country is the National Trust rather than the Co-op.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I did not say that the Co-op was the largest landowner; I said that it was the largest farmer.
Lord Palmer: I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I am not 100 per cent certain whether he is correct.
When the Government conducted their six-month consultation, the definition of "utility" was drawn widely, recognising in the light of the Burns report that hunting had complex utility value. As I said at Second Reading, I believe that the Government will rue the day that the dreadful word "utility" was introduced into the Bill. Pest control is not simply about numbers killed but about the control and management of species. The amendment, in conjunction with the other conditions in the new clause, seeks to ensure that the
230
registrar, in assessing utility, takes account of all aspects of hunting's utility. The amendment looks at the role of hunting as a control mechanism.
The contribution of hunting to species management is recognised by every major land use organisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. It must not be forgotten that hunting is financed by its participants and, therefore, provides species management at no cost to the farmer or the public purse. Hunts do not require an enormous police presence as at any football match. All alternative methods of control have direct cost implications for farmers, who already suffer the most terrible economic hardship.
Following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the hunting associations immediately and voluntarily suspended all hunting. Although the hunting season was drawing to a close, there were many areas where normal spring hunting, including the "lambing call service", was prevented. Within a few days, hunts started to receive calls from farmers suffering acute fox predation resulting in severe lambing losses.
In summer 2002, a survey of one-third of foxhound packs across the United Kingdom found that the temporary suspension of hunting owing to foot and mouth disease had reduced their normal fox cull by nearly 5,000. There were 4,700 calls from farmers asking for assistance with fox damage. Welsh farms in sheep-rearing areas lost an average of £500-worth of stock by additional fox predation. To a hill farmer in Wales, that is an enormous amount of money.
Since the resumption of hunting—on 17th December in some areas and much later in others—there is clear evidence from standard reporting forms from hunts, that in many areas there are unusually large concentrations of undispersed foxes. Other UK major land use groups also express the importance of control. The National Farmers Union stated in its submission to the Burns inquiry that:
"Pest control requirements will vary sharply from one region to another and from one farm business to another depending on a range of circumstances".
Indeed, it is dangerous to generalise at all. For example, a sheep farmer may suffer persistent predation of his sheep by foxes which is not shared by his neighbours in the locality, perhaps because of his proximity to completely different features such as woodland. Full regard must be had to the fact that problems caused by agricultural pests, whether they be foxes, deer, hares, or mink—and I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about what a shame it is that the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is not in her place—or other species, can have severe consequences for farmers' businesses. It must not be forgotten that most farmers are still suffering terrible financial hardship.
Of gamekeepers asked in 1994, 96.4 per cent said that foxes were present on their land and needed to be controlled. Control was necessary to ensure that damage to game, wildlife and livestock was reduced or kept at acceptable levels. The particularly vulnerable times of year were obviously lambing and nesting.

231
The Ministry of Agriculture as it was in those days also stated in its submission to the Burns inquiry:
"Brown hares are typically a farmland species and high densities can be associated with grazing damage to crops and damage to young, unprotected forestry plantations. Hares are considered as agriculture pests and the Ground Game Act 1880 allows farmers to take them at any time of year".
However, foxes can cause serious local problems to farmers and landowners; as a result they may take measures to control local fox populations, as well as responding to individual incidents of fox predation. Foxes may also cause localised problems to free-range poultry interests, have a detrimental impact on grey partridge numbers and disperse colonies of all types of ground nesting birds. Nearly 95 per cent of those farmers questioned normally allow hunting with dogs on their farms. That includes the use of terriers and lurchers. Almost 4 per cent of those questioned said that they did not allow hunting with dogs on their farms. Nearly 50 per cent of farmers carry out no alternative methods of control other than hunting with dogs. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Moran: I made clear my objections to this Bill on Second Reading and I was glad to give my strongest support to the concept of registration in the votes in our first day of this Committee. However, Amendment No. 28 is the first about which I have some doubts. I share the objection of my noble friend Lord Palmer to the word "utility".
My main concern is as a fisherman. As was made clear by the Countryside Alliance in its brief for Second Reading, the test of utility was narrowly drawn in the Bill. In Committee, that test was narrowed specially to cover pest control. The word "utility" has come to mean pest control. However, both coarse and game fishing have no utility on that basis. The widespread introduction of catch-and-release on conservation grounds, which is to be welcomed, means that there is even less utility in fishing.
Fishermen worry that, if the concept of utility is seen not simply as something that has been put forward by the Government but as something that is approved of by the House, it will give an additional handle to the League Against Cruel Sports and the other organisations that may be concerned with banning fishing in due course.
At Second Reading in the Commons, Alun Michael defined the test of utility as,
"a need for the activity to take place for the protection of livestock, crops and so on"—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/02; col. 576.]
The only person who raised the question of fishing was Mr Lembit Õpik of the Liberal Democrats, who said that he was also concerned that the utility principle in the Bill could lead to the eventual banning of shooting and angling.
I am chairman of a committee known as the Moran committee, which comprises all the main fishery and angling organisations in England and Wales. At a meeting last week, I mentioned my concerns and found that they were shared by all the members of the committee. It would be good if we could get away from the concept of utility.
232
In Amendment No. 28, the definitions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the things to which the registration should contribute are excellent, but the title of the new clause worries me—it is "Tests for registration: utility and least suffering". If those responsible for the amendment could take out the words "utility and least suffering", which are not needed, I would be happier.
I have never understood why the Countryside Alliance and those who support it were happy about the concept of utility when it has come to mean pest control. Inevitably, it will discriminate against the big lowland hunts. On Report in another place, Alun Michael said that the Bill, as then amended, would,
"only allow the hunting of foxes and mink in exceptional circumstances, for pest control and only when alternative methods can be shown to cause significantly more suffering".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 56.]
That will not worry packs in my part of the world— Wales—who are engaged in pest control to a considerable extent, but I wonder whether the Quorn and the Pytchley would regard their operations as pest control. If tests were applied, hill packs in places such as Wales would be allowed to continue, and lowland packs would not. Surely, that is not what the Countryside Alliance wants.
Before the next stage, those who tabled the amendment should consider the dangers of opening the door to a move against fishing and, I suppose, shooting. I am surprised that those in the Countryside Alliance responsible for shooting and fishing have not raised that point. Perhaps they have or perhaps they have been asleep. It is important that the fishing and shooting fraternity are at one with Members of the Committee on this issue. Therefore, if the word "utility" could be eliminated from now on, I, for one, would be extremely grateful.
Baroness Mallalieu: As I have added my name to the amendment, perhaps I may refer Members of the Committee to what it does in relation to the process which Alun Michael started and to the Bill which he introduced into the House. From some of the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister before we adjourned, I anticipate that it will be suggested that, in some way, this is a dramatic change.
I turn briefly to what it was that we started out to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has already said, when Alun Michael announced his consultation process in a letter to interested parties in April 2002, he gave some indication of the two key principles which he intended to address in the Bill; that is, the prevention of cruelty and the concept of utility. I do not understand utility to be a term of art. I simply understand it to mean that it serves a useful purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has already read out part of that letter. Perhaps I may read the rest. Alun Michael wrote:
"Cruelty is already dealt with in our legal system in regard to a variety of aspects other than hunting".

233
I shall pause there to say that the definition which appeared later in his Bill bore no relation to the definition of cruelty in our legal system in any statute that I have been able to find. I understood the definition of cruelty generally to be the deliberate infliction of unnecessary suffering. We shall come to see how that changed. He then wrote in relation to utility that,
'"Utility"'—
I apologise for repeating the words, but they are important in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has just said.
"'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation".
At that stage, it was clear that the Minister had in mind something very much wider than we finally got in the Bill.
Alun Michael completed the Portcullis House hearings and on the final day, 1lth September 2002, he issued a press release, in which he wrote:
"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence on the principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife and whether it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available".
So even at the end of the Portcullis House hearings, he had in mind sensible definitions of utility and, no doubt, of cruelty, to which he had referred earlier.
I think that I have an advantage over most noble Lords in having a copy of the original government Bill which has been annotated to show the amendments that are being made by the proposal made in the amendment now before the Committee. Perhaps I may just indicate what the changes are to Alun Michael's original Bill. Far from totally changing what is to be done, I hope that what we are doing is to go back to those principles which the Minister said at the outset he would introduce legislation to meet.
In relation to subsection (1) of Amendment No. 28, some words have been deleted which would have made better English. Mr Michael's original version read:
"The first test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that it is likely to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage which the wild mammals to be hunted would otherwise cause to"—
followed by the paragraphs listed below in the original Bill. What we have done is to take out the word "significant", so that it refers simply to "contribution", and to take out the remaining words in that paragraph so that the test now reads,
"is likely to make a significant contribution to,
(a) the prevention or reduction of damage",
and involves the following sub-paragraphs.
234
In subsection (l)(a)(ii), we have added the words "or wild birds", the original protection having been given simply to game birds. That seems to be a sensible amendment to the provision which can be regarded only as an improvement.
In sub-paragraph (v), to the words "growing timber", we have added "or regenerating woodland". Again, that is a plain and common-sense improvement to the Bill and could not possibly be said dramatically to alter it.
Towards the end we have added to paragraph (b) the words,
"the maintenance of sustainable populations of any particular species of wild mammal",
which goes straight back to a point enunciated at the outset by Alun Michael as one of the principles of wildlife management; and paragraph (c) reads,
"the sustainable development of the area … within the meaning of the Rio Declaration".
That should have been included in the original government Bill. There is no point in our signing up to such conventions only to ignore them when we come to introduce our own domestic legislation.
All those points seem to be totally in accordance with what Alun Michael indicated that he proposed to do, and all the alterations are improvements to the original version.
I turn to subsection (2), which could be described as the "cruelty subsection". The original test proposed by Alun Michael was, frankly, difficult to follow even for lawyers. It stated:
"The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that a contribution equivalent to that mentioned in subsection (1) could not reasonably be expected to be made (whether by the person proposing to hunt or by another person) in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammal to be hunted".
Noble Lords can see what has been done. I submit that we have produced a sensible, fair and readily comprehensible test.
If it is said, as I expect it may, that this amendment seeks to run a coach and horses through what Alun Michael produced as the government Bill at the outset, I respond by saying: go back to what he announced to the public, what he wrote to those who communicated with him, and what he produced at the outset. What we have done is to take his initial proposals and seek to clarify and strengthen them. Surely that is the role of this Committee.
Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for the concise explanation given by the noble Baroness of the way in which the definition has been expanded under this amendment. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for explaining at such great length the complexities of this amendment.

235
I had the distinct impression that when the Minister, Alun Michael, originally decided to base a system of licensed hunting on cruelty and utility—bearing in mind the original definition of "utility"—there was a general agreement that that was a useful way forward. Why that definition of utility was later allowed to be confined solely to pest control was, in my view, something of a mystery and certainly a travesty. I say that in particular given that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, produced his lengthy and time-consuming report on a whole host of other factors which embraced the social, economic, environmental and conservation elements that inevitably accompany hunting. Indeed, those discussions went further and were deliberated during the Portcullis House agreements.
So I believe that everyone had a genuine expectation that the definition of utility, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was something that we wanted and expected to find set out in the Bill. As a result, I think it is wholly sensible for the amendment to be worded in this way.
One has to ask, therefore, why the Minister removed such tests, thus prejudging in effect what decisions the registrar was going to make. Of course the truth of the matter is that the proposal was tightened so that there would be a ban in everything but name—and that, I repeat, is the truth.
We are being asked, through the amendment, to reinstate under the utility tests the other considerations that were so painfully considered by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and in the Portcullis House discussions. It is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable objective.
As regards the sustainable development of areas within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, what on earth is the point of the Government negotiating and agreeing these declarations if we do not implement them into the law of this country? We should bear in mind the cultural, social and economic aspects rooted in these agreements which are such a fundamental part of hunting. We cannot isolate the human dimension from the environmental dimension and the economic dimension. They are all part of the thread that makes the countryside work.
I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. It is a thoroughly responsible way of redefining—not in a massively different way but in a more comprehensive way—the word that the Minister himself wished to use as a test, that of "utility".
10 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This is a very important amendment. Many of the issues I wished to address have already been spoken to and defined. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the topics of utility— in particular its impact on livestock, fisheries and mink—the Middle Way Group scientific study on
236
shooting and the principle of least suffering. I shall also address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his excellent amendments.
As we have heard, "utility" in the context of the Bill was defined by the Minister, Alun Michael, at the time the hearings took place. Indeed, quotations of what he said have already been given. The doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the possible impact on fishing cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, the debate at the moment concerns the way in which these topics were defined by the Minister at the time. Quite clearly he intended to use the two tests of utility and least suffering as part of his Bill. The fact that it was overturned in the House of Commons and modified as time went on is a story with which we are all familiar.
I declare an interest as someone who was brought up on a farm, who has managed farms both in a commercial sense and in an agricultural college, and who farms a medium-sized sheep flock. I also declare an interest as someone who is particularly keen on fishing.
There is no doubt that foxes prey on poultry and livestock such as lambs, calves and piglets. It is widely acknowledged that foxes engage in surplus killing— that is, killing more than they need to eat. There is a great deal of evidence of lambs being killed and left in the field. I have experienced it myself. Usually, headless lambs are found first thing in the morning. When you are lambing, "first thing in the morning" is about 5 a.m. That is when you find that lambs have been killed and their carcasses left in the field. This is quantified much more easily these days because sheep farmers often number their lambs from one to 300 as they are born and it is quite easy to count the numbers that have gone. In my worst experience, 37 lambs disappeared, which came to twice as much as the £500 loss quoted as an average figure.
It is the propensity of the fox to prey on agricultural stock that brings the biggest demand for fox control from farmers. The Burns report said of mid-Wales, my part of the world, that farmers, landowners and gamekeepers consider that it is necessary to manage the fox population. Over one-third of foxes in mid-Wales are culled as a result of terrier work, for example.
I take issue with some of the things that have been said about pest control. It is clearly an important part, although not the only part, of the issue. In its press statements, the NFU refers to the control of foxes as pest control. It refers to pest control tests that can lead to a notice being served on occupiers of land by the Ministry of Agriculture, as was, and now by Defra, under Sections 98 and 99 of the Agriculture Act 1947. That notice can require people to ensure that these pests are destroyed. Failure to comply may result in the pest being destroyed by the ministry at the occupier's expense. I know of no repeal of that part of the 1947 Act.

237
Those problems impinge on the effective management of ewe flocks. As has been said, the impact of foot and mouth and the fact that there was quite a long delay until hunting resumed caused a considerable increase in the number of foxes in the countryside.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is absent from the debate. I am sure there is a very good reason for that. The situation with regard to fisheries and feral mink is very serious. Apart from preying on ground-nesting birds, mink kill a tremendous number offish in our rivers and have contributed to the virtual disappearance of the moorhen, a delightful bird, from our countryside.
The mink is not native to this country; it was introduced in the 1920s from America. Hunting with dogs has a huge utility in controlling mink. It is my view that mink should be exterminated from the United Kingdom and that the Government should bring forward legislation to achieve that. In the mean time, the hunting of mink is very important. Mink are not passive. Being confronted by one in a farmyard is very challenging. It is a very unpleasant animal. The trapping of mink does occur, but as far as fisheries are concerned, it is imperative that mink are controlled.
The Middle Way Group commissioned a scientific investigation into shooting foxes instead of hunting them. The results of the study were released in June 2003; it was conducted by five independent qualified animal experts who observed and filmed foxes being shot by both shotguns and rifles. The study was made under field conditions and concluded that,
"for every fox shot dead with a shotgun, at least the same number of foxes are wounded and many of these are never found".
I have done quite a lot of shooting in the countryside, and I am not making a case against shooting in a general sense. I am saying merely that it is not an effective method of controlling foxes. Even with experts, only about one-third of all shots fired hit their target. Shotguns are not a very effective method of doing it, and we all know the dangers of using rifles in the countryside, given the increased access that people now have.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"Cruelty is justifiable only if the alternative is worse cruelty or there is no alternative in achieving the utilitarian objective".— [Official Report, 16/9/03; col.892.]
There is scientific evidence to show that certain types of shooting will cause a much higher level of wounding than previously claimed. Indeed, that claim of low wounding rates has been exposed as seriously flawed. In December 2002, Alun Michael said of the regulatory Bill in a Written Statement:
"There are no restrictions on hunting with dogs of rats and rabbits because this method of controlling the populations satisfies the two tests and causes less suffering than alternative methods of control such as poisoning or snaring".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/02; col. 79WS.]
238
So snaring is considered by the Minister, and presumably by the Government, to be worse than hunting with dogs. Now there is scientific evidence to show that certain shooting regimes will cause high levels of wounding. Indeed, it appears that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right—that only hunting with dogs is to be singled out for abolition.
Animal welfare issues must be addressed—that is very important indeed—but there is a clear inconsistency in many of the arguments put forward by some anti-hunting organisations. The Government have stated that they want to improve the welfare of wild mammals, so they must surely see that such muddled thinking provides no basis for good legislation. The more that the Government ignore scientific evidence and restrict their attention to hunting with dogs alone, while at the same time accepting that there are methods that cause even more suffering, the more they will leave themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy.
I am pleased to say that, at a press conference this morning, there was a discussion on the Middle Way shooting study. There was present a representative from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Professor Stephen Harris. It was exposed in this morning's meeting that his evidence challenging the Middle Way findings was contained only in a press release. The completion of his research had not been validated yet, and not even published, so he was making assertions with no substantial background.
I am pleased to be able to report from that meeting that the co-operative discussion eventually took place after some confrontational argument. There is now a basis for a joint study to be held by the Middle Way Group and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, so that independent principles can be established for least suffering, and in particular in relation to shooting as an alternative to hunting.
We believe that to be a breakthrough and to deserve consideration, because it will be a much more objective outcome than some assertions that have been made on the issue. It is a constructive set of proposals, perhaps to find out the truth. In the mean time, there is insufficient evidence to say that hunting is not the best way of controlling foxes. Indeed, it is the most effective way of doing so.
Baroness Byford: I support Amendment No. 28. We are addressing the issue of whether registered hunting should be allowed. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the 1lth September 2002 news release which was quite clearly headed,
"Hunting with dogs: the solution should be based on evidence and principle, not personal taste—Alun Michael".
The release continued:
"As three days of hearings of evidence from experts on hunting with dogs ended today. Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael commented:
'This innovative process has brought together some of the country's top experts on this contentious issue. Together with the three umbrella groups I have been able to explore in depth the key principles of least suffering and utility.

239
'These are two principles on which I base my proposals for enabling the House to reach a resolution—so fulfilling our manifesto commitment"'.
Well, we all know what happened to that.
In her earlier comments the noble Baroness also quoted from that particular brief, which states:
"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste".
I shall not finish the quote. After it, however, there is a most important passage. It reads:
"Taking account of the evidence given at these hearings, and of the response to my two consultation papers, I plan to set out proposals for Parliament which can form good and robust law and can take us forward into the 21st century, able to reflect evolving views on animal welfare and wildlife management'".
The rejection by the House of Commons of the original Bill completely overturned that statement, following which a ban was proposed.
As many Members of the Committee said, we are proposing restoring the clause that deals with utility and cruelty. Reference has been made to the number of sheep taken. I should declare and remind the Committee that, originally, after leaving school, I became a poultry farmer. As evening approached I had to be very careful to ensure that my hens and chickens were locked up or the fox would come round. Please do not think that a fox kills only one or two because it does not. It will kill the lot regardless of whether it intends to eat them. Other figures—such as 300,000 lambs killed- have also been cited.
I should also remind the Committee that farmers are being encouraged to promote free-range activities in both pig and poultry farming. There is an acute risk that fox predation of those types of livestock will increase. My noble friend referred to the dispersal role played by hunts. We should not undervalue that role.
I turn to the issue of least suffering. As we know, hunts hunt only during a closed season. They do not hunt when vixen are carrying cubs as that is banned. If this provision is not reintroduced into the Bill, it is likely that foxes will be shot year round. Whatever happens, more foxes will be shot; of that there is no doubt.
Some Members of the Committee have mentioned the issue of controlling the fox population by snaring, gassing—which is illegal—and shooting. None is a good alternative. Snaring is probably one of the worst ways in which an animal can die. They are left in agony, perhaps for a long time, dying from the snare injury, starvation, cold or exposure. It is estimated that of animals caught in snares, 50 per cent are species other than the target one. That is very worrying.
As we know, deer are a great concern for the Woodland Trust and the Forestry Commission. In its evidence of 22nd October, the Woodland Trust said:
"Deer are a major problem in both upland and lowland areas of the UK. The intense grazing by deer means that trees unable to regenerate and remain in wooded areas die off slowly from the ground up".
240
The Forestry Commission in its submission to Burns stated:
"Currently Forestry Commission policy is to implement deer management procedures involving assessments of populations and their impact followed by the control of the numbers to ensure that an acceptable balance between deer numbers and damage to the forest environment is maintained".
It is not just those of us who have hunted in the past, or perhaps are still involved in hunting, who are concerned about the way in which this Bill has been presented to your Lordships over the past few days. The original government Bill brought forward by Alun Michael was altered totally on Third Reading in the House of Commons.
Certain bodies have suggested that we need this statement regarding the whole question of registration, utility and cruelty. The NFU, the CLA, the Game Conservancy Trust and many others support this amendment.
I hope that we shall reach a swift conclusion on whether we support the amendment. I say to Members of the Committee who wonder whether it is wise to support the amendment that the alternative ways of killing and controlling foxes and deer are much crueller. I beg Members of the Committee at least to consider that. I support the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: After the two days of debate we have had in Committee no one can say that anyone has been inhibited either in what they have said or in how long they have decided to take to express it. From time to time comment has been made about a paucity of speakers on this side of the Committee among those who are favour of the ban. We have tried to exercise due diligence and caution in ensuring that the Bill gets back to the Commons as quickly as possible. Therefore, we have maintained a strict control upon the number and length of speeches. I make no complaint. We are all adults.
On the first amendment that we discussed last Tuesday I was the only person to express a certain view. Twenty-two others expressed an opposing view. That was the way in which they decided to use their time. When the Chief Whip spoke at the beginning of the two days of Committee debate, he pointed out that he had allocated two days for the Committee stage. Noble Lords opposite in their wisdom and maturity have decided to take the time that they have in speaking to a very small part of the Bill. That is their choice. I have certainly learnt a lot from what has been said and I respect the integrity of those who have said it. But at the end of the day these amendments we are dealing with now deal with qualifications that need to be complied with before a hunt becomes registered.
I have never been in favour of registration and a great many Members of the Committee were never in favour of registration until their original choice, the status quo, was seen to be absolutely out of order and out of sympathy. So they decided that registration of a hunt to kill—a licence to kill—was the best way forward. In their minds—they may be wrong—they see this as the best way of continuing the practice in

241
which they believe and which they have enjoyed. So far as I am concerned, registration is not even a second best; it is a licence to kill and to continue hunting. If one subscribes to the qualifications and upholds them, one is allowed to continue hunting as one has in the past. I have said before that I am against that. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall urge anyone who cares to listen that it should be voted down.
Earlier when I mentioned my co-operative interest I failed to declare that I have a registered financial interest in my relationships with the Co-op.
Baroness Byford: The noble Lord just said quite clearly that if the amendment is agreed to, it would constitute a licence to kill. Will the noble Lord acknowledge that if registration does not occur, more animals will be killed by shooting and other methods? I do not mind that he does not agree with those who want to hunt, but the fact is that more foxes, deer and vermin may well be killed than would have been killed had the registration amendment been agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: I should like to add to that and ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the Minister two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, stated that,
"on those estates which favour hare coursing or hunting, rather than shooting, a ban might lead fanners and landowners to pay less attention to encouraging hare numbers. The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals".
Does the Minister agree with that statement? In addition to the point made by my noble friend Lady Byford, there is the wider dimension of birds and other animals.
Does the Minister agree that the formula of the adhesive agent for round-up was changed because of research not by the Government but by the coursers? That research showed that it was the adhesive agent of round-up that was causing damage to hares and other wildlife and, because of the coursers' actions, the formula was changed for the benefit of all wildlife.
Lord Whitty: I do not really intend to engage in a repeat Second Reading debate, as many have today. I shall try to address the amendment. That is important, because it is a linchpin amendment. As a result of last week's decisions, we are in a situation where we have changed the Bill and moved to something like a registration system, with all the qualifications. The amendment and the subsequent amendments that hang on it would change to something entirely different.
The amendment and the subsequent groups—it goes right through to Amendment No. 57—purport to be the Alun Michael Bill, but are nothing like that Bill. The
242
formal structure of registrar and tribunal is put back, but a lot of changes have been made to the original provisions. They are presented as improvements and clarifications, but they undermine the key intentions of those clauses in the Bill.
After some wide-ranging discussion, I was grateful in a sense to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for taking us back to what the provisions are. In so doing, however, she betrayed the motivation of everyone who supports the amendments; namely, that they disagree with what Alun Michael presented in the original Bill. Therefore, they have tried to take it further, to dilute, weaken and reverse, while staying broadly speaking within a structure that the original Bill presented.
Lord Eden of Winton: Were the original Alun Michael Bill now before the Committee, would the Minister have set his face against considering any single amendment to that Bill?
Lord Whitty: That is a hypothetical question. Indeed, the original Bill could have been dealt with on a rather more rational basis than that on which we have dealt with the Bill that we actually got. It is rare that this House seeks to destroy Bills that it receives from the House of Commons; it normally seeks to amend and revise them. I hope that that might have been the case with the original Bill as compared with the Bill that we received. Nevertheless, Members of the Committee have to recognise that this is a very unusual method of behaviour by your Lordships.
Baroness Byford: I would have said that the very unusual behaviour was actually in the Commons, not in this House. A government Bill presented to the Commons was totally changed at Third Reading.
Lord Whitty: Unlike the noble Baroness, I refrain from commenting on procedures in another place. We have to deal, as we always do, with the Bills that we get from another place. We may not like them, but we normally deal with them within the framework in which they are presented. It is quite frequent that Bills change between their original introduction in another place and their final arrival here. I make no comment on that. What we have to deal with in this House is what we receive from the House of Commons.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the Minister give any example in the past 15 years of a Bill which has gone into the House of Commons stating one thing and come out stating something completely and utterly different? I cannot remember any. He is obviously cleverer and better informed than I am, so perhaps he will be able to tell me.
Lord Whitty: Many Bills change their nature as they pass through the House of Commons. The noble Earl's presumption is wrong. The Bill that we received from the House of Commons is not dramatically different from the original Bill.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: One of the reasons why noble Lords are not prepared to work from the original Bill, as they

243
are purporting to do, is that they recognise that had the original Bill been before this Chamber, all the pro-hunting elements would have opposed it almost as strongly as they are opposing the Bill which is before us now.
A Noble Lord: And they know it.
Lord Whitty: And they know it. They know that had that Bill stood, there would have been drastic changes to the way in which hunting is carried out in this country. They would have resisted it as fiercely as they are resisting the Bill before us now.
Let us not have any hypocrisy. We are not attempting by way of the amendment to go back to the original Alun Michael Bill, but moving substantially away from it.
The utility test would be broadened to allow hunting with dogs for purposes that can hardly be called necessary. That is the original form of the utility test, not the one amended in Committee. Whereas the original Bill required the quarry species to cause serious damage if hunting were to be considered, the test would now be passed if a deer—the hunting of which would be banned in any case by the original Bill—ate a single leaf of any crop. That is a ludicrous extension of the test.
The revised utility test would also permit hunting for the purposes of population management and sustainable development. It is hard to see how either of those purposes could be achieved by hunting with dogs. Both can certainly be achieved by other means, without any need to inflict the suffering caused by chasing and killing wild animals with dogs.
The second test, the cruelty test, is also weakened by effectively reversing the burden of proof. The presumption would be in favour of allowing hunting. That underlies all the amendments which stem from that. That presumption is explicit in the changes to the way in which the registrar and the tribunal would assess applications. That is a reversal of the original government Bill.
That the proposers of the amendments are not serious about the two tests is also evidenced by the amendments which would allow hunting from an area. That would mean that hunting which had passed the test in one place would be allowed without any subjection to it in an entirely different part of the country and for an entirely different species. Again, that broadens, and in a sense drives a coach and horses through, the concept of the original Bill.
Lord King of Bridgwater: Is that not precisely what the Minister agreed to consider sympathetically in responding to the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours?
Lord Whitty: No. I do not think that "sympathetically" was a word I used to my noble friend. I said that I would be slightly more benign about it because it respected the structure of the Bill which we received from the House of Commons. I did
244
not say that I was in favour of that amendment. In any case, that amendment, if agreed by both Houses, would have resulted in hunting being allowed in a very specific situation. One would be allowed to hunt in Lakeland, but that would not mean that one could take that licence to hunt and go and do so in Surrey. However, the amendments before us provide exactly that facility; in other words, if one obtains a licence in one part of the country to hunt deer, one can obtain a licence in another part of the country to hunt foxes or vice versa. That was never the intention of the original Bill or of anybody who supports any sensible system of registration.
Other amendments would make changes to the openness of the registered hunting system by limiting the powers of inspectors and removing public access to the register. Therefore, noble Lords opposite and other noble Lords who support the amendments are not even in favour of transparency so that the public can examine the system. Indeed, if we go further down the list to amendments that we would reach somewhat later this evening—if we reach them—we find amendments to Schedules 2 and 3. There, the same group of noble Lords who have tabled amendments effectively propose to continue all the ancient and outmoded privileges that hunting enjoys; for example—my noble friend Lord Graham alluded to this last week—the right to trespass in search of game and to inflict cruelty on captive animals which are deliberately released to be hunted. The amendments would delete the exemptions in that respect.
The amendments propose a completely different tone, content, mechanism, process and outcome from that envisaged by the Bill the Government first put before the House of Commons. Let us not kid each other. We are now dealing with amendments which retain a little of the form of the original Alun Michael Bill but virtually none of the content and which, effectively, are designed to allow hunting to continue more or less in its current form. Frankly, the overall effect of this Bill would also make the job of the tribunals and the new form of enforceability fairly impossible.
Of course, Members of the Committee are entitled to take that view. It is unusual for them to do so in such a revolutionary way in respect of a Bill received from the Commons, but they can take that view. However, if we pass this amendment—as I said, subsequent amendments follow on from this one and I do not propose to make this speech more than once—we shall be in direct conflict with the lower House and, indeed, with the Government's original intention.
It is clear that the proposers of these amendments have failed to convince me. It is only my judgment— although I believe it will be shared fairly widely—that they will fail to convince the House of Commons. The House of Commons, by a large majority, went dramatically further in some respects than the original Bill, even though both Bills—the original Bill and the final one—would have gravely restricted hunting. Therefore, if the amendment is passed and if the subsequent amendments build on it, we shall be in a position where this House is in serious and direct conflict with another place.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: I seek clarification from the noble Lord. Can he explain to the House why literally hours and hours were spent by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee discussing all the issues that have been raised in this amendment? Furthermore, those subjects were discussed at length at the Portcullis House hearings. I cannot believe that it was not the original intention of the Minister, Alun Michael, to embrace all these concepts as part of the system that would be considered by the registrar if he did not intend them to be part of the original Bill. Hours and hours were spent on it. Can the noble Lord really tell the Committee that it was never his intention to embrace these notions when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and those at Portcullis House spent such a long time discussing them? That seems to me completely irrational.
Lord Whitty: The noble Earl has paid tribute to Alun Michael for engaging in this process and it was obviously important that the Government sought as wide a range of opinions as possible. A number of issues were raised. Some were taken on board in relation to the Bill that we eventually produced and some were not. That is part of the normal process of consultation. The fact that many hours were spent on this matter should have made that consideration sharper, but it does not necessarily mean that every point that was raised, even if raised by a majority of consultees, would necessarily appear in the legislation. That was never indicated.
Therefore, Alun Michael and the Government produced a Bill—the original Bill before the House. It was a Bill that we, as government, believed could work and one which we considered we could recommend to the House of Commons. The House of Commons, both in Committee and on Report, then decided otherwise as, in its opinion, this Bill did not go far enough. However, I repeat that the original Bill would have very severely restricted the kind of hunting that Members who support the amendments now before us wish to preserve by the amendments and by the system that they are proposing. The Alun Michael Bill was very much closer to the Bill which came out of the House of Commons than it was to this Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and others are seeking to amend it.
Lord King of Bridgwater: From what the Minister is saying, 1 get the impression that he is taking the speech he is making now as an answer not merely to this amendment but, as he implied, to all the other amendments on the Marshalled List. I have tabled amendments which in background and difficulty are not that far away from those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. They address an issue on which I have written to the Minister and which everyone who has studied this matter—the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Portcullis House inquiry— accepts, and as is set out in letters from Ministers—has to be addressed. I demand the opportunity to be able to debate those amendments from a wildlife point of view.
246
The Minister is not a supine Minister whose job is that of post-box for the House of Commons. He does not pretend that. I respect his ability to stand his own ground. That is what his job is. He is a Minister in this House of Lords. We have a duty to do this.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made this point, which is a very serious point indeed. Jack Straw set up the Burns inquiry because he realised the difficulty of the issues that were being tackled and tried to tackle them in a constructive way. The Government decided that they would pursue that constructive course. It was overthrown by a majority. Because of "leakiness" we know that a letter went from Alun Michael to John Prescott—I have the exact phrase—stating that it would be wrong to,
"be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty".
We know what the Government thought was the right way. Real problems will exist if we let the Commons decision on that one vote throw out the whole issue. That would leave major problems for wildlife in this country. It is simply not sufficient for the Minister to waft it away and say, "I have answered all the amendments and that is all I shall say". There are serious issues and I insist that we have the opportunity to debate them.
Lord Whitty: Of all people, the noble Lord will know that the Government cannot comment on leaked memos. Nevertheless, perhaps I may reply to the procedural point he raised. When I said that there are subsequent groups of amendments which hang on this one and to which I do not intend to reply twice or in detail, I did not include going as far as the noble Lord's amendment, which, if I remember rightly, is Amendment No. 94A. I was referring to the immediately subsequent next 10 or so groups of amendments, which all relate to the system which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and his colleagues are attempting to set up.
All I was indicating, for the benefit of the Committee, was that if noble Lords in their wisdom accepted it, I should not seek to prolong debate on the other amendments. I cannot speak for colleagues but I would not oppose the other amendments because there is a certain logic to them and we would get a coherent Bill out of them even if it was one that I could not accept and I do not believe that the House of Commons would in any way accept. However, that stops after Amendment No. 57, when we get back to amendments which deal with more specific subjects, which include the amendment tabled by the noble Lord.
Lord Palmer: I did not realise how very contentious these amendments were going to be. I have to say that it is depressing how painfully slow progress in Committee has been. I take slight objection to my dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, reminding us not to make Second Reading speeches. On such a complex Bill it is very difficult not to verge on making a Second Reading speech.
My noble friend Lord Moran hit the tip of the iceberg. The dreadful word "utility" is a very serious danger to all field sports. The noble Baroness,

247
Lady Byford, also hit the nail on the head. Killing is not the issue here. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28A.
Amendment No. 28A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28B and 28C, as amendments to Amendment No. 28, not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: Then we revert to Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
Lord Mancroft: We have had a very long debate. There is not a great deal of point in going a whole stage further. I certainly do not wish to answer everyone who took part in the debate. That would be ludicrous at this hour of the night.
Perhaps I may make two points to the Minister. The amendment may not be perfect—amendments never are. One will always listen to hear whether a word is in the right place. Constructive criticism of any amendment is always welcomed. However, the intention was to return this, not necessarily to the Alun Michael Bill, as we have come to call it, but to the principles. The principles were public, open, consulted upon and, to a certain extent, agreed. That was and is the purpose.
In responding, the Minister slightly derided us. There is no intention that anyone should apply to hunt on the basis that a deer has eaten one leaf. It is silly to say that. The noble Lord knows full well that that was never our intention. Reversing the burden of proof on the least suffering test is a significant fact, for reasons we have already discussed. I do not want to go over them again, but, as there is no ability to measure suffering, it seems a little harsh to expect thousands of private citizens to do that if the registrar cannot. The noble Lord will have read, as I have, the hours the Standing Committee in another place spent going through that. It is almost impossible at times to see with both sides switching their arguments constantly. The reality is that in reading that and in looking at it, it is almost impossible to do. It seems very harsh that an individual should have to do it.
I have two other short points. The noble Lord talked about where the word "from" comes in. There is no intention for anyone to get a licence in place A to hunt one species and then to go off and hunt another species in a completely different part of the country. If that is the effect of the amendment, we shall have to look at it and improve upon it. That is not the intention at all, nor is it the intention to dilute or weaken it; it is merely practical because in the course of a hunt one can move from one area to another. It seems sensible to have both areas covered. We are not talking about moving about all over the countryside.
The Minister talked about transparency regarding the register. There is a very simple reason for that. If he sat on this side of the debate and had been involved in hunting, he would realise that you do not want to have your name and address on a public register in case people come and visit you. I had to have special branch
248
outside my house in London for six weeks because of the threats made against my wife and children. That is not very amusing. I do not want my name on a list. I am sure the noble Lord understands that. That was the purpose in taking off that list. If he looks at the amendment he will know that the kind of people who should be able to see that register are quite welcome to see it. These are reasonable things; these are not massive changes. This is the kind of fine-tuning that this Chamber does all the time.
The Minister slightly let the cat out of the bag when he went on to the areas of ancient privileges and rights to trespass. No one out hunting has a privilege or a right. It is a privilege to hunt and to be out in the countryside. It is quite right that everyone should behave properly. There is no intention in any of these amendments to go down some awful route that his words implied.
I make a last comment. There is no intention in this amendment or any that follow on to conflict with the House of Commons. We conflict with the House of Commons when we reach the end if we disagree with them and they disagree with us. We are an awfully long way from that and I hope that we will not reach it. Perhaps we will. But let us climb that mountain when we get to that stage. I was certainly under the impression that the Minister speaks for the Government in this House and not for the other place.
In saying that, it must be borne in mind that the Secretary of State and the Minister who promoted the Bill have themselves described the Bill that came into this Chamber—the Bill that we are apparently meant to be welcoming with open arms—as "wrecked, unenforceable and unworkable". So these circumstances are strange; they are unique even. I cannot remember a wrecked and unenforceable Bill arriving in this Chamber and noble Lords being expected to deal with it. How else could we do it? This is what we have chosen to do. We believe it is reasonable and justified. I hope the Committee will agree with us on that. I seek to test the opinion of the Committee.
10.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 22.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ampthill, L

Burnham, L.

Arran, E.

Buscombe, B.

Astor, V.

Byford, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caithness, E.

Best, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Blatch, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Boyce, L.

Chalfont, L.

Bragg, L.

Chorlcy, L.

Brennan, L.

Cobbold, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Coe, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

249

Colwyn, L.

Montrose, D.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Crathome, L.

Moynihan, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Noakes, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northbrook, L.

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Donoughue, L.

Onslow, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Erroll, E.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Falkland, V.

Rawlings, B.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Rees, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roper, L.

Henley, L.

Sandwich, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Seccombe, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Selborne, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sharman, L.

Kimball, L.

Sharpies, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Slim, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Stewartby, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Strange, B.

Luke, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Taverne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mallalieu, B. [Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mancrofl, L. [Teller]

UUswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Waddington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Warnock, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wilcox, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Williamson of Horton. L.

Monson, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

[Teller]

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Grocott, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Dixon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Elder, L.

Jones, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Judd, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Kirkhill, L.

[Teller]

Laird, L.

Fookes, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Gale, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Roper: I beg to move that the House do now resume. We are well past 10 o'clock, which is the normal time for rising. Having looked at the number of groups of amendments still to be considered, I do not believe that further consideration of the Bill is appropriate for us today.
Lord Whitty: I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, may be taking the mood of the House. Nevertheless, the Government would be prepared and
250
have been prepared to continue with this Bill. If we are to move to a vote on this, I need to put some things on record.
First, the Government have provided for two days in Committee for this Bill—an entirely routine and well-precedented proposal for a Bill that is only 17 clauses long. We also made it plain to the various participants that, should some further time be necessary for the Committee stage, we would be flexible and would consider, among other proposals, referring parts of the Bill to Grand Committee or finding an extra day on a Friday. However, there was no agreement on that flexibility.
At the beginning of the Committee stage, which we started last week, in appeared that we had two full days to deal with just over 50 groups of amendments, which is not an unreasonable task for this House. Indeed, this week that has been performed on Bills in one day. For this Bill, we took an hour per group last Tuesday and longer today—nearly an hour and a half before dinner and more than an hour and a half per group after dinner. We have had 12 hours of debate and, to date, we have dealt with only five groups of amendments. That is pretty unprecedented. Even in the days when we were dealing with huge constitutional issues such as the reform of this House, devolution for Scotland and the human rights Bill, we never took that long over single amendments to a Bill.
The Government have been criticised for their sense of priorities in bringing this measure forward. Your Lordships must consider their sense of priorities in relation to the time that they have taken in this House. At the present rate of progress—we still have more than 40 groups left—we calculate that it would take a further seven days in Committee of the whole House to complete the Committee stage. That is clearly impossible unless it had been agreed that some of the Bill could be taken in Grand Committee.
That is the situation that the House finds itself in and I must tell the Committee that I am advised that it is now impossible to complete the Committee stage this Session, if the resumption of the House is agreed now.
Lord Chalfont: I support the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roper. I understand all the arguments about the sense of priorities and everything else, but the House did agree some time in 2002 that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, we should stop work at 10 o'clock in the evening. It is now well past that time. We have reached Amendment No. 28 on a list that approaches 100 amendments. I believe that even those who find this debate absolutely fascinating have probably had about enough for today. I therefore support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Roper.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is quite wrong. We agreed that we would normally finish at 10 o'clock. This Bill has not been normal: it has been abnormal in my 17 years' experience in this House. In my five years as Chief Whip, we never spent so long on groups of amendments. Those who wished to kill the Bill in this House have succeeded.
11 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: Will the Minister answer two questions? Am I correct in believing that, when the Commons debated the Bill, it did so under a timetable Motion, so the Government decided how much time was needed to debate the Bill? Under that timetable Motion, how much time was allowed for the Committee stage?
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right—for the wrong reason, if I may say so in the kindest way. It is an exceptional Bill. It was never discussed in Committee. There have been complaints about the time that the Committee stage has taken, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has already pointed out the glaring problem that arises from the last-minute amendments that were passed on Report in another place and completely changed the character of the Bill.
For presentational reasons, the Minister may wish to say that a tremendous parliamentary outrage has been committed by the House. I must say in the kindest way and with the greatest respect that, given the good nature and good sense of noble Lords in all parts of the House, nobody will believe him. The argument that it is not an extremely difficult Bill cannot be sustained. It is entitled to more time. I suspect that the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms knows how long was spent in Committee in the Commons, under the timetable Motion. If he gave us that figure, it would help the House to know whether it was being treated fairly or unfairly.
Baroness Farringtom of Ribbleton: In answer to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, I must say that, in my experience as a Government Whip, the way in which people have abused the normal practices of the House with regard to the time taken to speak to amendments has been unprecedented. Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite may not have seen the number of heads behind them that nodded when I complained about what could even have been interpreted as the deliberate lengthening of speeches.
I am advised that in another place, the timetable was agreed. I am also aware, as, I am sun, is the noble Lord, that, in another place, the Bill was debated in Committee off the Floor of the House. That option was available to your Lordships and was not accepted.
Lord King of Bridgwater: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Will she answer the question that I asked? How many hours were allocated under the timetable Motion?
Lord Grocott: I do not have that figure to hand. Of course, we can ensure that the noble Lord obtains the figure. It might be helpful if a Written Question were put down on the matter. There is a misapprehension in the House that, somehow or other, less time is spent on the consideration of Bills in the other place. That is not the case—I say that emphatically—for the simple reason, as the noble Lord knows as well as I do, that Bills are considered in Committee. They are considered at greater length and, inevitably, in considerably greater detail than in this House. That is the fact. Should anyone wish to verify that fact, the simple procedure of asking a Question for Written Answer is available. The facts can be demonstrated in respect of virtually every Bill that has gone through the House this Session.
Baroness Byford: I must press the noble Lord. My understanding is that there were 27 sittings in Committee in another place, although I could be wrong by one or two. We on these Benches offered through the usual channels a timetable that would have included a third day in Committee and still allowed the Bill to be completed in this Session. That was not taken up.
Lord King of Bridgwater: Do I take it that those were two-and-a-half hour sessions and that there were 27 sessions? I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I did not have the information myself. With the greatest of respect to the Captain of the Gentleman-At-Arms, he made a brave point. But the idea that we should have such a minimal amount of time in comparison to the time spent in the Commons, does not stack up.
Lord Mancroft: The timetable problem is not a new problem. At the request of the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, I met him on two occasions some two or three weeks ago. He was always aware, as were the Whips of all the usual channels—that is, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble friend Lord Cope— that we on the Back Benches involved had always said that we thought that this Bill would take three and possibly even four days in Committee. That was several weeks ago. We always said that this was going to happen.
The reality also is that not only did the Bill spend 27 sittings in Committee in the House of Commons, but, as my noble friend Lord Jopling reminded the House at Second Reading, there was also 70 days between Committee and Report in the House of Commons. I suspect that the purpose of the Minister's comments at the start of the Motion for this short debate was simple: it was to lay the blame for the death of this Bill at the door of this House. That is perfectly clear and the facts are perfectly clear. The whole world knows it. The reason that the Bill is where it is tonight is because the Government have chosen to delay their own wrecked Bill.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Can my noble friend Lord Whitty confirm that a third day and possibly a fourth day involving two Fridays was offered through the usual channels for the Bill? That certainly would have enabled the Bill to complete Committee stage had it moved at a normal rate. Can the Minister also say on how many previous occasions the mover of an amendment has spoken for 28 minutes? It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but to say that a 28-minute speech when moving an amendment is normal or is not an abuse of the procedures of the House strikes me as extraordinary. That is not to mention what happened at the beginning of the day when we debated for an hour and four minutes an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who was moving it, admitted half way through had no place in the Bill at all. Speaking for myself, I am happy to put on the record that if it is necessary to go through the night tonight to consider the Bill, I should be happy to do so. I certainly oppose the Motion for the adjournment.
Earl Ferrers: It is always very easy to get worked up about these matters. It has always been perfectly clear that this Bill would be highly contentious. Therefore, it was understandable that there should be a clamour for a reasonable amount of time for these matters to be considered. I have found these debates fascinating, not only because one person would say, "I approve of hunting" and another would say, "I do not approve of hunting", but the way in which the Bill was considered with all the bits and pieces drawn out of it to demonstrate that it was unworkable.
From time to time, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has fallen into the trap—it is always fun to hear him talking when he addresses the House—of saying that noble Lords opposite have done such and such. But it is not noble Lords opposite. The previous vote shows that 106 people were in favour of the amendment and 22 were against. On looking back at the amendments voted on last week, if all the hereditary Peers' votes were removed—which I remind Members of the Committee were the only elected Members of this House; all the others were appointed—and if all the Conservative Peers' votes were removed, the Government would still have lost. Therefore, it is not a question of addressing the Conservative Benches and saying that we are trying to filibuster or something like that. As a whole, the Committee has come to this conclusion. The fact is that in this House, the Government do not have the support of their own Back Benches.
Lord Roper: I have heard the remarks made from many parts of the Committee, but I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.
11.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House do now resume?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 34.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Liverpool, E.

Ampthill, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Arran, E.

Luke, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Best, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyce, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Bridgeman, V.

[Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L.

Monson, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Byford, B.

Montrose, D.

Caithness E

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Noakes, B.

Cavendish of Fumess, L.

Northbrook, L.

Chalfont, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

DarcydeKnayth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peel, E.

Donoughue, L.

Randall Of St. Budeaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rawlmgs, B.

Falkland, V.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Kees, L.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L

Roper,L.[Tellert]

Goschen, V.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Harns of Peckham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Sharman, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharples, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

HowellofGuildford, L.

Slim, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kimball, L.

Strange, B.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bach, L.

Grocott, L.

Blatch, B.

Hoyle, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jones, L.

Carter, L.

Judd, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Laird, L.

Dixon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Elder, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Fookes, B.

Selborne, E.

Gale, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

[Teller]

Wamock, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitty, L.

[Teller]

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Judicial Appointments Annual Report 2002–03
  Judicial Appointments Annual Report 2002–03
  Southern Africa: Weapons Control
  Southern Africa: Weapons Control
  Africa: Key Commodities
  Africa: Key Commodities
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Skill Force
  Skill Force
  Iraq: UK Force Levels
  Iraq: UK Force Levels
  Skynet 5
  Skynet 5
  Veterans Agency: Chief Executive's Key Targets 2003–04
  Veterans Agency: Chief Executive's Key Targets 2003–04
  Electoral Pilots
  Electoral Pilots
  Standards Board for England Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Standards Board for England Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Legal Aid: Cost
  Legal Aid: Cost
  Fraudulent Data Collectors
  Fraudulent Data Collectors
  NHS: Complaints about Length of Treatment
  NHS: Complaints about Length of Treatment
  Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
  Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
  National Mental Health Partnership
  National Mental Health Partnership
  SchlumbergerSema
  SchlumbergerSema
  Illegal Firearms
  Illegal Firearms
  Elite Sport Funding Review
  Elite Sport Funding Review
  UK Sports Institute
  UK Sports Institute
  National Sports Centres: KPMG Report
  National Sports Centres: KPMG Report
  World Class Programme Lottery Grants
  World Class Programme Lottery Grants
  Railway Lines: Crash Barriers on Overhead Road Bridges
  Railway Lines: Crash Barriers on Overhead Road Bridges
  Bus Services: Cancellations
  Bus Services: Cancellations
  UK Merchant Fleet: Officer Cadetships
  UK Merchant Fleet: Officer Cadetships
  Ferry Crews: National Minimum Wage
  Ferry Crews: National Minimum Wage
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration