Westminster Hall Sitting of 20 March 2001

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Food Policy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.[Mr. Mike Hall.]
9.30 am>
Mr. David Drew: I welcome the opportunity to introduce this debate. Although it is being held in the midst of another food crisis, I do not want to dwell for too long on foot and mouth. The Minister of Agriculture is coming to the Select Committee on Agriculture tomorrow, and no doubt he will give us an update on events.
I would like to examine four key themes. First, one cannot ignore the difficulties that we are having with our food chain, and their implications not just for the immediate future but for the longer term. Secondly, I would like to examine possible alternative strategies for bringing some balance back into the production and consumption of food. Principally, that would involve the localisation of production and, let us hope, of consumption, following on from some of the excellent work that has been done through the farmers markets. My farmers market in Stroud was, until recently, flourishing. Like every other farmers market, apart from a couple in London, it has had to shut down. I will say more about the implications of that, and the markets' future prospects, later. Thirdly. I want to examine food poverty, which is sometimes talked about without being understood. Significant moves have not been made to eradicate it. Last, but not least, I shall make some comments on the animal by-products industry—I think that the Minister of State would expect nothing less of me.
In putting those ideas together, I have gratefully drawn on the expertise of various people. At a national level, my principal sources have been Tim Lang, for whom I have great respect, Erik Millstone, Toby Peters and Mike Rayner. Locally, I have talked to the key person involved in introducing the farmers market in Stroud—Clare Gerbrands—as well as Robert Rees and Carol Endicott, who have worked with her and have pursued the educational benefits of the scheme through the education business partnership. I want to discuss education, because that is the key not just to what we eat but to what we think about what we eat, and what the next generation will think about what they eat.
We meet at a grave time. Two farmers in my constituency have been affected by foot and mouth, and I pass on my condolences to them. More than anything, I hope that we can learn from some of the problems that have arisen in regard not just to this particular crisis but to others. It is wrong to say that there is one overriding cause for all the problems. The situation cannot be explained by a conspiracy theory; it has arisen through a combination of different factors
However, we must learn from what has happened. The events can be interpreted in different ways. There are the gradualists, who stress the need for small
2WH
changes—more regulation in one area and less in another, perhaps. Then there are the structuralists, who would like much more fundamental change in the evolution of our food chain. I tend towards the second camp, but I accept that it is not always easy to implement radical reform in the midst of a crisis, or over short periods. Nevertheless, we have a number of problems. I think not only of the well-known problems of BSE, bovine TB, classical swine fever and foot and mouth but of other problems that we have suffered over the years, including salmonella and E. coli 0157.
We must remember also that people do not want their food to contain additives such as BST—bovine somatotrophin—or other hormones. I know that the Government and I have slightly different views on the subject, but consumers are starting to question what is in their food. The vast majority want to eat good, wholesome food, although we must cater for the fact that some people are still attracted to junk food. All manner of issues arise from that, including environmental factors, food poverty, health and allowing people to exercise choice.
The number of food poisoning cases has risen dramatically in recent times, and estimates suggest that it costs us about £1 billion a year. That may be more to do with how food is prepared than with how it was grown or produced, but it is clearly telling us that something is going wrong. On the back of that, much of our food, by its very nature, is not as healthy as we would want it to be. We continually receive guidance—not lectures, but thoughtful guidance—from the Minister for Public Health on what we must to do to overcome some of the poor eating habits that still kill people. I shall discuss the figures later, but there is evidence of a link between poor diet and cardiovascular problems. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is here. He will doubtless want to say more about such health problems.
I believe that the Government are fit and able to take up the challenge of evolving a more coherent and clear-cut food policy. After all, it was a Labour Government who set up the post-second world war agricultural system. I know that that system has been fundamentally changed by the common agricultural policy, but aspects of it still exist.
We started to grasp the nettle in our manifesto for the 1997 general election. We made some important pledges, the most obvious and most successful of which was the introduction of the Food Standards Agency. People have strong views about how it is grappling with the way in which we move around food that is produced not only here but internationally, and some would like to see the role of the FSA widened. For instance, if it was a food agency, it could deal also with education and nutrition, matters on which it seems to have only a watching brief. Unfortunately, because the agency has been hived off to the Department of Health, the Minister cannot answer on behalf of the FSA; we need joined-up responses as well as joined-up thinking and action
Last September, the Government and 50 other countries signed up to the World Health Organisation European region's four-year programme, which is based on the three pillars of nutrition, food safety and sustainable food supplies. We must make sure that those three subjects are to the fore in our policy evolution.

3WH
Everyone agrees that the overhaul of the CAP is long overdue; we must ensure that it becomes more of a food policy than a purely agricultural policy. Many farmers would now support such a change because, although the CAP principally supports farmers, it is not the best way of doing so. We must ask some serious questions. Is the subsidy regime right? Do subsidies go to the right people? Are there better ways in which support can be developed?
Tackling food poverty will be another of my key themes. All the research suggests that poor people's food costs are high, for reasons of what they buy and where they buy it. It might be a question of education or of lack of access to quality food. The system militates against their having access to the right food in the right way.
Any reform of the common agricultural policy should aim towards more sustainable farming practices. I am not here to take onward the baton of organic farming. I am on record as supporting the Organic Targets Bill, and I argued vigorously in favour of organic farming when the Select Committee on Agriculture last reviewed it, but that does not necessarily mean that other forms of farming should be precluded. It is the way that the consumer wants to go, and we must provide a mechanism to facilitate it. If that means improving food quality, so be it. It is important that it be based on local food production, as I can foresee that, if organic farming is allowed to become just another ratcheting-up of the globalisation of the supply chain, the basic opportunity to grow, to supply and to consume food on a more localised basis will be missed.
It is said that there is no possibility of re-engineering a system of localised food production. I do not believe that. There are many indications that people want to source locally and to buy in farmers markets. Anything that we can do to help in what Tim Lang calls "reducing food miles", to lessen the environmental damage involved and give people access to the food that they want, is a jolly good thing. We must make it happen.
Local retailing is about joined-up government. It is about providing alternatives that people seem to want. It is, if we are honest, about protecting the rural way of life, which has been undermined by the centralisation of the food chain, by the placing of supermarkets and by supermarkets' demands. I am not necessarily here to attack supermarkets, but I would, at least, like them all to clear some of their shelves tomorrow and to put local produce on sale, as happens in other parts of the world. The centralised food chain has evolved, in part, at the cost of the healthy and sustainable rural quality of life that most of us want.
We should recognise that there is a policy vacuum. We must fill it with action, not just local but regional. Regional development agencies can play a key role, and I am pleased to see that they are already trying to make money available to deal with the current crisis. They could become key drivers for change. They could use some of their investment streams to go into the food production and processing industries to ensure that local food chains operate.
It is time that we stopped sticking plasters on the problems and looked for more radical solutions. We should not talk glibly about local shopping and local
4WH
food chains, but should put time, money and effort into rebuilding neighbourhood stores and looking at ways in which we can lock into developments such as farmers markets.
I am grateful to Clare Gerbrands who was the driving force behind the Stroud farmers market. The joy of the enterprise is that, as yell as recycling funds in a localised area, it ensures that farmers receive a true share of the value-added economy. The profits are channelled directly back, which should not be underestimated as a benefit to farmers. The money enables them to go on to market more effectively and to provide consumers with even more choice.
What is being done is a question of access to fresh food and of economic benefits. Many changes can follow from it. An estimated 30 to 40 per cent. additional footfall comes to Stroud on farmers market days. That is a hint of what might be possible in the future. There is a belief—although it may not in every case be justified—that we can further improve animal welfare standards. People want to know how food is sourced, and to learn more about the countryside and animal rearing. I do not suggest that they should go out to do that at present for obvious reasons, but there are ways to achieve the benefits in question.
In Stroud, we have built on our achievement, by trying to make some of the relevant knowledge more applicable and available to younger people. We have a flourishing education-business partnership. Among the activities of young people in the past year has been a study of the food chain, and evaluation of the benefits of local food chains and farmers markets, as against more centralised food chains. The great benefit of that is that it educates people about the countryside and about the realities of food. It makes them think not just about where they buy food and where it comes from, but about what they do with it.
I have worked with Robert Rees, a chef who has worked closely with Carol Endicott, who leads the education-business partnership in Stroud. They have done innovative work, involving not merely talking about the food chain as a general concept but getting children to prepare food and think about its natural cycles. Such work makes the children think much harder about what they eat and its effect on them, in the context of healthy eating. The distinctiveness of local produce and the effect of that on the local economy, as well as consumers, is another issue to be considered. The project is exciting and deserves high praise. It shows that there is life in the localised food chain. However, as always, work on that idea must start with the next generation, in view of some of the mistakes that we have made.
Public health priorities certainly arise in this context. I referred earlier to the work of Dr. Mike Rayner of the university of Oxford. He alleges that there is a considerable correlation between the incidence of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular problems and poor eating. About 250,000 deaths result from those conditions, and it has been proved that that is to a great extent due to diet. There is an enormous monetary cost, but more importantly there is a cost in people's lives. We should encourage people to think more about what they eat and what it does to them.

5WH
We need also to think about the structures of the industry. I do not intend to argue against supermarkets or caterers, but we should realise that some of the poorest paid jobs are those in the food business. That fact implies that we do not invest sufficiently in those who are being trained for such work, or in the industry itself. The minimum wage has had an enormous impact—and jolly good, too—but we must dwell on the need for future action.
I could say more about science, consumer protection and competition policy, but I shall pass quickly over those topics to give other hon. Members a chance to speak. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows, because of the somewhat hard time that I gave her in a European Standing Committee debate on transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, that I think that we need to look hard at the animal by-products industry. The more that I have considered that industry in relation to the problems of BSE and of foot and mouth, the more that it appears not to be marginal to the production of food but to be something that must be properly evaluated in its own right. The Government have cottoned on to that; they have been working closely with our colleagues in Europe, but we must recognise the need not for less regulation but for better regulation. If we propose a bonfire of controls—unfortunately, other things are in bonfires at the moment—that will be at our long-term cost. We must be careful about how we monitor the food chain, because unfortunately, it takes only one or two people doing silly things to have not only an enormous economic cost but, more important, an enormous cost in people's lives, which is totally unacceptable.
I was lobbied effectively by a constituent who works for the Meat Hygiene Service, who was unhappy with proposals coming from Europe for hazard analysis and critical control points in local abattoirs to be at the cost of the role of the Meat Hygiene Service. My right hon. Friend may want to comment on that, but that must be carefully considered.
In conclusion, it is not that current food policies are not working, but we could haw, the best of both worlds—we could introduce alternative ways for people to buy food. We must consider what we do in this country in relation to the rest of the world. Although it is easy to talk about problems coming from abroad, I know someone who was recently on a trade delegation to the Netherlands, which I always thought was a moderate country. Besides meeting lots of nice people who were interested in what he had to sell—this was before foot and mouth—he receive d abuse from people saying, "You're the country that gave us BSE." We are not without our problems in selling our message internationally.
We need to consider price and what is introduced into the food chain. I hope that we can have joined-up thinking, consider opportunities and revisit different ways in which the food chain can operate. If that process starts now, that will be one advantageous thing to come from the depths of a deep crisis.
9.53 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: We meet today to
discuss food policy in the most difficult and testing of circumstances. We have a national emergency, a
6WH
national crisis, with the epidemic of foot and mouth. We all share in having foremost in our thoughts the anxieties and distress of farmers and all those concerned with the rural economy and the British countryside. If it were in order, which it clearly is not, I would ask for us to observe a minute's silence for all those who are going through such a difficult time. I am sure that that sentiment will be shared throughout the Chamber today.
Farmers in Eddisbury and across wider Cheshire were devastated by the foot and mouth outbreak in 1967. It is with them in mind that I have been keen since I entered the House 18 months ago to find the food policy issues that tie together the interests of producers and consumers. It has become clear that consumers properly demand quality, choice, reliability and a fulsome supply of the food that they need and enjoy, which forms part of their standard of life, as well as being a staple of life.
In addition, there are public safety and public health issues, but it is important to stress at this difficult time in the countryside that foot and mouth is not a public health issue and not a disease that is a danger to human beings. In trying to tackle these difficult issues as best we can—I am at one with the whole House on this—we must be careful to dissect the issues so that we do not send out any alarmist messages.
In focusing on food policy, we must recognise that we live in a country where, by any relative test, the highest quality of food is produced and made available to consumers. We can be proud of that, but it is no accident; there has always been a commitment in this country to producing the highest quality food. However, our debate would not be completely honest if I did not record that I believe that the Government are generally inimical to tying together the interests of consumers and producers. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, who has made time to be here to reply to the debate when, as part of the Executive team dealing with the foot and mouth crisis, she has so much on her plate. However, while the subject of food remains in the title of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Government have assigned the Food Standards Agency and food policy generally to the Department of Health. Why, therefore, has a Health Minister not come to reply to the debate? I can only suppose that, although responsibility for the FSA as a quango has been assigned to the Department of Health, there is a lack of expertise and knowledge in that Department about the issues surrounding the responsibilities of the FSA. That would make it right for the Government to send an Agriculture Minister, who is likely to have received the best briefing and to have most knowledge. Of course, we met in the House in March last year when I promoted the Food Labelling Bill as a private Member's Bill.
It will be interesting to hear the Minister's justification, not for being here but for why the Government have deployed someone from MAFF rather than from the Department of Health, given the changes that have taken place in responsibility for this area of policy. If the subject is hybrid, we need clarification of who in Government has responsibility for food policy. Is it MAFF or the Department of Health? Is the Department of Health focused on the more alarmist danger signals relating to food and public health and MAFF more concerned with the supply chain? If so, that reinforces my point—this has certainly

7WH
been my experience in dealing with such issues on behalf of my constituents—about the essential need to tie together the interests of consumers and producers, in order not only to maintain the high quality of food in this country but to ensure accountability. Accountability is the key to confidence—an important word—on the part of the consumer and producer in the food industry. That may be at the ultimate end, when the purchasers make decisions, or initially, when the relevant issues are for farmers and others. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made farmers' reasons for wanting a rural way of life clear, but that must be based on economic justification. That is why some producers take investment decisions. Their interests must be protected.
As part of our important considerations of the country's food policy, I intend to review the position that we have reached on food labelling. I was able to promote a private Member's Bill on food labelling, so, naturally, I have studied the subject greatly. When I framed the Bill, I was glad to gain the support of the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association. The Bill proved not only that honesty in food labelling is of high public interest, but that it is important to tie together the interests of producers and consumers on food labelling, rather than to drive a wedge between them.
The Bill called for labelling to state both country of origin—that should be clear, simple and honest—and standards of production. Of course, there were all sorts of complications. As we said on the Floor of the House late last night, when we were discussing the Select Committees on European Scrutiny and on Defence, the devil is in the devil not that we received many answers. Pre-prepared foods are likely to combine ingredients of different origins. How is a regime to deal with that? We tackled it in the Bill by saying that the country of origin would have to reflect all the ingredients that constituted more than 25 per cent. in weight of a product. I accept that it became clear during the debate on 3 March last year that the Bill needed amending if it was to become law, but it had the right strategy and employed the right series of policies.
We are not yet clear about the source of the current foot and mouth outbreak, and—who knows?—my Bill might have helped to prevent it. It would have recorded constituent ingredients sourced from another country if they made up more than 25 per cent. by weight of any product. It is well known that our armed forces have changed their policy of being supplied exclusively with British food and are allowed to be supplied with food from abroad. Questions are being asked as to whether scraps from food fed to the forces at Catterick were in pigswill that ended up at the farm at Heddon-on-the Wall. That could be a source, given that some of the food came from South Africa. We know that foot and mouth disease is endemic in parts of South Africa. That is supposition, and I am anxious that none of us should be alarmist. However, had there been a better regime on labelling the country of origin and production standards of food, we might have had the necessary information and certification on foodstuffs, in the private or public sector, to have had a chance to prevent foot and mouth from entering the country. Of course, that is pure speculation.
8WH
As the Minister recalls—she was present—the Government chose to talk out my Food Labelling Bill. We all know that hon. Members sometimes speak at great length on private Members' Bills so that they run out of time, and my judgment was that it was better to ensure that all the points were made. I made a fairly long speech because I was anxious not to give the time to those who had no interest in seeing my Bill on the statute book. The Minister dealt with some of the points that I made. She argued that the proposals on country of origin did not need the force of law, but subsequent events have shown that there is an issue of confidence for consumers and producers because country of origin labelling is inadequate. The proposals on standards of production raise mare intricate details and difficulties. The Minister argued that that was fully covered by a series of regulations because it had been delegated to wider European Union responsibilities, and that the Government were seeking urgently to negotiate and advance the matter in those councils. It is worrying that we have heard little more about it, although there have been a number of reports.
An easy regime would be to display the country of origin simply with a letter, perhaps in large print. Such information appears on some products, but not clearly and obviously. On standard of production, there could be some form of kite mark certification. Some product labels include an essay of information on ingredients, including whether they are genetically modified, contain nuts and so on. That is confusing and unhelpful for consumers at the point of decision in a supermarket or a local shop. That is why the kite mark analogy was raised. It would be possible to arrange certification, and many European Union member states have an equal interest in the matter because they want to protect their regional markets. There are derogations in regulations and legislation to enable regional origin of products to be certified, but the only result to date is from the National Farmers Union, which, laudably, initiated the red tractor logo. Many consumers who want to buy British farm-assured duality food welcomed that. Many genuinely British food products sport the union jack on the packaging and m my consumers prefer, if they have the chance, to focus their purchasing on such products.
I do not want to denigrate the NFU's red tractor logo. It has been extensively applied in many supermarkets and other outlets, but it does not guarantee that the product is British. It demonstrates that the food has been produced to British farm produce standards and many producers of imported foods have insisted through the distribution chain that their foods are labelled with that logo, so its meaning has been thrown into doubt. I shall not pursue the point too heavily because the logo should be encouraged rather than diminished, but it is lot the same as a true country of origin label and it is not what can be achieved under the current law and regulations.
In the enactment of the Food Standards Act 1999, which led to the creation of the Food Standards Agency, we saw that this country has enormous expertise in food labelling and certification, but this has not been brought to bear domestically to the extent to which it should. That is part of the reason why I introduced my Food Labelling Bill, and why I argued a year ago that we should show leadership in the field. European member states are hungry to see us take leadership, as they

9WH
recognise our enormous expertise, as shown by the speed at which we have developed the quality choice that is available in supermarkets and other outlets. I join the hon. Member for Stroud in celebrating the farmers markets and all the other outlets for high-quality food. There could be a joint enterprise with the EU to ensure that our leadership and understanding of the issues is brought to bear.
I fear that there is a reluctance to go faster than the slowest pace set in the EU in achieving a significant uprating in honesty in food labelling in this country. After my Bill failed to be enacted, I had discussions with the Food Standards Agency, and although I received an extremely sympathetic hearing to the aspects of the Bill on country of origin labelling, there was considerable suspicion. indeed doubt, about my proposal on standards of production. It would be both irresponsible and inappropriate to try to introduce improvements in our food policy without introducing measures on standards of production. Our approach to food labelling would allow consumers to be confident about food, and farmers would know how the high-quality food that they produced was represented.
The importance of my proposal on standards of production was most clearly evidenced in the enormous concern expressed about the stall-and-tether method of farming pigs. There has been an admirable move away from that method, at huge investment cost to many pig farmers. That change has not been matched by our key European competitors. Denmark is a case in point. This country is a great consumer of Danish bacon. We do not denigrate its quality or availability, but there is concern at the lack of speed at which Denmark is abolishing stalls and tethers in pig farming. Denmark has sought a derogation under the EU directive.
It is important to note that we seem to be going at the pace of the slowest member state on certain issues, although we are going faster than other member states in policing the EU directives that apply to domestic marketplaces. That is why there is deep concern, and why we would do well to consider framing a law that reflects our domestic needs, rather than relying simply on EU regulations that are subject to interminable negotiations without result.
What has been done since we debated my private Member's Bill on food labelling a year ago? It is not apparent what has been achieved. I accept that the Minister cannot be blamed, but there is a sense that the Government have found themselves in hock to the supermarkets to a degree. At the same time, as soon as the going gets tough, the Prime Minister says that the supermarkets have the farmers in an arm lock. This is not a battle between two sides and it is unhelpful to regard it as such. As I have said, we must try to unite producers and consumers, and the Prime Minister was ill-advised in using the phrase "arm lock", even though it doubtless struck a sympathetic chord with the many farmers who continue to feel desperately blighted and let down by this Government.
Even though the Prime Minister 's spokesman sought to backtrack on the use of that phrase the following day, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he used it in relation to supermarkets and farmers. I am reminded of the debate surrounding community health councils. The Prime Minister said that there had been no consultation
10WH
on scrapping community health councils, but then asserted that in fact there had. He had to write to me to make it clear that the Government had already decided to scrap them.
One issue raised by the hon. Member for Stroud was greater public education on food policy. The Select Committee on Education and Employment produced a report on school meals and the availability of fruit and other suitable foods. In the light of it and the evidence taken, we must remember that there is no point in producing food for any sector of the population—particularly children and young people—that is not attractive to them. Food that they cannot be persuaded to eat, however worthy and nutritious, is simply not acceptable, and alternatives that are perhaps not as healthy must be used.
A local Labour councillor in my area successfully undertook a cross-party initiative, which I supported fully and publicly, to encourage the availability of free milk in schools. However, it is disappointing to note that very few parish councils have taken up the initiative. The problem is not a lack of will or initiative on the part of the local town councillor or, indeed, the local Member of Parliament, but the reluctance of parish councils and others to respond positively. To our great surprise, the few replies that we received were ambivalent. We must look again at how to make the right food attractive to young people and other elements of the community.
I am conscious that time is running out, and I shall try to bring my remarks to a close. The Conservative policy on honesty in food labelling picks up on the proposals in my Food Labelling Bill, although I recognise that those proposals need amending to some extent. We should not worry about the hurdles that we encounter. Like the hon. Member for Stroud, I have spoken to organisations such as i-Label, which has considerable expertise in respect of consumer access to ingredients, and to those who know how to put together a standard of production certificate that includes the country of origin.
One has only to access the internet and type a phrase such as "Swedishsafemeat.com" to discover that it is possible to trace every single pig, sheep and cow product in Sweden. Those who buy a joint of meat in a Swedish shop can determine from which animal it came by accessing the relevant website, and we should all copy that approach. If Sweden can manage that, it is surely not beyond the wit of this country, given our great expertise in food products and food regimes. It is important to tie together consumer and producer interests, including supermarkets, distributors, restaurateurs and those involved in public procurement, as well as securing the support of everyone involved in the rural economy, including farmers and producers.
The hon. Member for Stroud referred to joined-up government. The Government's proposals must be based on joined-up thinking. There is a proposal afoot to introduce a law on corporate manslaughter. If some absolute outrage took place in the food chain, the last thing that a director of a supermarket chain or distribution company would want is to find themselves liable for an offence of corporate manslaughter as a result of inadequate information and inadequate labelling. Every constituent member of the food chain should be required to have the relevant information about food, including its origins and standards of

11WH
production. Perhaps the foot and mouth outbreak would not have occurred had that been implemented through domestic law rather than treated as a matter for negotiation under our obligations to the EU.
One saving grace about honesty in food labelling—which I should have thought that other parties, as well as the Conservative party, would wish to recognise—is that it is a completely cost-free option to the public purse. The burden could properly fall on those at the retail end of the food chainx—not, for once, putting the squeeze on the farm gate.
I have spoken at length. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the points that I have made.
10.21 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his excellent introduction; I am sure that no hon. Member would disagree with a word of what he said. I congratulate him and the people of Stroud on their local initiatives, which are a beacon that the rest of us might well follow.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made an interesting point about the common interest between producers and consumers. However, over the years, the processes of distribution have come between producers and consumers. In respect of food labelling, I am afraid that the party that he supports so loyally spent 18 years actively destroying the local link between producers and consumers by allowing regulations to be used in such a way that local abattoirs and packing plants were frozen out, forcing producers to deal with one or two big players in their region. It is no accident that those involved in the big business end of the food sector supported the then Government. It is all very well to say now that labelling is the answer to everything. Of course, we all support labelling. One of the big issues in the debates on the Food Standards Bill was the remit of the Food Standards Agency. Many of us wanted the Bill to cover labelling.
I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here after her trips around the country. Food policy is a public health matter. However, we should not concentrate purely on the producer end of the food chain. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, food policy necessitates joined-up action by the Government. He saw that as a threat; I see it as a challenge and an opportunity. If we do not do something, we will end up like the Americans. There are two types of American: those who need three chairs to sit on because they are so grossly obese and those who are neurotically thin and eat hardly anything because they are so worried about their weight. I am concerned that we are drifting in the direction of larger seat sizes. It is not right to continue with the token actions that are being taken, because, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, food policy affects heart disease, cancers, and people's general fitness and productivity.
Despite the bad press that supermarkets have received, they have made a good job of delivering consistent quality at a reasonable price for most people. It is sad, however, that a small group of people cannot afford the bus fare to the big supermarket or to buy larger packs. Such people are trapped into using corner
12WH
shops, which often sell goods of lower quality at higher prices, and are thereby put at a tremendous disadvantage. My home village is not unique in having to run a breakfast club at the primary school to ensure that children are given at least one decent meal a day. In the 21st century, that is not acceptable in a country as wealthy as ours.
However, unlike supermarkets on the continent, supermarkets here have not taken on board the idea of using local products. French supermarkets always source vegetables, meat and bakery items locally. Perhaps we could encourage that here, through negative taxation or tax breaks.
Every year, I speak to a combined meeting of members of the Country Landowners Association and the NFU on the Isle of Wight. Every year, I tell them that we need to move away from subsidising production through the common agricultural policy and towards supporting farmers in their stewardship of land and encouraging them to produce quality, identifiable produce to be marketed locally. On the whole, they listen to me tolerantly. This year, I spoke to them two weeks before the foot and mouth outbreak. They wrote to me saying, "Thank you very much. We had a stimulating evening. It is good for us to hear things that we do not necessarily want to hear."
It is interesting that since the foot and mouth outbreak, everyone is talking about the importance of keeping matters local. That will be difficult for some farmers. A pig breeder told me, "It's all very well having a local abattoir for some purposes, but we cannot sell all our products locally." It costs money to ship out refrigerated meat; it is much cheaper to ship livestock—on the hoof—across the country, or across Europe. That situation is unacceptable. There should be a way of influencing movement patterns to the benefit of animal welfare and quality of product. The less stress that an animal suffers before it is slaughtered, the better the product, and the better it is for us all. I will try to keep my remarks brief, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider referring to the Chair as Mr. Deputy. Speaker.
Dr. Brand: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not caught up with the late night ramblings of the House. I sincerely apologise because I have been caught out in the other direction previously.
The issue of labelling has been covered by the hon. Member for Eddisbury and we agree that an initiative is essential. We also need to examine the producer end and consider giving more positive support to local co-operative efforts, for example, for dairy production or milk distribution. It does not make sense to shift bulk milk 200 miles, then shift the empty bottles back again.
We also need to consider whether our tax regimes are helping producers. My local glasshouse industry is unsure about the effects of regulations on combined heat and power plants. It needs them to produce carbon dioxide to grow its product and it uses the surplus energy to produce electricity. The regime to protect the glasshouse industry against unfair competition from abroad is unsatisfactory, which is not the case in other European Community countries.
Mr. Drew: I must declare an interest. I am both a Co-operative and a Labour Member of Parliament. Will

13WH
the hon. Gentleman accept that one good result of the new initiatives is the attempt to rebuild co-operation in terms of both the immediate food chain and its adjuncts?
Dr. Brand: Matters are progressing, but I am frustrated that they are not moving fast enough.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government chose to overturn the recommendations of what was the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its milk report. It recommended that there should be value added opportunities on milk products for effective co-operatives. However, the Government chose to split up the collection of mil, so I have six lorries going past my gate at home in Cheshire, rather than one. Co-operatives are now allowed to take value added opportunities, but there have been massive increases in the cost of distribution. The decision by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to overturn that recommendation was wrongheaded and the hon. Gentleman will know its effect on difficulties that he is exposing.
Dr. Brand: The Government sadly chose to go in neither of those directions. The current set-up does not allow true local co-operatives to function. Local farmers are still tied in because they fear that co-operatives will be established over which they will have no effective influence.
The Government's scheme to introduce fruit and vegetables in schools is laudable. However, schools also receive commercial sponsorship from the manufacturers of fizzy drinks and crisps, which sends a peculiar message to young people. We must restore domestic science and practical subjects to the classroom for boys and girls because many people cannot boil the proverbial egg. A whole generation finds the preparation of a Pot Noodle challenging, which is unhelpful if one is trying to promote good diet and sensible food policy.
This is proving to be an interesting debate because our minds have been concentrated by the emergence of problems caused by an over-centralised supply chain. I thank the Minister for making time to debate these problems because they lie within he; remit. However, I hope that her presence does not mean that the Department of Health does not recognise the Government's broad responsibilities. Food policy affects the Treasury, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Education and Employment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in addition to the Department of Health.
10.33 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his success in obtaining this important debate. However, the number of hon. Members who want to participate will disappoint him. Food quality has been a high-profile issue for many years and it is disappointing that more hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members—
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Opposition?
Mr. Moss: I mean Government Members, who are opposite us.
14WH
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Stroud talked about difficulties in the food chain. He mentioned BSE, swine fever, bovine TB, foot and mouth and hormones in beef. Those affect the quality of meat products and bovine TB also affects milk. We could look beyond animals and consider pesticide levels in fruit and vegetables. Controls on the growing number of genetically modified crop trials and standards for organic food could also be mentioned.
Dr. Brand: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that food-related concerns may relate to GM crops?
Mr. Moss: I am talking about food production in general. The debate is about the end product and the quality of food. I am not saying that the food produced from GM crops will necessarily injure individuals' health.
The matters that I have mentioned are all within the remit of the Minister. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still retains that title. However, no representative from the Food Standards Agency is here. I would also have expected a Minister, or other representative, from the Department of Health to be present today, as responsibility for the issue has been transferred to that Department from MAFF.
That lack of representation allows us to focus on a problematic dichotomy: the dissociation of food production from the end product in the shops. The process of control and regulation—from the farmer, through the farm gate, to the processor and the supermarkets—should be continuous and integrated. If we separate its stages too much, we do it a disservice. I would like the debate to take account of the fact that the process should be an harmonious whole. We should not isolate its different stages into pigeonholes.
Foot and mouth has been mentioned. I follow the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) in reiterating that foot and mouth has no implications for the quality of beef, lamb and pork, or any knock-on effect on human health. That important message must be conveyed. However, the causes of the terrible outbreak have ramifications for animal welfare and, therefore, for food safety.
The closure of abattoirs, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) mentioned, and moves to slaughter animals in larger and more diverse geographic units, has caused greater movement of animals. When the report on the outbreak is published, it may indicate that that has been an ingredient in the more rapid spread of this especially malevolent disease. Following comments that other hon. Members have made, I welcome the Minister, and thank her for her presence at a time when she and her Department are deeply involved in the terrible crisis. We look forward to her remarks.
Milk prices have been mentioned. It seems unreasonable that farmers at the farm gate sometimes get a price for their milk that is lower than their production costs. Will the Minister comment on any plans that the Government might have to introduce legislation to prohibit products being sold in supermarkets at prices that are lower than producers' costs?
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has talked brilliantly on labelling, about which he .knows a great deal. I will not cover the same ground, but I urge the

15WH
Minister to answer my hon. Friend's questions as he brought great expertise to bear on the subject. Although the Government pay some lip service to labelling, they have not, in the opinion of Conservative Members, done what they need to do to rectify the problems associated with it.
I will concentrate my remarks in the next few minutes on imports. Conservative Members feel that our farmers and producers are subject to greater regulation and red tape than many of their counterparts in the EU, to say nothing of the rest of the world. We feel that those regulations and that red tape should not bear down on them disproportionately so as to disadvantage them. We believe that food imports that do not meet the standards required by law for British farmers must not be allowed to undercut British produce and undermine British standards.
When we return to government, we intend to use article 36 of the treaty of Rome, which defines the circumstances in which cross-border trade can be restricted, to ban unfair agricultural imports. The obstruction of British beef exports by France and Germany has shown just how other EU procedures can be used to disadvantage unfairly British farmers. The Government have repeatedly refused to subject imports to the same standards that they impose on British farmers. Instead, they have assumed, without foundation, that restricting imports on the basis of animal welfare would not be admissible under article 36.
In 1995, when the Labour party was in opposition, the then spokesman on agriculture, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), spoke on the "Today" programme about Labour's plans to halt the export of veal calves. He said:
"We don't doubt that this would lead to a legal challenge. But we believe the British public would rather see this argued through the courts and a real attempt made to end this system."
Of course, in government, the Labour party has failed to take any action of that kind, on the basis of animal welfare or on that of other food standards, such as safety and hygiene.
One of the examples that we put to the Government was that of the French sewage scandal. A European Commission report exposed France as a nation in which animal and possibly human waste had been routinely and illegally used in farm feedstuffs. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was quoted in The Daily Telegraph of 26 October 1999 as saying:
"The EU's report describes practices which are illegal, highly undesirable and needed to be stopped but there is no immediate justification on safety grounds to engage in the withdrawal of products."
The Government chose to ignore the scientific advice at the time. Professor Hugh Pennington, who conducted the investigation into the Lanarkshire E. coli outbreak was quoted in the Daily Mail on 26 October 1999 as saying
"If you are padding out animal feed with treated sewage, the likelihood is that the gunge will also include ground-up animal waste including nervous tissue. This means that there is danger of BSE in addition to the very real possibility of bacterial infections."
Then there is the more recent risk of BSE in French beef. The French Government have consistently excused their illegal ban on British beef on the grounds
16WH
that BSE is common in Britain but rare in France. It is true that the epidemic in Britain has been much greater than anywhere else in Europe, but infection rates are now rising in France, at the same time as they are falling in this country.
For some time, British farmers have had their suspicions that cases of BSE in France have been underreported. Those suspicions were spectacularly confirmed when the European Commission published a damning investigation into the failure of the French authorities either to contain or honestly to report their growing BSE epidemic. The Commission released the results of that investigation in February 2000. The final report exposed a catalogue of lax procedures that would be unthinkable in Britain, and which almost certainly resulted in massive under-reporting of BSE in France.
I shall cite five conclusions of the report. First, technicians rather than veterinarians performed inspections of suspect animals before slaughter. Secondly, there was poor compliance with rules demanding special certificates for possible BSE cases. Thirdly, animals with neurological disorders were instantly diagnosed as victims of non-BSE diseases. Fourthly, animals that died before slaughter were admitted to the food chain without inspection. Finally, cattle feed routinely showed traces of meat and bone meal—there is, of course, an EU-wide ban on the use of animal protein in cattle feed. So we have said for some time that we should carefully inspect the quality of beef imports from Franc and other countries in which the BSE problem is now increasing.
The Food Standards Agency has become something of a fig leaf. When during Agriculture questions we ask Ministers about any matter relating to food, the answer comes back, "That's not our remit; that's nothing to do with us. That is the Food Standards Agency's responsibility." However, never since the Food Standards Agency has been in operation has a question about food been asked during Health questions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food tMs Joyce Quin: So table one.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: We have tried.
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend says that we have tried, but we are getting no clear answers.
Mr. O'Brien: It has been difficult to frame questions that the Table Office has been prepared to accept. Since a form of words on the Food Standards Agency for Health questions has been agreed with the Table Office, it just happens that. despite desperate attempts, we have been unlucky in the shuffle.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying on so many occasions to ask such questions. We must keep trying because the Minister concerned admitted to me privately that she has not been asked one question on the FSA since she took over her responsibilities. That cannot be right.
In conclusion, two issues relate to the quality of beef imports. Cattle more than 30 months old are now routinely tested, we are told, in those EU countries that have BSE. It is admitted that the test is not foolproof, so

17WH
it is likely that over-30-month meat is still being imported in carcass form—and that, crucially, for many years, it has been admitted in processed form. Although we introduced the rule that no over-30-month-old animal would enter our food chain, we have discovered—I have questioned Ministers on this many times—that processed meat has been allowed into this country during the past few years that must have contained meat from over-30-month cattle. It may well be argued that now that over-30-month testing is being introduced in Europe, that problem will disappear, but that does not answer the question of why such processed meat has been allowed in during the past few years.
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has several times denied that arty over-30-month-old processed meat ever entered the food chain. The Department no longer claims that, but the last time that the Minister of State was challenged on the Floor of the House to say what was the truth, she ducked the question. I trust that she will not duck it today
10.48 am
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) introduced the debate with a characteristically thoughtful speech that reflected the keen interest that he has taken in agriculture and food in his constituency and in his work on the Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In case anyone reading the Hansard report of our debate gets a misleading impression from the comments about attendance made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), I should make it clear that three Labour Members, two official Opposition Members and one Liberal Democrat Member have been present. Otherwise, the impression that hordes of Opposition Members attended might falsely be given.
The debate takes place against the serious backcloth of foot and mouth disease. It is not surprising that all Members who have spoken have expressed their deep concern and strong support for those most affected by the dreadful outbreak. The Government are tackling the disease, first and foremost by slaughtering and destroying large numbers of animals. Also, we are already paying compensation to farmers and allowing movement of some animals, both to slaughter and on welfare grounds. I know that there is agreement on such matters among all Members.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury I Mr. O'Brien) said that we should not be alarmist on food safety issues and foot and mouth disease. I strongly agree, and other Members also referred to that. It is wise to report on the gravity of the foot and mouth situation, but to avoid alarmist comments that could worry people unnecessarily. I feel that especially strongly, having been in Cumbria at the weekend. Some of the press reports, that all the skies were black, and that towns and villages were ghost places to which no one would want to go, were deeply inaccurate. Many in Cumbria said that they found such reporting upsetting and unhelpful as they coped with the actual situation.
I am sure that foot and mouth disease is already reinvigorating the debate on food policy, and more widely on agriculture policy. That comment fits with the broad thrust of the arguments and ideas proposed by my
18WH
hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. However, we must recognise that a great deal of work has already been done. The Government have been actively engaged in devising a forward-looking strategy for agriculture, in seeing agriculture as a key part of the rural economy, and in seeing the link between agriculture and other parts of the economy. My Ministry takes co-operation and dialogue across the food chain seriously, and we have been considering the important issues that also affect other Departments and Government bodies. I commend that work. It has taken the domestic agenda on the issues forward, as it has the work that must go on at a European and a wider international level. When the foot and mouth crisis is overcome, I hope that some recognition will be given to the work that has already taken place. We can build a thoughtful debate for the future on it.
Understandably, the Food Standards Agency has been referred to a great deal during the debate. I do not accept that it is used as a fig leaf by Ministers, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire alleged. It is important that Ministers highlight the agency's work and responsibility, and where the ministerial line of accountability should be in relation to the FSA. That is simply to stress to the public that the creation of the FSA met a real need, and that we are keen that its work should be properly appreciated and understood.
I can think of no subject that can be neatly contained within the work of one Department of State. The problems of joined-up government, referred to by several hon. Members, are real. For example, I have been involved in the active promotion of the Department of Health's free fruit scheme for school children. I have tremendous enthusiasm for it, not only because it sends out an important message about healthy eating and nutrition, but because it offers help to the horticulture industry in finding new markets and customers. It makes perfect sense to take a joined-up approach. I was pleased to take part in promotional efforts at Hill Mead school in south London and other schools in the area; not only did they stress the importance of healthy eating but they increased awareness of rural issues in urban areas. That sort of joined-up work is important.
Mr. Moss: We are all in favour of joined-up government, but the Minister has not yet explained why she and not the Minister for Public Health, who is responsible for the FSA, is answering a debate on food policy
Ms Quin: The subject of the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud includes a good many issues that are the responsibility of my Department, including the food chain initiative referred to by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), and reform of the common agricultural policy. The latter is a key element, because we are not divorced from Europe on agricultural matters. Those questions are extremely important for my Department. In the context of my hon. Friend's remarks, I must conclude that it was right for an Agriculture Minister to respond. In preparing for the debate,I have had contact with other Departments. Such matters are not hermetically sealed; nor should they be.

19WH
The hon. Member for Eddisbury took me to task once again over his labelling Bill. A number of points need to be made in response. I find it rather odd still to be accused of talking out a Bill when less than a third of the time was made available to me—the rest of it was taken by the hon. Gentleman himself—and I did not have enough time to respond to the valid points raised in that debate. If he were to ask whether the Government were in favour of a Bill in that form, the answer would be no. It would have taken us directly into illegality in Europe. However, I hope that I can give him some reassurance.
Having promoted the idea of labelling to show country of origin in conjunction with the Italian agriculture Minister at a recent Agriculture Council meeting, I assure the hon. Member for Eddisbury that we are actively considering the matter. It is time to overhaul European Union labelling arrangements, because various directives are causing confusion. Fruit and vegetables have country-of-origin labelling, which is extremely helpful to consumers. Beef and wine are also now labelled with their country of origin. We also have regional appellations, which give more information to consumers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the next debate.

Planning Appeals
10.59 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I express my appreciation for the opportunity to debate this issue. As might be suspected. I have a hidden agenda, although I am not using the debate as a ramp to raise issues relating to specific planning applications—there is a time and a place for that. However, much of what I shall say is inspired by my experiences in my constituency.
Planning procedure is not only an arcane but a difficult area for politicians. I was told recently that there is a parliamentary convention that MPs do not get involved in individual planning applications. That was news to me because for a quarter of a century my predecessor diligently intervened in every planning application that arose in my constituency, and my constituents expected me to follow in that tradition.
Planning procedure is difficult for another, more subtle, but important reason: the problem is at the interface between law and politics. Most local councils are engaged in what is sometimes referred to as a quasi-judicial process, Which few local people understand. They expect their councillors to respond to political pressures and do not understand that councillors are constrained by planning guidance and complex legal obligations. I appreciate that the Minister is bound by the same constraints, being both the guardian of the appeal process and the one who issues policy. One of the key policies that is germane to the debate is contained in planning guidance. Planning policy guidance 1, the predisposition to development, is probably the most important piece of guidance issued to my local authority, so conflict sometimes arises between policy and judicial constraints.
Before I embark on the essence of my speech, I shall take a slight detour while we are dealing with planning processes and appeals and ask the Minister for some clarification on a major departure in policy over the past few days. From reports in the press, I understand that the Minister for Housing and Planning has issued a new set of guidance relating to mobile phone masts. That will be of enormous interest to many hon. Members who have campaigned on that issue, either in general or in relation to specific applications. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify what will happen about that, given that I understand that no other ministerial statement on the subject will be made.
I understand that the scope of planning controls will be widened to encompass small masts of less than 15 m, which have hitherto been exempt from controls, and that public concern, presumably reflecting health considerations, will be taken into account. How important will public concern about health be in the new planning guidelines? Will that be a valid criterion for planning objections? If the balance has decisively shifted towards allowing public concern to weigh heavily in a planning decision, clearly, the Minister's desk will be flooded with appeals from developers in the mobile phone industry, which has invested massively in new technology. If the balance still lies with traditional planning constraints and if people may apply only on grounds of visual amenity, many people will be disappointed. I would be grateful for some clarification of where the balance will lie because it is germane to the sort of appeals that will be launched.

21WH
Finally on mobile phones, an enormous number of applications have been accepted and many masts have been erected without planning permission as a result of the size limitation. I assume that the new ruling will have no retrospective effect, but should be grateful for confirmation because many masts have been erected close to schools and blocks of housing.
The essence of my argument is the way in which the planning appeal process operates in suburban contexts such as Twickenham. Some of the problems that I shall outline may be particular to Twickenham, but in many other suburban areas of London and other big cities there is tremendous pressure for what we would call overdevelopment, although that might not be an accurate, scientific description. The false dichotomy between brownfield and greenfield development misses the problems associated with suburban areas. Those areas have lower density and are under tremendous pressure to increase it and to develop.
Developers are often blocked from greenfield activity, but there is growing demand for houses and, frequently, they do not want to build blocks of housing in inner-city areas, so they concentrate their activities on the suburbs, which often have distinct planning problems. In Twickenham and, I am sure, in many similar areas, no more major pieces of land can be occupied by large developments. However, the Government have set very tough housing targets and I understand that local authorities have little discretion to refuse them. They are obliged to incorporate them in their unitary development plans.
My borough has a target of 240 new houses a year. over 20 years. That is a relaxation of the target of 300 that applied under the previous Government. Nevertheless, it is still a demanding target when there are no vacant sites. It means that developers buy bungalows and houses with large gardens. They do whatever is possible to pack more houses on to a piece of land. That often results in extreme tension.
I received an e-mail a couple of days ago from a group of residents in Hampton road in Teddington, in the middle of my constituency. A gentleman went out one morning and found someone walking around his property, photographing it and taking measurements. He asked, "Why are you in my garden? What are you doing?" and was told, "We have been sent by the developer. We are preparing to buy your house." His reply was that he did not want to sell his house, but was happy where he was. The developer's representative said, "I have already agreed with your neighbours to buy, and either you sell to us for a good price or we are going to make your life rather miserable, because a development is going to go up next door that you may not like." My constituent checked with his neighbours and found next door that a very frightened old lady had been, if not exactly threatened, certainly intimidated, into the clear understanding that she had little option but to sell.
The same thing is going on throughout the area. Everyone with a bungalow is being approached by developers and encouraged, sometimes politely, and sometimes less politely, to sell. The economics are plain. Someone who buys a bungalow with a large garden for £500,000—which is probably the current cost—and is able to obtain planning consent for a block of six or eight flats, which will be described is "exclusive" or
22WH
"luxury", will be able to sell the site for 3£ million. There is a lot of money to be made. Under our tax system, there is no mechanism other than normal business taxation for taxing developers' profits.
There is an enormous amount at stake. Real pressures are being brought to bear and it is not overstating the case to describe what is now happening as a form of suburban Rachmanism. People are being winkled out of their property to enable such intensification of development to go on. Sometimes, it can be very unpleasant. A bitter conflict recently took place over a small infill development called Teddington Park. Following hostility between the developers and residents, the residents went out one night and found that their trees had been chopped down in an act of vandalism and malice. The police have not yet been able to track down precisely who did it, but clearly emotions are high and a lot of pressure is being brought to bear.
Mr. David Drew: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of another problem; I do not know how matters stand in his constituency. In my constituency, a problem arose over a covenant for non-development of a piece of land. In order to buy out that covenant, developers threw the telephone book at people. It came to silly money.
Dr. Cable: That is a helpful intervention. I am glad of confirmation that the problems that I have described occur elsewhere, albeit in a different context. The hon. Gentleman is right. A sophisticated industry is being developed by people who fully understand the legal loopholes through which they have to crawl, and are perfecting techniques to intimidate residents into complying with their wishes.
How does that feed into the planning proc`ess? Assuming that residents have been persuaded to sell their back gardens, their bungalows, or the little patch of land adjacent to them, an application will go to a local planning committee. Residents might object, perhaps because of the pressure on local infrastructure. A problem in my area is that schools are massively overcrowded. When new residents arrive and the demand for school places increases, there is no more land. In a typical, controversial case last week, a bit of playing field from one school had to be taken away to provide land for a new school.
There is pressure on infrastructure. There is pressure on streets. It would be desirable if everyone used public transport and pooled their cars, but they do not. A development of six or a dozen new houses brings six, 12 or 15 new cars into a street that is already choc-a-bloc with cars. It is difficult to see any social gain from that development.
It would be desirable for such developments to include affordable housing. I should like to see more. My council would certainly like to see more. We need a better housing mix; low-income working people should be able to have homes in the suburbs, but they are not. The Government's planning guidelines, which provide for developments of over 15 houses to include an affordable element, do not address the problem: the developments that I am describing are often deliberately under the 15 limit. There is a rash of applications for 14-house developments, so that they can be called "luxury and exclusive".

23WH
Therefore, there is very little social benefit from those developments and many of them impose severe pressure on the local infrastructure. Local council committees consider them, knowing that they are under pressure from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to meet housing targets. There is a planning guideline, giving predisposition to development, and the councils are often on weak ground if they try to resist applications. The matter then becomes highly politicised.
The hottest political topic in my part of London is planning. It is about infill development. Local Conservatives-although it could be another party elsewhere in the country-denounce the local council for being hand in glove with the developers and for promoting infill development. Of course, when they were in government, they had even more demanding housing targets. It is entirely opportunistic. Nevertheless, the pressures are there and the tensions exist.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I cannot resist the bait that the hon. Gentleman was dangling before me. Is he aware that it is Conservative policy to abolish national house-building targets in the first week of the next Conservative Government?
Dr. Cable: I was not aware of that. I know that the Conservatives' manifesto is a rolling programme, but it is difficult to see how they would do that while accommodating the other pressures for housing, especially in the south-east of England. There is enormous demographic change. There is pressure for more housing units. I understand that the Conservatives have lined up in opposition to greenfield developments, so where will the houses go? If targets are to be abolished, by what mechanism will the houses be built? There seems to be a lack of clarity and logic, which the Conservative spokesman will, no doubt, explain in due course.
I would like some feedback from the Minister about how the planning process, and particularly the appeal process, might be modified in order to achieve a better balance. How can we avoid the phenomenon that I experienced—namely, that residents widely believe that all the aces are in the hands of the developer and that they have few legitimate grounds for objection to developments that damage the local community and put it under pressure?
I have several suggestions to make. First, there is an eight-week rule on planning applications, which pressures local authorities to complete their work within eight weeks. It arose because people who want a modest house extension or their loft converted should not have to wait months and months for local planning officials to clear their application. That should happen speedily and efficiently and I understand why the Government have set relevant targets. However, there is a distinction between modest home improvements, which should take place quickly and be subject to a demanding target of perhaps even six weeks, and controversial middle and large-scale developments, which have a wide impact, but cannot be handled within a short time scale.
24WH
There is a cynical process by which developers submit applications in duplicate knowing that local authorities cannot cover the complexity of a major application such as a dozen houses within the time scale. They know that the local planning committee will not cover their application and that it will go to appeal, which sidelines the democratic process. I understand the origins of the eight-week rule and accept that the DETR must set efficiency targets for local government, but the process should be more sophisticated. There should be a more demanding target for house conversions and minor developments, which should be processed more quickly, and a relaxed target for substantial developments that have a wide impact on the community. Those are not unreasonable requests.
Secondly—I realise that this is better-travelled and perhaps more controversial ground—there is the issue of third-party appeals. A developer can currently appeal against a local council planning committee judgment. Indeed, some developers appeal time and again. Several developments in my area have involved a half dozen separate applications, all of which have gone to appeal. It may be that the process of resubmission and appeal produces a better application and I hope that that is the case. However, there is more than a suspicion that developers with deep pockets try to grind down the resistance of overstretched councils. The developers' motive is clear beck use enormous sums of money can be made out of building projects.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Another issue that I should like my hon. Friend to consider is the pressure exerted on planning authorities by planning officers who fear that members will overturn their recommendations. They argue that there will be punitive costs against the local authority should it lose an appeal. When a local elected member feels that there are good grounds for refusal, but planning officers have worked with a developer over a long period to cultivate an application that they consider to be acceptable, members are pushed into a no-win situation—refuse and be damned, which leaves the local authority with a huge bill of costs. or give way and back the officers' recommendation. Members are clearly subjected to unfair pressure.
Dr. Cable: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he has eloquently described the process. A system of third-party appeals would introduce a better balance because it would relieve the pressure on council members. A resident who is currently concerned by pressure on local infrastructure, schools and traffic has no grounds for appeal. He or she could go to the ombudsman, but the ombudsman has a specific frame of reference focused on maladministration and cannot overturn a planning decision. He or she could go to judicial review, but that is complex and requires sophisticated legal advice. A better device would be to allow third parties to appeal under certain circumstances.
I appreciate that that could open the floodgates to many vexatious, trivial objections and I should not want the Minister's desk to be flooded by an enormous number of appeals. There would have to be a screening process to ensure that third-party appeals were not being abused, and preliminary tests to find out whether a genuine issue of principle was involved and whether

25WH
there were major planning concerns, as opposed to trivial objections. The principle of the third-party appeal, if properly constrained in that way, would be a useful addition to the planning process and would introduce a much better balance.
My third suggestion concerns retrospective applications. I have found that large numbers of developments are proceeding without approval or outside the approval that they have been given, exceeding the norms. That sometimes happens with good reason. Many people involved in small developments do not understand planning law, do not know when they have to seek permission and make honest mistakes. They should not be penalised for that. Sometimes, if they get it terribly wrong, they suffer the penalty of having their property pulled down, which causes a lot of expense and misery.
Notwithstanding that, many developers are making increasingly cynical use of the existing process whereby every case of retrospective approval is treated in precisely the same way as a new application. They often ignore the rules altogether, calculating that a relatively small breach of the planning rules is unlikely to bring the wrath of the development control officers down on to their heads. Moreover, those officers are severely overstretched and enforcement involves costs and complexities. As a result, developers often get away with it, further sowing the increasing cynicism that residents feel about the planning process.
I want to throw a couple of larger ideas at the Minister. Underlying many of the difficulties is the ministerial guidance, with its predisposition to development. It might help if the DETR were to employ a subtle variation on that—a predisposition to sustainable development. That would encompass many of the concerns that residents have about amenity, pressure on infrastructure and overdevelopment. "Sustainability" is an amorphous word, but so is "development". We should build into the principle the concept that the environment matters and ensure that all the aces are not stacked in the hands of the developers. I should be grateful for some feedback on whether that idea is being actively considered and what it might mean in practice.
My final point relates to the way in which the debate about the quasi-judicial role of planning authorities is evolving in the light of the recent High Court ruling. I realise that that will eventually have to be resolved in the courts, but it is not premature to ask the Minister how far the human rights considerations that are being brought to bear on the planning process are affecting the way in which future planning appeals might be considered. I know that there is much debate about the Minister's role and that, in future, she may have to step aside from the planning process in order to comply with human rights legislation. Such matters may have to be dealt with by an environmental court rather than by ministerial intervention.
A similar debate is beginning to open up about the effects on the roles of democratically elected councils. Can they continue to operate in the twilight world of the quasi-judicial function? Should they act politically or legally? Should they be pulled in one way or the other? I believe that it is important for planning to remain within the process of democratic control; for the same reason, I support the Government's initiative in
26WH
bringing licensing within the ambit of local councils. The issue needs to be reconciled with the new legal rulings of the High Court. It would be useful if the Minister gave some preliminary indications of how that will be achieved.
Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a further problem in respect of the appeal process? The degree of legalistic knowledge that an ordinary member of the public needs to have in order to grasp what is going on during appeals seriously disadvantages them in trying to oppose a development or a developer.
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. That is why, as far as possible, we should try to keep the planning process within a democratic, rather than a purely legal, framework, and to build in safeguards such as those that I have described to enable objectors to have a proper say without the necessity for sophisticated and expensive advice.
11.24 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: Hon. Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for securing the debate at such a relevant time. I echo many of the points that he made. which ranged through a veritable pot pourri of planning issues.
I begin by declaring an interest. I am a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, although 1 have not received any fees, or undertaken any work for some decades—I regard my duties in the House as a full-time occupation. I could even declare an inverse interest because I pay the institute more than £200 a year to remain a member.
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. to the hon. Member for Twickenham and to the Minister because I have a long-standing engagement with a constituent that will require me to leave just after 12 o'clock. That happens to hon. Members of all parties from time to time.
I turn to the High Court decision on the role of the Secretary of State in determining planning appeals. Even if the House of Lords says that the present system is not affected by human rights issues, I can envisage that someone would take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights when the procedures of national law had been exhausted.
I suggest to the Minister that the Government consider whether the time is coming to make the planning inspectorate totally independent of the Government. I feel that it might be better if the Secretary of State had no fingers in the pie. That is not to deny that, at present, he observes honourably the fact that planning appeals come to him as sub judice cases and deals with them accordingly.
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned telecommunications masts. Will the Minister confirm that the proposal, on which there will be consultation, is not a material change in the law, but that planning authorities will have 56 days, rather than 28 or 42, to deal with applications? That is to allow better and fuller public consultation.

27WH
It is also proposed that school governors will have to be consulted about applications near to their schools or colleges. Another proposed change intrigues me. The local planning authority will be able to turn down an application for a telecommunications mast if it violates amenity grounds— I think that that is the phrase that is used in the document. I echo the question of the hon. Member for Twickenham: does that mean health grounds, visual grounds, or both
The period for considering an application for a telecommunications mast is the same as that for a planning application. If such an application is turned down, will the applicant have the right of appeal?
Overdevelopment, or crowded development, in suburban areas is a problem in Chipping Barnet as well as in Twickenham. I do not oppose the policy of higher housing densities in certain areas. Housing can be well designed when its density is greater. However, I caution against overdevelopment, particularly in suburban areas—the late Sir John Betjeman referred to them as "Metroland" areas—which is destroying their suburban character.
Too many good Victorian family homes have been pulled down and replaced with characterless—I put it no less politely than that—blocks of flats. What is worse, in pulling down nice Victorian houses, for which there is great demand, developers too often put up blocks of flats and tarmacadam over the acre or so of green and pleasant back gardens that make an important contribution to such areas, simply because on-street parking is insufficient or is banned. We should have special measures and special powers to deal with applications that destroy the innate pleasant character of particular areas.
In talking about the need to develop brownfield sites or to recycle urban derelict land, we get into a numbers game that is typical of politicians. The watchword ought to be that we develop greenfield sites only as a last resort. We must concentrate on providing incentives to encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites and that can be achieved only through significant tax incentives.
Section 106 agreements—in my younger days, they were section 52 agreements—enable local planning authorities to receive, before planning permission is granted, financial contributions to tackle infrastructure here or environmental improvement there that does not necessarily relate to the site in question. In this age of concern about sleaze or impropriety, that verges on the corrupt in that, if one hands over a bundle of money, one will get planning permission for something else.
I would far rather that the process were open. Where a greenfield site is developed as a last resort, a tax should be paid to meet the extra costs associated with decontaminating brownfield sites. It is essential that the Government give such incentives to get builders off greenfield sites and on to brownfield sites. The view has too often been taken that it does not matter if one cannot build on a brownfield site because greenfield site land is available. Perhaps local planning authorities should be required to permit building on greenfield sites only where no brownfield sites are available.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Barry Jones): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced hon. Member, is about to discuss procedures for planning appeals.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Indeed. I was trying to point out—I shall cease from now on—that such issues will result in planning, appeals. As well as getting the procedures right, I suspect that the Minister would like to know why such issues might result in planning appeals. However I thank you for your comment, because I was beginning to run away with the subject.
So that the people of our country know where they stand, the policy of this Government, the next Government or any Government should be encapsulated in an easily understood slogan: "We ought to build as much as possible on brownfield sites, we ought to build as little as possible on greenfield sites, and we ought never to build on greenbelt land."
11.34 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on selecting for debate the interesting and topical subject of planning appeals and the problems associated with them. I should be in a bit of a mess if I followed the suggestion that Members of Parliament should not get involved in planning matters. Not a day goes by without someone in Portsmouth writing to me about one of the many planning applications that the city is considering.
I have been a member of Portsmouth city council for 30 years and was a member of Hampshire county council for 25. I have served on the planning authorities of both councils and was chairman of the city planning authority for some time. I therefore have a wealth of experience in dealing with both large and small planning applications. I remember meetings in which 100 planning applications had to be discussed. Such meetings could take 10 or 12 hours and sometimes spread over several days.
I was interested in the intervention of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about Conservative policy. It is interesting to note that the Conservative policy for planning in Hampshire was not to have neighbour notification, not to support deputations to the planning committee and not to delegate by minority order, thereby allowing a planning application to be considered by one or two members before being taken to a larger group of members. All those policies went some way towards curbing the enthusiasm for planning appeals.
As a planning committee member, I had not only to exercise my responsibilities under the planning regulations, but to consider what was reasonable. I had to balance the planning responsibility against reasonableness. Would I want to live next door to, in front of, alongside, or down the street from a development that would inflict damage on my environment and life style, or that of my neighbours? I always tried to exercise that key element of reasonableness when considering planning applications.
There is now great pressure on members of planning authorities from developers who spend a long time talking to council officers to get their applications in

29WH
good order. They do so not necessarily for the benefit of planning authority members, but to get the nod from planning officials such as the planning officer, the development control officer, the environmental health officer and the city engineer.
The members are then faced with a difficult decision. If the application is controversial, many will have been lobbied by the people who oppose to it. Their colleagues will put on pressure by speaking against an application, but members will be told repeatedly "The officers are recommending approval. The fact that you don't like it or think it is unreasonable is not sufficient ground to vote against it. We need good reasons."I have been in more than one planning meeting where members have voted against something and decided their reasons afterwards, in conjunction with the officers. They needed to prepare the groundwork for the appeal that would undoubtedly come.
In the past 10 years, the first suggestion or hint that members might vote against an application has been met with the legal officer saying, "Of course, without really strong grounds for refusal, we'll be on a sticky wicket in an appeal and there could be substantial costs. You know that this applicant has a track record of taking us on." I do not know whether that shows an officer's lack of confidence about winning, or whether he genuinely believes that members have made a bad decision. If we are giving local councillors responsibility, we must trust them to make decisions for the right reasons. They should be enthusiastic about an appeal because the democratic process allows such appeals to take place.
I shall deviate for a moment to refer to a couple of points that have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) talked about section 106 agreements as if they were immoral. A developer must pay—must be made to pay—if the development has a knock-on effect on the community. It should not be for local council tax payers, the Government or anyone else to pay for road infrastructure and alterations. The cost should be borne by the developers, whether the work required is within their development or half a mile up the road.
Section 106 agreements have been used to good effect in the main. In many instances, they are a mechanism to prevent planning appeals: the development might have been refused had the developer not signed the agreement. I do not view that as blackmail. The developer must understand that, in a planning process, to prevent an appeal, one must sometimes go a little further down the line and deal with parts of a site that are not directly involved with the application. In many cases, if the section 106 agreement is properly brought together, it can prevent planning appeals from taking place and achieve a better decision for an area.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has raised the key issue: the procedure should be open and seen to be open, and it should be regularised.
Mr. Hancock: I have no problem with that. In 20 years of experience, I cannot remember a situation in which a section 106 agreement has not been openly displayed at the planning committee stage and, more important, as a public notice before it is discussed in the
30WH
committee. There is a degree of transparency, which is a good thing. It helps during appeals if people's grounds for objections and the information that is required to put a planning application together are publicly available to anyone who wants to see them. That is to be welcomed.
I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the need for the Government to be one step removed from the process. Like him, I have long held the view that we should have an independent planning inspectorate. When I led the largest local authority in Britain, we faced huge planning decisions on new towns and the redevelopment of a sizeable chunk of the south-east, including two big cities. Many good decisions were overturned by Government involvement.
The Library's note on the Human Rights Act 1998 and planning is interesting. Although it agrees that the Secretary of State does not have the power to get involved, a little further on it says that there is no choice but for him to exercise that role. If the Government are to deal with the issue of human rights and planning applications, they must find a mechanism for divorcing the Secretary of State from the situation. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State is bound to act as he or she chooses. Our judges should not be in a position to say that the Secretary of State was wrong to get involved, but that he had to do so because there was no alternative. That is not the way forward.
It is about time the Government got off the fence over the issue of phone masts. They should make phone masts, whatever their purpose, subject to the normal planning regulation and appeals procedure. A company should not simply have to notify a planning authority; we ought to have the opportunity to say no. I want to say no to a phone mast in my constituency. As a member of the city council, I believe that I have a democratic right to say that placing a mast there would be bad planning. If I believe that it is bad on health grounds, why should I, as an elected official, not have the right to say no? If the applicant wants to take that decision to appeal, let him fight it out and prove that phone masts and radio communication masts are not harmful to the environment or to the health of the individual. A planning appeal should take account of those factors. The Government should not tinker with the law, but make fundamental changes to the law governing phone masts. Many hon. Members have campaigned for such changes.
I have examined planning applications in my city over recent months and have found widespread objections to applications. One application was for a McDonald's drive-through, which was very controversial. It attracted local opposition and 58 letters of objection were received at the planning stage. The objectors were given neighbourhood notification and many were given the opportunity to speak against the application. The city council made it clear that it opposed the application, but it was allowed on appeal.
The problem is that, once an appeal is allowed, it is the end of the game for the objectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, the planning system is stacked heavily in favour of the developer and always has been. McDonald's, or whoever was fronting the application, appealed and won. The drive-through has been open for some time and nothing has changed. It is appalling for the local community to have to live with it.

31WH
People are justified in feeling let down by the planning appeal procedure. They have to live next door to it, but that was never considered.
Another problem concerns an application for change of use to an amusement arcade, to which 494 people objected and about which 42 letters were sent. Local Conservatives in Portsmouth, South campaigned against it and the city council was unanimously opposed to it, but the decision was overturned on appeal and planning permission was granted. How can the planning system have any credibility when an application to which there is so much objection is allowed on appeal and the inspector fails to take account of objections? Reasonableness must be exercised in the planning appeal process, which, sadly, is deficient. It fails to grasp the real issue that local people must be given the same rights as developers.
Developers come armed with QCs and other expensive help to face perhaps half a dozen residents with no background knowledge of planning law to defend their rights. I sometimes wish that local authorities had the power to fund their case, or that the Government would allow opposition to developers to be publicly funded. There should be a legal aid system to allow local people to fight the supermarket giants and over-enthusiastic developers who want to rape our countryside and build on every piece of green space.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is moving closer to procedures for planning appeals.
Mr. Hancock: I thought that I was more than edging my way. I was suggesting significant changes to the Minister because a catalogue of issues must be dealt with.
I referred to the Conservative association in Portsmouth. It was suggested that councillors felt pressurised by the involvement of a political party and that they could have been in trouble under the code of conduct for local government, which the applicant could have used in his appeal. It is wrong that politicians cannot listen to the wider community and have a dialogue with developers; they should be given the opportunity to listen and to make judgments for themselves. Unfortunately, planning authorities are being pressurised by the way in which the appeal system currently operates, so bad planning applications are being granted. That cannot be in anyone's interests, least of all those of the local community, and it is unforgivable that Members of Parliament recognise that, but fail to do anything about it collectively. The Government will fail yet again if they do not deal with the matter.
I live in the second most densely populated city in Europe. It is highly overdeveloped in terms of the motor car, and it is now unreasonable for a planning application to be refused on car parking grounds. We have what is generally recognised as saturation car parking. Therefore, an issue that can be used in most planning appeals is no longer appropriate in Portsmouth because the city council has recognised that it has no solution to saturation car parking—either it
32WH
turns down every application from now on or it does not exercise reasonableness. We want to try to exercise reasonableness.
A current application subject to a planning appeal is about a former club. It happened to be called the Landport Liberal club, but was nothing to do with the Liberal party. It went out of business, has been derelict for several years and is now in the hands of the receiver. There has been a spate of fires there, including a serious one last week at which I was on site. The divisional commander of the fire service told me that the building was so unsafe that he did not want his officers to go into it as that would put their lives at risk.
In such a case, one would make representations to the city council, as I did. I asked that the building be demolished. The response from the agent for the receiver was that the building would be knocked down if no reasonableness was exercised and the city council agreed to the planning application. Members of the council are being threatened and intimidated because the appeal process allows developers always to have the whip hand. That is unforgivable and unacceptable.
Later this week, the final Government decision on housing figures for the south-east will be brought into the public domain. It will probably be highly controversial and will undoubtedly lead to a number of appeals. I hope that the Minister will promise that the Government recognise flaws in the current system, whether on radio masts, on individual planning applications or on where development takes place. There must be changes. The one change that is crying out to be made is to take some of the power on planning applications away from developers and to give some of it to those who arc objecting. Unless that happens, the planning system will be totally discredited and will continue to cause a lot of annoyance, anger and unnecessary heartache.
11.52 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing. The subject is important and it is slightly surprising that more hon. Members from all parties have not clamoured to take part.
We worry a lot about falling voter participation in local government elections. There is one solid and proven way to increase it, which is to have a controversial planning application in a ward or division. We are all prone to the concerns of our constituents on such serious planning issues.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the slight dichotomy between the quasi-judicial nature of planning committees and the fact that they are populated with politicians and so may be subject to political pressure He rightly touched on the current issue of mobile phone masts, as well as health concerns and changes in the planning system. I am delighted that, to some extent, the Government appear to have taken note of the Conservative campaign on the matter, in particular the way in which Conservative-controlled councils such as Kent county council have taken the issue by the scruff of the neck in the absence of clear guidance from the Government. Perhaps we will hear more about that in a moment.

33WH
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who is a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. We are all indebted to him for his experience and knowledge of these matters, and I am personally grateful for his guidance on the formulation of our planning policy. He rightly spoke about the role of the Secretary of State and how it had been brought into play by a recent High Court decision, to which I shall return.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke with experience of the pressures on planning committees and reminded us of the sterling role played by the Portsmouth, South Conservatives in major planning matters in his area. His speech gave us a clue as to why his planning committees might have lasted 10 to 12 hours on occasion. None the less, he spoke with some authority.
The hon. Member for Twickenham rightly made the point that, in areas such as Twickenham, Eastbourne and Portsmouth, there are considerable pressures for overdevelopment. One of the major problems in planning is the retention of nation house-building targets. Although the Government have changed the description of the targets' purpose from "predict and provide" to "plan, monitor and manage", the reality on the ground is not much different.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the house-building targets for the south-east. The Government may well be trying to fudge the issue until after the next election, but those of us who represent constituencies in that region are dealing with the fall-out from an apparent insistence on anything up to 900,000 new houses in the region over the next few years. We can all point to examples in our constituencies of the consequences of that insistence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 240 new houses for which space had to be found in Twickenham.
In my own area, on the border between Willingdon and Polegate, it is said that space will have to be found for 1,000 new houses. I find that difficult to support and have spoken against it at all levels. I already have a mailbag full of letters from people corn plaining that they cannot get their children into the school of their choice, that the roads are inadequate and that the local health service is under pressure. The question of how essential services will be provided to the people who live in those 1,000 new homes is a major issue in our area.
It is one of those typical situations, of which we have heard a number described today. The Government demand that space be found for the new houses, and the decision percolates through the system and translates into X new houses in a particular area or constituency. The local planning authority is under orders from the Secretary of State. The authority is in the process of drafting its new local plan. As someone who is an expert in these matters once said, there are only two sorts of local plan: those that are in preparation and those that are out of date. The shifting target for new housing in the area will somehow have to be fitted into the local plan.
I have heard no fewer than two Liberal Democrat Members speak this morning. Locally, the Liberal Democrats are talking tough on the threat to a large playing field and green space called Hindsland in my constituency. However, when the chips were down at a meeting of Serplan—the south-east regional planning
34WH
committee—a few months ago, they voted with the Government for the higher target figures. That is an example of the pressures that are brought to bear because of planning applications.
One of the key issues to come out of the debate is the question of cross-appeals or third-party appeals. Conservative Members feel that that is a nettle that the Government have so far signally failed to grasp. There is no doubt that, sooner or later, under the human rights legislation and something called the Aarhus declaration, the system will have to recognise third-party appeals. The Government have already fallen foul of that problem in the High Court; the case has already been mentioned. The Minister should update us today on that case. I believe that the Government are appealing to the House of Lords. It would be interesting to hear when they expect the matter to be heard.
The role of the Secretary of State in the planning appeal system has already been brought into question because of human rights legislation. The Opposition are several steps ahead of the Government and, by definition, even more steps ahead of the Liberal Democrats in our planning policy. We believe that cross-appeals or third-party appeals are inevitable, so why do the Government not recognise the fact and allow them?
Other hon. Members have eloquently set out the apparent injustice to those who are not planning specialists of allowing wealthy, powerful developers to appeal against decisions, but not allowing local residents to appeal against the granting of what they consider to be wholly inappropriate planning applications. It is a familiar experience for those who serve on planning committees to be told by planning officers that it is possible to refuse a highly controversial application, but that the refusal will be appealed against, that the developers will probably win and that it will result in considerable cost to council tax payers. Those are the sort of pressures that are brought to bear on planning committees. We believe that cross-appeals should be permissible and that the number of appeals should be dramatically reduced.
We would remove the Secretary of State from the equation because it is a fiction. I would like to think of the Minister or her boss, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, sitting up for hours on end poring over the minutiae of such appeals, but we all know that a nice man from Bristol holds an inquiry and that, when he eventually reaches a decision, it is said to be the decision of the Secretary of State. I do not suggest any impropriety, but the system has been in force since the 1940s, is visibly and audibly creaking and fails to reflect local views. The Secretary of State should be removed from the appeal process and the planning inspectorate scrapped. Fewer decisions should be appealed against and those appeals should be heard by an independent appeal tribunal.
The majority of planning decisions should be made by the elected representatives of local people. I know the arguments that have been advanced about nimbyism—some people prefer to call it positive parochialism—and about political pressures, but at the moment we have the worst of all worlds. Local residents do not have ownership of their local plans. Nor do they feel involved in their preparation. The first that they may know of a planning application is a small sign stuck on a lamp

35WH
post—and they may not see that until it is too late. They may decide that the application genuinely affects them and their way of life, but all too often their attempts to object are frustrated by the system. A planning system in which most local people have no influence and that makes local councillors feel powerless in the face of applications—often multiple applications—by large, well-funded developers is no longer sustainable.
Those are the ways in which the planning system should be changed. Local communities should have a clear right to decide whether to allow new developments. Those making applications should know in advance whether they are likely to receive permission. There should be a limited right of appeal. Appeals should be made only on narrow grounds. The right of appeal should also be available to local residents.
This has been an excellent debate and one that will resonate with all right hon. and hon. Members. Again, I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham for securing it.
12.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate and on giving us the opportunity to consider this subject. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said—this is probably the only point on which I agree with him—it is not a subject that many of our colleagues regard as the most politically exciting, but it is important in determining land use and the quality of the environment of our electors.
We have heard several criticisms of the planning system. I remind hon. Members that, at all levels, the planning system must take decisions on issues that are often hotly contested on all sides, trying to find the best resolution and taking into account policy, development plans and the competing views of the different interested parties. It is an arena with potential for enormous conflict, for different views and for difficult decisions. On balance, we have a system that, although by no means perfect—we have been trying to improve it—does its best in what is a difficult and emotional area for people.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No, I shall make a little progress first. The hon. Gentleman spoke for some time and I want to set out some of my main points first. I shall certainly give way to him later.
The hon. Member for Twickenham feels that Government policy on housing and planning does not reflect the situation of people in suburbs, as opposed to towns and city centres. I disagree. Our policy to achieve a better quality of urban life speaks closely to the different needs of different areas.
I also take issue with the hon. Gentleman's claim, repeated in a political context by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, that the Government are ascribing housing numbers to local authorities. That is untrue. We have insisted that, at the regional level, there be a target—
36WH
although it is subject to periodic review—but how that target is achieved and the contribution of each local planning authority to meet housing need over time are matters for local authorities, together with the regional planning body.
That is not an imposition by central Government. In fact, the whole thrust of our approach to housing need and to the planning system to provide houses to meet that need is that it should be a shared and corporate responsibility among the regional and local bodies charged with that duty. That differs from the policy of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who would abdicate all responsibility and leave every local authority to do its own thing, with no shared ownership of the region's housing problems.
Dr. Cable: I recognise that the Minister is trying to summarise what she regards as a balanced arrangement, but, if a local authority's unitary development plan does not provide sufficient housing, cannot the Department's inspector reject the, plan? At the end of the day, power lies with the Department, rather than with the local authority.
Ms Hughes: As I explained, that falls within the framework of the system requiring every local authority, in so far as it is able and taking into account a range of factors, to share ownership of the overall issue—to take responsibility with other local authorities for meeting the overall need for housing in a region. Clearly, if a local inspector feels that an authority is not fulfilling that responsibility to the degree that it might, he or she can say so, and rightly so.
The hon. Member for Twickenham told a story of predatory developers in his constituency trying to persuade local residents, by dubious means, to sell houses that could be converted or knocked down in order to build flats. Clearly, no one would support such activity. Such practice is not supported by Government policy and is to be abhorred. I accept his point that some residents are vulnerable, but they do not have to sell. Furthermore, the local authority does not have to grant planning permission, as he assumed.
Several hon. Members have painted a pejorative picture of all development as negative and unwelcome, but we must take a broader perspective. Much development is positive. It improves the quality of life and provides opportunity in areas; for example, suburban areas. The provision of smaller accommodation units can enable older people or younger single people to stay in an area, which they would not be able to do if only large houses were available. Development also has a beneficial impact on jobs, on the quality of the environment and in stimulating the local economy. The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to sustainable development. Such results assist sustainable development in many ways.
Mr. Hancock: The Minister is missing the point. We were talking about planning appeals, and applications that had already been turned down at local level. In general, 80 per cent. of planning applications are permitted and an not subject to appeal, a development

37WH
that is welcomed by local people. However, the problem is that the appeal process is weighted heavily in favour of the developer.
Ms Hughes: With due respect to the hon. Member for Twickenham, the debate has slid some way from the subject of planning appeals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will acknowledge that he talked specifically about the ability, willingness and capacity of local authorities, in the first instance, to turn down some applications because of perceived pressure from subsequent appeals. He talked about initial decisions.
Several hon. Members have claimed that the planning system is biased in favour of developers. We should acknowledge that we have a plan-led system, which requires the deposit of draft development plans and requires some decisions about the uses to which parcels of land will be put in principle to be made at local level. Applications will be sought in line with those policy decisions.
As we have a plan-led system, the charge of bias in favour of one set of interests does not hold water and must be qualified. The system is not based on a general presumption in favour of any party car interest. We are committed to a plan-led system that is given statutory force by legislation. In the context of development control, the system requires that, unless material considerations—I remind hon. Members that material considerations include the relevant considerations of third parties—indicate otherwise, local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan.
The framework is not a free-for-all, or a system in which the rights of developers supersede those of everyone else. It represents a systematic approach to making decisions in principle about land use in the development plan and making development control decisions in accordance with that previously determined set of policies. In that way, an attempt is made through the system to strike a right and fair balance between the community's needs and individuals' rights.
People who apply for planning permission have a statutory right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the local planning authority refuses permission. An appeal can also be made if the authority fails to determine the application within eight weeks or if conditions are thought to be unwarranted. That statutory right has been a fundamental part of our planning system for more than half a century.
There has been a supposition in the debate—there may even have been an explicit statement—that most appeals are decided in favour of the developer. For the last year for which statistics are available, 1999–2000, almost 13,000 planning appeals were decided, but only 36 per cent. were allowed on appeal: two in one were not allowed. Decisions are not going in favour of developers. That rather challenges hon. Members' views. The appeals related to a wide variety of developments, with particular emphasis on household development, small-scale residential properties and change of use, the same issues that hon. Members have raised this morning.
38WH
Hon. Members will know that planning appeals are decided in one of three ways: following an exchange of written representations, an inquiry or a hearing. The appellant and the local planning authority have the right to have the appeal heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
We have introduced new rules and procedures for planning appeals received after 1 August 2000. Most respondents have welcomed those proposals, which we expect to ensure greater transparency and clarity in the system. Concern has been expressed about the time scales in the new procedures. I do not accept that they will affect the quality of decisions. Clear time scales that parties, whether developers or others, cannot drag out by not submitting evidence on time are in local people's interests. As a result of the new procedures, more evidence has been submitted on time.
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned a couple of devices that he thinks developers sometimes use to circumvent the spirit of the appeal and planning processes. He mentioned the practice of twin-tracking, whereby two identical applications are submitted to the local authority at the same time. The applicant takes one to appeal as soon as the eight-week period has expired and continues to negotiate with the authority on the other. That is a safety-net approach. We have tried to make it a less attractive option. Twin-tracking used to enjoy a concession for the duplicate application. We have withdrawn that benefit. Both applications must now be accompanied by the full fee, reflecting our view that the submission of two applications involves a lot of work and deliberation.
Other hon. Members raised the practice of repetitive applications with respect to a particular site. The current legislation gives local planning authorities the power to turn away planning applications within two years of a similar, or substantially similar, application being rejected by the Secretary of State on appeal or following call-in, if there has been no significant change in the material circumstances.
The hon. Member for Twickenham made several suggestions. He talked about the ability of local people to put their point of view independently. Our present planning system and the system of development control are predicated on the assumption that the local authority is the best forum for such decisions.
I support the principle that elected members should both oversee the process by which planning decisions are made and be involved in individual development control decisions. Some hon. Members have had experience of those matters at local authority level, as I have. However, they have underestimated both the ability of council members to take difficult decisions and the jealousy with which such people guard their authority to make quasi-judicial decisions.
The suggestion that council members either have been browbeaten by officers or are afraid of going against the recommendations in officers' reports to planning committees does not square with my experience. Elected members take their role seriously. They realise that there are difficult decisions—that sometimes it is difficult to marry competing interests. In many instances, local people are being invited to planning committee meetings. It happens less in Conservative-controlled authorities, but it certainly happens in Labour and

39WH
Liberal Democrat-controlled ones. They are given the opportunity to express their views. It is interesting that, in Tory authorities, the councillors have more difficulty with that concept, which contradicts the policy that the hon. Member for Eastbourne said his party stood for, at least at national level.
Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hughes: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has risen to the bait.
Mr. Waterson: The Minister has only herself to blame. Is she now going to come to cross-appeals? It is no good inviting people to attend local planning committee meetings to let off steam if, at the end of the process, they feel that they have no control over whether a decision is made, or whether it can be overturned on appeal by them, rather than by the unsuccessful developer.
Ms Hughes: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not respond to the point that I was making, but went on to the next issue that I was about to raise. I know that, in some quarters, there is pressure for the introduction of some form of third-party right of appeal. Some people believe that that is an inevitable consequence of the Human Rights Act 1998. I agree that people affected by, or with an interest in, the development of an area should have an opportunity to make their views known before decisions are taken. The planning system should operate fairly and should be seen to do so. It should give people the chance to comment, as it does on development plans and on individual planning applications. It is also right that there should be an opportunity to challenge the granting of planning permission by a local authority through the judicial review process.
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned one of the difficulties that could arise from a universal third-party right of appeal: the impact that it could have on the decision-making process and the fact that it might be used as a device to delay or to veto applications that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable and bring jobs and regeneration to local communities. It is a difficult issue. I am not persuaded that a universal third-party right of appeal is either desirable in principle or an inevitable consequence of the Human Rights Act, but I am aware that there is pressure for it and I am sure that that pressure will continue.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned retrospective appeals, whereby a developer does not apply for permission, but simply does something and then goes back to the local authority. That is reprehensible; it is always so. The hon. Gentleman said that occasionally there are reasons for it—perhaps reasons not of intent, but of omission. Local authorities should take a strong line when that occurs. Indeed, they have the power to do so. They must use their power not only to make individual decisions, but to send the right message to developers that they will not tolerate people who ride roughshod over the planning process.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that a predisposition to sustainable development, rather than what he regarded as a predisposition to development, was
40WH
important. I do not accept that distinction. In my earlier remarks, I tried to convey that development is an important issue, which need not necessarily be a negative one.
The issue of human rights was raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and others. It is correct that, in four test cases, the divisional court found that various planning processes might not be compatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The court also found that the Secretary of State was not acting unlawfully, which is important. The judgment was directed to the House of Lords on appeal, which heard the case at the end of February. We are awaiting judgment and expert it to be announced in May or early June. I can comment no further for that reason.
On telecommunications, I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne that this Government established the Stewart inquiry and that we are continuing to support substantial research on health and other issues. An announcement was made last Friday. which the Minister for Housing and Planning communicated to all hon. Members with constituencies in England, as well as to all council leaders and chief planning officers, so everyone is fully informed.
The series of important changes to the planning system for telecommunications masts significantly strengthen the current arrangements. We shall strengthen public consultation requirements on proposals for masts of 15 m and under, so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. We shall increase the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 42 to 56 days, which is the same period as that for a full planning application. We have underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college. We have increased the fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
We shall introduce those changes and revised planning policy guidance at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister clarify what she means by "on or near"? Apparently, there is no effect outside a certain distance.
Ms Hughes: There will be further information about that. From the Stewart report, "on" means "on the premises" and "near" would normally relate to the beam of greatest intensity falling on some part of the school premises. Stewart raised those issues and those are the parameters.
Hon. Members' views have been less than rounded on the importance of development. Although I acknowledge that there may be individual issues, they should take a wider view. They have been unnecessarily critical of the planning system, which involves difficult issues. We inherited a seriously flawed system and have spent a lot of time modernising it. Many of the changes have been introduced to ensure that all those involved, especially local people, get a fair say. The process needs to be transparent and one with which people can engage more easily. I believe that the planning system pays heed as far as possible to all points of view in relation to development control decisions.

Lorayne Buckley
12.30 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I want to talk about the case of the late Lorayne Buckley, a former constituent of mine, who I believe died because of inappropriate treatment and wrong assessment of her medical condition while an NHS patient. Although lengthy, the case is fairly straightforward.
Lorayne Buckley was born on 21 December 1956, and she was a normal, healthy baby. Aged approximately three months, she was injected with a vaccine against whooping cough by her local doctor—an action that was widely advised by the Government of the day—to ensure her better health in later years. In the following months, her parents noticed that she did not respond to sound and noise, and they duly notified their doctor, who referred Lorayne for various tests. After the tests were completed she was diagnosed, at the age of 14 months, as profoundly deaf.
Lorayne's parents were loving and caring, and they did their best in very difficult circumstances. However, at the age of eight or nine she developed epilepsy, and her family were subsequently informed that that was a result of the injection. According to NHS statistics, the chances of that happening were three in a million. From that age onwards, Lorayne was reliant on anticonvulsant drugs, which were used on many occasions over the years. Nevertheless, she had fits every day of her life.
Some of the drugs caused serious side effects such as swollen joints and hyperactivity, which are common among youngsters who suffer from epilepsy. By the mid-1990s, Lorayne was being prescribed Epilim, Rivotril and Frisium, which limited her fits to about three or four a day. As her parents pointed out, thanks to the excellent attention of NHS staff she had some semblance of life, even though she needed attendance 24 hours a day. Of course, she could not go out alone or do anything unattended. She had to be taken to the toilet, washed and given her medication, and was unable to do any kind of work. For example, she could not go anywhere near a kitchen in case she had an epileptic spasm near a hot kettle or oven.
I have outlined the background to give some idea of Lorayne's condition and the reasons why she needed, and received, constant attention. Like most caring parents with a sick child, Lorayne's mother and father were open to advice from professionals. At an early stage, they took the advice of NHS professionals and bought a book entitled "A Consumer's Guide to Prescription Medicines". They followed its advice meticulously, and it enabled them to be aware of any side effects of any drug prescribed for Lorayne. It proved invaluable, in that on many occasions it enabled them to inform Lorayne's doctor of such side effects. Indeed, all the consultants to whom I have spoken continue openly and actively to encourage parents to obtain the book.
However, having a child with many day-to-day health and other problems carries a cost. As we all know, in many cases respite care is needed not just for patients but for their carers. In February 1997, while Mr. and Mrs. Buckley were on holiday taking a break, Lorayne
42WH
attended the respite care centre in Lyndsey close in my constituency. Lorayne had an epileptic spasm during her short stay, which caused her to suffer an accidental fall. She was taken to King's Mill hospital in Mansfield where she received stitches to a head wound. Unfortunately, while she was in hospital, staff did not examine her notes properly. She was given inappropriate drugs, which resulted in her medication going haywire, and she became dramatically over-drugged. King's Mill hospital later admitted that there had been a communication breakdown and duly apologised. The family accepted that the situation was the result of a genuine mistake.
Lorayne was introduced to three new sedatives during her stay at the hospital in 1997. However, she was already taking three anti-convulsant drugs, all of which came with strict warnings that caution would be needed if they were taken with other sedatives: the sedatives came with warnings that caution would be needed if they were taken with anti-convulsant drugs. Lorayne was taking three anti-convulsant drugs and three sedatives-a dangerous scenario. The situation alerted her parents to the problems that would occur if she were prescribed the same or similar combinations of drugs. It took months to wean Lorayne from those drugs, during which time she became severely destabilised.
Dr. Mukherjee was in charge of Lorayne's care during that period. As her condition worsened, Dr. Mukherjee continued the combination of drugs, despite several weeks of protest from her parents. When hospital staff informed Dr. Mukherjee that Lorayne's condition deteriorated when she took her medicine, Dr. Mukherjee said that that was "not clinically proven". When Lorayne's parents asked Dr. Mukherjee to explain that terminology, she said proof that the treatment caused the effects was unavailable. They found that exasperating. The extra drugs were taken away from Lorayne when she transferred back to the respite care centre in Lyndsey close, which caused her condition to improve dramatically.
Obviously. Lorayne's family did not want Dr. Mukherjee involved with her care, because it had taken months to wean her from the wrong drugs. That the drugs were wrong was proved on 21 July 1999 when, following consultation between Dr. Sands and Dr. Houghton of the King's Mill centre—both of whom were previous consultants to Lorayne—and her parents, it was decided to return to the medication that Lorayne had been receiving before she was admitted to hospital. At a further meeting on 4 August 1999, Dr. Houghton and Lorayne's parents agreed to a 28-day trial period on new medication, on the understanding that if her condition worsened they were to contact him immediately.
Lorayne's condition had deteriorated rapidly by 23 August 1999. She was having up to 10 fits at a time and her parents had to administer a suppository of up to 10 mg of diazepam twice nightly. They therefore went, as advised, to see the nurse, who had access to the consultant. Unfortunately, Dr. Houghton was on holiday, and because of the family's previous experiences they refused to see Dr. Mukherjee, who they were informed was the duty doctor. They opted instead to see Dr. Narayana, who said that he would be available on 24 August.

43WH
My inquiries have revealed that Dr. Mukherjee was not the doctor on call when Mr. and Mrs. Buckley went for help on 23 August. Dr. Narayana was on call, but unfortunately he had to attend a funeral that afternoon. Nevertheless, he agreed to make himself available on the following morning. However, because of the scale of the problems, Lorayne's parents, while agreeing to the consultation on the following day, suggested to the nurse on duty that Lorayne needed a small amount of the drug Frisium to calm her down, plus more Epilim to control her fits. Both those drugs were known to help her condition.
On the morning of 24 August 1999, the nurse on duty telephoned to say that although Dr. Narayana agreed with what Mr. and Mrs. Buckley had suggested, he refused to alter another doctor's medication prescription. Bewildered, confused and angry, Mr. and Mrs. Buckley told the nurse that they were going to give Lorayne more Frisium, as she was still below her 1996 levels. After consultation, the nurse informed them by telephone that Dr. Narayana agreed with that, but he again refused to authorise it. One has to ask oneself what kind of an answer that was to give to two extremely distressed parents. He asked them instead to await Dr. Houghton's return seven days later. Amazingly, although Lorayne's fits had increased, he did not consider the situation to be an emergency.
What makes Dr. Narayana's decision especially strange is the fact that he was personally familiar with Lorayne's condition, having been one of her consultants over the years. Her case was well known to him. Indeed, such was Mr. and Mrs. Buckley's status that he agreed that, whenever Lorayne's condition worsened, they should immediately telephone his nurse or secretary for advice on any new medication or actions to aid her. In view of Lorayne's condition, it was standard practice for her parents to bypass their own GP and contact Dr. Narayana's nurse directly—which they had done on many previous occasions.
Sadly,.by 5 am on Sunday 29 August 1999, Lorayne was having so many spasms that her parents rushed her to the King's Mill centre, where she was given an injection by a doctor on duty to stop her fits. Her dosage of Epilim was increased to 500 mg a day, which was later confirmed by the hospital as exactly what should have been done in the circumstances. On this occasion, the admitting doctor on duty at the. King's Mill centre said that the extra Epilim would take five days to build up in her system and, as she was stabilising, he discharged her on Sunday 29 August.
Unfortunately, on the morning of Tuesday 31 August, Lorayne started to have more fits, and she was readmitted to the King's Mill centre. On Wednesday 1 September, her spasms had built up to one every two minutes, and the doctor on duty at the King's Mill centre said that he did not know what on earth to do. He sought advice from the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham, which is the largest teaching hospital in the county, and was told to administer a drug called Phenytoin—which was experimental in terms of dealing with epilepsy and was known to have major side effects—in three separate doses, at three to four hour intervals. That medication was administered at 3 pm
44WH
and 9 pm on 1 September and at 3 am on 2 September by a junior doctor as both the centre's senior doctors were still away on holiday.
What followed was devastating. Lorayne developed a red skin. At first, her parents were told that the symptom would disappear, and she was discharged on Friday 3 September. They were instructed to continue to administer 300 mg of Phenytoin per day to their daughter. By Saturday 4 September, Lorayne's skin was so red and irritated that the couple called out the emergency doctor. They were then told to reduce the phenytoin to 100 mg a day, which they did. On Sunday 5 September, they had to call the emergency doctor again, who immediately admitted Lorayne to the King's Mill centre, Her skin had started to blister, and she was given paracetamol as a painkiller.
It is amazing, given the circumstances, that it took two days for a dermatologist to come to examine Lorayne. On 7 September 1999, he transferred her to the intensive care bunts unit at Nottingham city hospital. She was immediately given the maximum dose of morphine, which was continued until she died on Saturday 11 September 1999.
By the time of her death, all Lorayne Buckley's vital internal organs had collapsed. She had 11 machines attached to her body to keep her alive. One was to keep her heart beating and another to keep her lungs working. One machine kept up her blood pressure and another replaced her immune system. Worse still—if that were possible—the Phenytoin therapy had caused her skin to blister and fall off her body. She had 100 per cent. infected burrs.
Lorayne's parents and the junior doctor involved had been advised only that Phenytoin might cause some adverse reactions. The truth is somewhat different, and can be found in medical records. I have established that Phenytoin can decrease co-ordination. It can cause mental confusion, transient nervousness, motor twitchings, headaches, nausea, vomiting and liver damage. All such effects are worrying factors where epilepsy is concerned. It can also cause dermatological manifestations, including fatal rashes such as bullous exfoliative, or Purpuric dermatitis, erythematosus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
Hemopoietic complications, some fatal, have also been reported as associated with the use of Phenytoin. Explicit warnings have been attached to the use of the drug for particular patients, such as those who are on other medication. Those include diazepam, which, as her records clearly stated, Lorayne had been prescribed for many years. A specific warning is also given to substitute alternative therapy in the event of an allergic reaction. That did not happen in Lorayne's case. Phenytoin continued to be administered until its effects were irreversible. Her skin moved from a state of blushing to a state of intensive burns.
Lorayne Buckley died without any skin on her body—it had either fallen off, or had had to be cut off in strips by hospital staff. She could not be given antibiotics, only morphine to ease her horrendous pain. Lorayne knew no language to describe that pain because she was profoundly deaf. She could only be comforted by her loving parents, who held her hand through the

45WH
torturous time until, at 11 am on 22 September, the decision was taken to stop the machines that had been keeping her alive, and she died.
At the inquest, the questions raised by the coroner included what treatment Lorayne should have received in the latter period of her life. The answers given only raise further questions about her sad demise.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions about this very serious case. Why did Dr. Mukherjee insist that Lorayne's drug regime be changed in the first place? Why did Dr. Houghton ask for a further 28-day trial period? Why did Dr. Narayana refuse to alter Lorayne's medical treatment when he was aware of the problems and the analysis of her drug needs? Why did the consultant at Queen's medical centre prescribe Phenytoin, and did he or she fully explain its dangers to the junior doctor on duty at King's Mill centre that day? Why did the treatment not cease when the first rash appeared on Lorayne's skin while she was in hospital? Why was she discharged while under the therapy and with a rash on her body? Why was Phenytoin continued after her discharge and why did a dermatologist not examine her for two days, by which time her burns were so severe that she had to be rushed to an intensive care burns unit? Why has a public or independent inquiry into the case not been granted, particularly following the coroner's report? Last, but not least why are drugs such as Phenytoin still being prescribed for epileptics by consultants employed by the national health service?
Amazingly, Lorayne's parents hold no anger against the national health service, which they believe helped her throughout her difficult and tormented life. They still talk proudly of the hospital staff who regularly cared for their daughter for many years, particularly those in the national health service King's Mill centre. However, the crux of the matter is that when they applied for an independent review of what happened to their daughter, they were refused. When I raised the matter with the local health authority and the ombudsman, I received a polite refusal. They even refused to listen to the coroner's tapes of the inquest. I have raised the case with the local hospital, which has been helpful, but still there has been no investigation.
My constituents—Lorayne's parents—are elderly and not interested in vengeance or financial compensation. They have told me that either of those, particularly financial compensation, would be an insult to their daughter's memory. They simply want justice, openness and honesty. They want to know how and why the mistakes were made, and to warn others about the dangers connected with drugs, particularly Phenytoin. That is the least we should give them, and I beg the Minister, in the spirit of openness that the Government are so proud to espouse, to use her office to achieve that, by ordering an inquiry as soon as possible.
12.52
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on obtaining a debate on this important matter. I know that he has taken a personal interest in Lorayne Buckley's case and is anxious that lessons should be learned from her tragic death, which he described so poignantly.
Lorayne Buckley had experienced physical and mental health problems, including epilepsy, throughout her childhood. Neurological conditions such as epilepsy
46WH
are life-long and their impact often extends far beyond the individual concerned to family members. I know that Lorayne's parents devoted their lives to caring for her and their devotion enabled Lorayne to live at home, apart from short spells of respite care. I know that the Chamber recognises her parents' commitment and the selfless way in which they strived to meet her complex needs.
My hon. Friend raised a series of points about Lorayne's care at different stages of her life, and I shall respond to some of those in turn. First, concerning the treatment and care that Lorayne was given during the months before 31 August 1999, I know that Mr. Buckley has made a formal complaint to the trust, and that it followed the NHS complaints procedures. I want to examine how many of the points made by my hon. Friend were considered under the complaints procedure, and I will write to him with a detailed response on the points that were not considered.
I know that some of those issues were referred to the health service ombudsman. As he will know, the ombudsman is independent of the NHS and of Ministers. It is his job to decide whether and when to investigate particular cases. I understand that he has considered the particular issues that were raised by Mr. Buckley, taken independent clinical advice and decided that no further action is needed. Clearly, that is a matter for the ombudsman, but I will look into precisely which issues were taken up with him, and into those to which further response is needed.
Other issues were raised concerning the immediate and urgent medical intervention that took place once Lorayne's condition deteriorated. As I understand it, those issues were not considered by the NHS ombudsman or through the NHS complaints procedure, and it is true that some questions need to be answered. On 31 August 1999, Lorayne was admitted to the King's Mill centre in Sutton in Ashfield so that her condition could be stabilised, and she was given Phenytoin. Phenytoin is a commonly prescribed anti-convulsant that has been used since the early 1960s to treat most types of seizure disorders, and it is widely used in the treatment of grand mal epilepsy and partial seizures. Lorayne was discharged on 3 September, but was readmitted two days later with a rash and oedema to her whole body. Her condition deteriorated, and as my hon. Friend said, she was transferred to the burns unit.
Mr. Meale: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for her willingness to re-examine all the matters that I raised in my speech. However, I am worried by what I have found out about this drug through the internet. Many senior medical consultants still do not know its effects. A new drug was given to someone who was clearly listed as in receipt of a range of other drugs, even though all medical evidence, including that on the internet, makes it clear that those drugs should not be mixed. One possible immediate effect is a rash, which can easily be fatal. Although I am grateful to the Minister for what she has done, I am worried that the same might happen to other patients, and I ask her to examine the matter urgently.
Yvette Cooper: Phenytoin is not a new drug—it has been in common use for about 40 years. My hon. Friend

47WH
will know that on issues such as this we take the advice of the Medicines Control Agency, which informed me that serious skin reactions to Phenytoin result in hospitalisation in less than one in 100,000 cases. Phenytoin is used to treat epilepsy, which itself can be a life-threatening condition. Other treatments for epilepsy also have rare but serious side effects.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about whether Phenytoin should have been used in this particular case, and I accept that questions arise in that regard. The advice that was given to the parents on what reactions to look out for, and the point at which serious reactions should have been spotted and addressed are matters that need to be dealt with. They go beyond the broader question of the use of Phenytoin, which has been in use for many years. However, I accept that the matter should be investigated by the King's Mill centre.
The normal NHS complaints procedure is time-limited, and this complaint would normally be out of time. However, if Mr. Buckley and his family wish, I shall ask the trust to investigate the use of that drug in that case, and the treatment and care that Lorayne was given at Kings Mill during those critical hours. It is important that those issues are addressed and resolved, for the families concerned.
Mr. Meale: I thank the Minister for her response.
Yvette Cooper: And I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that that the investigation will go some way to resolving the understandable concerns of families who have lost a child in such devastating circumstances.

Fish Stocks
1 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I preface my remarks by placing on the record my sincere thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his unfailing courtesy during all of our debates during this Parliament? He and I have never agreed on fisheries policy, but nevertheless, I appreciate the manner in which he has responded to my frequent speeches on the subject. This will be probably my last opportunity to say that, because I am standing down at the next election.
I am sad to have to point out the error of Ministers' ways once again. I am sure that they are wrong not out of ignorance but out of an adherence to a profoundly mistaken and dangerous ideology. Fishing policy is determined by the political imperative of European integration; of that I have no doubt. The objective is to create an EU fishing fleet catching EU fish in EU waters under an EU permit system controlled by Brussels. That is the price that the British fishing industry must pay as its contribution towards the realisation of European political union, and nothing, not even the conservation of fish stocks, must be allowed to stand in the way of achieving the nirvana—nirvana being defined as the state of perfect bliss attained by the extinction of individuality. In the context of the fishing industry, we are talking about the extinction not of individuality but of fish stocks.
In previous fisheries debates, I have covered many other aspects of the niquitous common fisheries policy, but today I want to concentrate exclusively on the question of feedstocks: the sand eel—which for the benefit of the Minister in another place I should point out lives on the bottom of the sea, not on the surface—the pout and the sprat. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow me if I refer to those species as being at the base of the pyramid of life. At the top of the pyramid are the bigger fish species, such as cod and haddock, which are sought after for human consumption. The bigger fish are dependent on smaller fish for their food. It follows, therefore, that if the stocks of smaller fish are drastically reduced by the continuation of industrial fishing, cod, haddock and the like will starve. That is a self-evident fact, but what does the European Community do?
As I pointed out in a debate this time last year:
"the sand eel total allowable catch was increased from 1 million tonnes to 1,020,000 tonnes."—[0fficial Report, Westminster Hall, 9 February 2000; Vol. 344, c 80WH]
During this year's round of quota setting, far from reducing the sand eel total allowable catch, the Council of Ministers agreed to set it at the same level. When there is real concern about the future viability of cod stocks, it is more than a little ironic that the hoovering up of feedstocks continues apace. It is a further irony that whole sea areas have been closed to cod fishing, but not to fishing for industrial purposes—in other words, fishing for feedstock continues, as if Ministers and their advisers were totally ignorant of the dependence of the larger species on the smaller ones that are regularly removed from the sea for land-based purposes, including feeding pigs and poultry. If quotas for sand eels and pout had been reduced to match matched

49WH
reductions in the total allowable catches for cod, for example, they would now be at about 250,000 tonnes for sand eels instead of 1 million tonnes, and 30,000 tonnes for pout instead of 200,000 tonnes.
Ministers know those facts as well as I do, but what action do they take? They ignore the facts of life—the dependency of cod and other species on the availability of adequate feedstocks—and blame the shortage of mature fish on the idea that too many vessels are chasing too few fish. What a travesty of the truth. It is a sad reflection on Ministers of the Crown that they are prepared to be party to that monstrous and wicked deception. That is especially true of this Fisheries Minister, who professes such a commitment to animal welfare. When he answers on the day of judgment, as will we all in time, the saving of the lives of a few foxes or a handful of badgers will look small beer compared to the mass destruction of the marine resource over which he has presided.
For the past four years, the Minister has been responsible for implementing policies whose result has been that as many fish are thrown back dead into the sea as are landed. His policies are systematically destroying the basis of the marine pyramid of life. The same Minister has acquiesced in the abandonment of the minimum landing size for no fewer than 11 species. They are now legally caught before they have had the chance to spawn even once. He has at long last agreed technical measures but, perversely, they have been implemented in such a cack-handed way as to defeat the object of the exercise.
The pyramid of life has been t turned upside down. However charitable one might want to be to the Minister, there is no denying that this totally unacceptable and irresponsible state of affairs has been brought about by the conscious and deliberate action of Ministers, aided and abetted by others who should also know better. For example, I find it extraordinary that Professor Tony Hawkins, senior administrator of Fisheries Research Services at Aberdeen, should have stated last December that growth rates always tend to slow down when a big year class is recruited. If the current abundance of young haddock are not growing, that is not because of a big recruitment, but because the feedstock are being plundered. That plunder is the result of a deliberate political decision.
An increase in fish population requires an increase in food sources. The exemption of industrial fishing for sand eels and the like ensures that the opposite occurs. I must keep stressing the point to the Minister: it occurs because of a deliberate political decision taken in the Council of Ministers.
Two weeks ago, Dr. Paul Brady, the head of the Scottish fisheries group, stated that in the opinion of some of his scientists a cull of young haddock would not necessarily be a bad thing. That point of view is clearly not shared by the fishermen, who, in an unprecedented display of solidarity, kept their vessels in harbour in protest rather than go to sea to catch tonnes of immature haddock only to have to throw them back dead into the sea. The Minister will have seen that recent editions of Fishing News demonstrate the strength of feeling among fishermen on that issue.
Fishermen are often accused of irresponsibility towards the fish stocks on which their livelihoods depend. However, the events of the past fortnight
50WH
demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are very responsible, and are conscious of the effects of treating the fish stocks in an unsatisfactory way. That is why they are keeping their vessels in harbour rather than going into the fishing grounds that they are being driven into by the closure of certain areas of cod fishing.
Last week, when I asked the Minister in a question for written answer:
"what assessment he has made of the impact upon haddock stocks resulting from the closure of North Sea cod areas"
he replied:"Given the prevalence of juvenile haddock in the northern North Sea urgent consideration is being given to improve technical conservation measures."—[Official Report, 12 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 483W.]
The answer to practically every fisheries problem is to talk about conservation, yet almost invariably, the action taken is to the detriment of conservation. The Minister repeated the mantra of sound conservation in his article in The Western Morning News of 12 March.
Conservation is simply the smokecreen behind which ruthless and ever more desperate measures are taken to ensure that by 1 January 2003, the real common fisheries policy—of equal access to the common resource—can be fully implemented. In pursuit of that political objective, not only are the fishermen expendable—that has been known for 30 years or more—but now the very fish themselves must be sacrificed on the high altar of European integration.
However, despite all the obstacles that have been put in their way, such has been the resilience of British fishermen that in the eyes of the EC there are still too many of them. Fanciful as this may seem, the decimation of their stock in trade is now the official policy by which the British fishermen are to be brought to heel.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley) > indicated dissent.
Mr. Gill: The Minister shakes his head, but that is what the debate is all about, and that is the point that I have consistently put to him throughout this Parliament. On occasions, of course, he has said that I have been consistently wrong. I take the other view. I think that I have been consistently right, and that events have proved me so.
However, I understand that the Minister is bound by the collective responsibility of his Government—to deliver European integration. They will not let a few thousand fishermen stand in the way of that. The fishermen have, in effect, to be driven off the waters to make way for other fishermen from other EU countries as from the end of next year, when the real CFP begins.
One Scottish fisherman recently remarked:
"If only you'd listened to Tom Hay 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation today."However, we are in this situation, and in response to the Minister's challenge, published on 12 March in The Western Morning News, I will again tell the House what the alternative is. It is for the control of fisheries policy to be repatriated. There is no alternative to that, because it is a fact of life, human nature being what it is, that

51WH
something that belongs to everybody belongs to nobody. If nobody has the sense of ownership of a thing, it is not treated in the responsible way in which our fish stocks need to be treated. Unfortunately, that does not suit the political aspirations of a Labour Government. least of all one so wholeheartedly in favour of European integration, as evidenced by their recent surrender of 39 out of 45 vetoes at the Nice summit.
My friends in the fishing industry and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the House surely recognise that the collectivisation of the British fishing industry is inimical both to their commercial interests and to their political instincts. Telling the fisherman what he may catch, where he may catch it and in what quantities, where he may land—and, with smaller ports, when he may land—is as close to communism as one can get. That the ultimate collectivisation of the fishing industry should lead to the destruction of the fish stocks is wicked beyond belief. If the Minister had a grain of conscience, he would resign rather than be party to a regime that professes conservation yet permits mesh sizes of less than 16 mm. To speak of too many vessels chasing too few fish, to speak of the need to conserve fish stocks, to say that fish know no boundaries, yet at the same time to protect the seal and allow industrial fishermen to hoover up the fish on which our stocks depend, is indefensible. All that is for the sake of a political ideology that is bound to fail in western Europe as surely as it failed in the former USSR.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on obtaining this debate. I am pleased that he did so, because it gives me the opportunity to deal with some aspects of industrial fishing, particularly those raised in a recent newspaper article by Mr. Christopher Booker, which was full of half truths and did not address the real problem.
The hon. Gentleman said some kind words about me—before starting the assassination job—and I shall miss him when he goes. Although he does not represent a fishing constituency, no one can doubt his sincere interest in fishing matters. Although some of his hon. Friends initially showed an interest in fishing, they soon disappeared from the scene, but the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his attendance at fishery debates and his involvement in the arguments. I respect him for that even, though, as he stated, I do not agree with him.
The common fisheries policy is not without its faults. No one pretends otherwise. The Commission's Green Paper gives us a good opportunity to address some of those weaknesses and to try to improve matters. The CFP is not a great conspiracy designed to allow an integrated Europe in through the back door. The fishing policy is a European Union measure, but it allows a great element of national discretion. Its overwhelming priority is conservation. We can, of course, argue about how it should be applied, but the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise some basic facts.
The argument that the CFP is all about sweeping the seas clear of British fishermen to make way for other European fleets is nonsense. We have our national
52WH
quota, which is now fixed on the principle of relative stability. I do not say, as the hon. Gentleman tries to claim I do, that this is a question of too many boats catching too few fish. He and others in the fishing industry point to convenient scapegoats such as industrial fishing, or seals, and say that they are responsible for the decline in fish stocks, but that is not supported by scientific evidence. During the past 10 years, the UK fleet has been reduced by about 30 per cent., but at the same time, landings have increased as a result of greater effort improved technology and better design. That is what is affecting fish stocks. The reason for the dramatic decline in fish stocks is pure and simple. It is over-fishing.
Mr. Gill: I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the answer that he gave me a month ago in response to a written question. He pointed out that the total amount of cod and haddock landed had drastically fallen during our 30-year membership of the European Union. Catches of haddock of 176,000 tonnes in 1971 had been reduced to approximately 75,000 tonnes last year. That is a dramatic redaction in landings and a sad commentary on the efficacy of the common fisheries policy.
Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that there has been such a decline in cod and haddock stocks. Of course, fishermen have switched to catching other species and other fisheries have developed. That is all part of the new challenge for fisheries management. However, it is wrong to suggest that that is all the fault of the common fisheries policy. The hon. Gentleman could argue that the common fisheries policy had dealt inadequately with management issues, and I believe that such an argument can be made. However, on the subject of discards, I have thrown down the challenge many times by inquiring about the alternatives. I am keen to pursue alternatives because there is a problem with discards. It is not a new problem; it has been around for a long time. The bulk of discards—undersized and unmarketable fish—are a by-product of normal fishing. We should not lose sight of that fact.
No one has defined national control, except as withdrawing completely from the CFP, tearing up the treaty of Rome and withdrawing from the European Union. Some people argue, as is their democratic right, that we should do that—but they should argue from that viewpoint rather than trying to pretend that we can make fundamental changes to the treaty without those consequences. Even if we had complete national control, there would still be a need to control effort on fish stocks and to set a biological limit on what fishermen may catch and land. It would still be necessary to decide how to divide fish stocks within the industry.
Every other fishing state, including those outside the CFP, has a quota management regime. Every fishing state has the problem of discards. Some approach the problem in a different way, such as requiring vessels to land all discards. Indeed, I do not rule out that approach, although it has its problems. First, such a requirement is difficult to enforce. Secondly, landing all discards does not solve the problem, because we should be reducing the amount of fish discarded. Those are serious issues, which we intend to address.

53WH
On minimum landing sizes—something that we have argued about before—there is a logic in what the Commission is saying. If fishermen are not prepared to increase mesh sizes, a great many fish will be killed. In that respect, there is a brutal logic in lowering the minimum landing size, although that is not the approach that we support in the United Kingdom, or the approach that I supported in the Council of Ministers, because it sends the wrong signals to the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I argued successfully for increasing the minimum landing size of plaice—a change that was supported by other member states, and which has now been established.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that I have never supported industrial fishing. In fact, I have consistently argued against it. I have argued that human consumption of fish should always take precedence over industrial fisheries for non-human use. This is the first Government to have made progress in tackling the issue of industrial fishing. For example, I secured agreement at the Council of Ministers to a three-year total closure of the sand eel fisheries off the north-east coast of Britain, in the light of scientific advice that sand eel fishing was damaging the rate at which small seabirds, such as kittiwakes, were able to reproduce. In the case of kittiwakes, we can measure breeding success. In relation to that three-year closure, we are applying scientific principles and discussing with the Danes the impact on the ecosystem of catching sand eels for industrial fishing. That is a great step forward, and as achieved with the co-operation of the Danes, which I very much appreciate.
Mr. Gill: Surely the Minister recognises that if we were to repatriate control over our own fisheries, we would be able to determine the ground rules—for example, those relating to industrial fishing. At the moment, as he knows, he must go back to Brussels to consult the Council of Ministers, and it is always jam tomorrow. It is not possible to continue on that basis, because there is great danger of losing the feedstocks. If that happens, the mature fish will be lost. We do not need a scientific inquiry. We just need to talk to the trawler deck hands who gut the fish and find in their stomachs ever fewer of the sand eels on which the mature fish depend.
Mr. Morley: I shall come to those points in a moment, but that argument is flawed. The hon. Gentleman is right. If we had absolute national control we could, theoretically, ban industrial fishing in our waters—although I should point out that we have a small industrial fishery of our own. However, if industrial fishing is producing the dire consequences that the hon. Gentleman describes, and given that we could control only half the North sea-at the approach to the English Channel that amounts to a very small proportion of the sea—and as the industrial fishing would presumably continue unabated, or perhaps even more intensively, just over the boundary line, it is nonsense to pretend that there would be no effect on our stocks or our fishery.
An advantage of an EU-wide fisheries policy is that the United Kingdom is making progress with arguments for restrictions on industrial fishing across all EU waters
54WH
and the entire EU fleet. At the previous Council, I reached agreement with the Danes on beginning official talks to establish whether the total allowable catch that the hon. Gentleman mentioned for sand eels was too high—as I think it is—and to consider what would be a more appropriate level. Those talks are getting under way. It is also agreed that UK scientists and discard experts should, at the invitation of the Danish Government, sail on Danish industrial vessels to see at I first hand the landing and by-catch sampling arrangements. Those visits have been agreed and will happen between now and June. No one else has managed to obtain such an agreement. Our scientists will be on board Danish vessels, working with Danish scientists, to study the issue of by-catch, to see what the fishery is taking and to consider its impact.
Our scientific advice on the sand eel fishery is that the by-catch is less than 2 per cent. of cod. We can examine that advice. There are disputes about it. I have spoken to our own skippers who say that a clean sand eel fishery is possible. Things are not the same with respect to the Norwegian pout fishery, which has a much higher level of by-catch. It is for that reason that it is not allowed in the closed areas. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that, according to our scientists, sand eels make up only a small part of the cod's diet—about 4 per cent. A scientific paper on that is due to be published shortly.
Mr. Gill: The Minister spoke about further talks and inquiries. What happened to the inquiry that was set up in 1996? Where is its result? We do not want to have to repeat inquiries endlessly. We want results.
Mr. Morley: I am not familiar with the 1996 inquiry, because I was not a Minister at the time and we were not in government. However, I do not think that any attempt has previously been made to deal with the matter in the depth that we are going into, or with the co-operation of the Danes. To be fair to them, if it is possible to demonstrate scientifically that there is a problem with the fishery in question, we shall take that seriously and approach the matter accordingly. We are working with the Danes to identify the relevant issues. We did not receive much support from other member states in doing that. It is the UK and the Danes who are proceeding with joint studies, because we take the issue seriously.
As for the haddock fishery in Scotland, there are ways of reducing haddock juvenile by-catch. We have already had quite a long debate about that in Westminster Hall. The Scottish Executive are introducing a range of amended technical measures, on matters such as reducing net extensions, the positioning of square mesh panels and the banning of lifting bags. The industry is also considering other matters, such as twine thickness.
I pay tribute to the industry's efforts to engage seriously with the issue. We are working with the industry, which has been involved to an unprecedented degree in decision making. However, I should comment on that part of the industry that was recently sitting in ports, involved in a campaign for tie-up grants that amounted to telling us, to put it crudely, "Give us the money, or the haddock get it." We need a more sophisticated approach to fisheries management. A common EU approach is the way forward. The UK has

55WH
influence on this issue, and people listen to us. We are pursuing the matter for the future, in a way that will benefit fisheries conservation.
Mr. Gill: The Minister knows that the industry has suggested all sorts of technical improvements in the past, yet the situation remains as he described.
Mr. Morley: A long process must be delivered, and that is what we intend to do.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Trooper Christopher Young
1.30 pm
Mr. Denis Murphy: I thank the House for allowing me this debate on the issues raised by the inquiry into the death of Trooper Christopher Young.
On 24 February 1999, on behalf of Christopher's parents, his mother, Heather, and stepfather, Terry, I asked several questions in an Adjournment debate in the House. As background, I shall give a brief outline of the facts that led up to Christopher's tragic death.
From joining the Army, Christopher was recognised as a first-class solider, and he was well thought of by both his superiors and his peers. He matured into a confident and decent young man of whom his parents were justifiably proud.
Christopher changed dramatically after his return from a tour of duty in Bosnia in 1993. On his way home for leave at Christmas, at the end of what was for him a terrible tour of duty, his wallet containing his identification was stolen, and he was involved in a fight with another soldier He was arrested and received 28 days' detention and loss of leave and pay as punishment.
During his detention, at Hohne, in Germany, Christopher asked to see a Women's Royal Voluntary Service volunteer attached to the Light Dragoons. I am informed that she subsequently told Christopher's parents that it was obvious that Christopher had a recognisable fear of returning to Bosnia. She was so worried about Christopher's psychological condition that she made strenuous representations to his commanding officer, asking that Christopher be granted a period of unscheduled leave as a respite. She felt that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Christopher was granted home leave at the conclusion of his punishment. On seeing him, his parents were shocked at the change in him. He wanted to leave the Army, and he told his parents that if he were successful in requesting a discharge, it would be complete by August 1994.
Christopher returned home to his parents in July 1994. Nothing then or in the following months suggested to his parents that there was anything irregular about the way in which he had left the Army. He was in fact absent without leave. Having left his regiment without authority, he failed to report to Bovington camp for final clearance and documentation.
Christopher made no attempt to hide the fact that he was living in the family home. He registered with the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, giving his parents' address as his own. His driving licence, car registration and medical records were registered to that address. It came as a complete surprise to Christopher's stepfather, who was then and still is a serving police officer with the Northumbria force, to discover that Ashington police had received a fax from the Royal Military Police in Chichester on Monday 19 June 1995. The fax listed Christopher as absent without leave from the Army since 2 August 1994—nearly 11 months.
Christopher was made aware of the police inquiry and the warrant for his arrest on the evening of 19 June. He confessed to his mother that he was absent without leave and owed money. He gave no other details, but was

57WH
worried that he would, in his words, do "serious Army time". He was adamant that he would not return to his unit in Germany, as he feared that he would be sent back to Bosnia. He told his mother that he would rather be dead than return to the Army.
Christopher left the house saying, that he wanted time to himself to think things through. That was, sadly, the last time that anyone saw him alive. His body was found on the east coast main line near the village of Acklington. He had committed suicide. He was 23 years of age.
In replying to the many questions that I asked in the Adjournment debate, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), gave an undertaking to hold an inquiry into the events surrounding Christopher's death. His response concluded:
"The Army has a clear responsibility to retrieve documents, to settle possible outstanding wages and to ensure that proper procedures had been followed in any discharge…we have a duty to explain all the circumstances to the family of Christopher Young. I recognise that it is important in that explanation to make the most direct contact possible and I undertake to do that".—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 354.] That inquiry was conducted, and on 16 December 1999 I received a letter from the then Minister for the Armed Forces containing the inquiry's conclusions. I met Christopher's parents, who were disappointed that the inquiry had not addressed the issues that they had raised. We subsequently requested a full copy of the investigating officer's report, which was sent. However, there were several omissions, primarily of witness statements. I wrote back to the then Minister for the Armed Forces on 19 July requesting copies of those statements. In his reply on 4 August 2000, he informed me that his officials would write to the people concerned asking permission for the release of their statements. He said that, understandably, that would take some time, and asked for patience while the matter was being addressed. We have been patient for more than eight months.
Several issues are still outstanding from the inquiry's conclusions, of which we have only a summary dated 16 December 1999. On page 1 of the letter, the then Minister for the Armed Forces concedes that the first entry made by the central criminal records and information office of the Royal Military Police was on 26 January 1995, six months after Christopher was officially listed as absent without leave. He states that CCRIO archives have been searched and that there is no trace of any signals having been received that would normally be issued in connection with an Army absentee. That is the first admission that, despite all the assurances in previous letters that such action would have been taken, it was not taken. Normal procedures were not carried out.
On page 2 of the letter, the responsibility is passed to the garrison administration staff, who, we are assured, made inquiries into Christopher's whereabouts after he failed to report there for discharge on 1 August 1994. I presume that their first inquiry would have been to his unit in Germany, which would have informed them that he left there on 11 July 1994, two weeks before his orders allowed him to do so. At that moment, there should have been confirmation of an army absentee and a missing person. Astonishingly, however, that
58WH
information does not appear to have been serious enough to instigate normal army operating procedures, as, on its admission, no signal was sent to CCRIO.
The last recorded address on Christopher's unit personal address record, dated 22 June 1994, which is shown under the heading of family details and next of kin, is:
"46 Acklington village, Acklington, Morpeth"
which was then the home of his parents. It beggars belief that an inquiry into the whereabouts of a missing person would not start at this address, which would have immediately located Christopher. The letter then refers to an officer from the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow, who allegedly remembers speaking to three different police stations in the Ashington area, at which I presume that he made similar inquiries, although he cannot identify the police stations by name. I find that incredible because it is not possible to ring individual police stations. All calls are routed through Northumbria police control centre at Ponteland. Any official organisation seeking to locate a missing person would be put through to the police station covering the address concerned. For the record, there is only one police station in Ashington.
The Minister's letter refers to the issuing of a locate and trace order by CCRIO as a result of information received from the DSS on 19 June 1995 giving a new contact address. It is important that the Army explain why it took so long to access the DSS information. As I have already stated, Christopher registered at his parents' address in September 1994, so the information would have been available to CCRIO from that date.
The inference of the letter dated 16 December 1998 contradicts the letter dated 10 March 1998. The latter stated
"When a soldier has been absent for a period of six months the case is automatically reviewed by CCRIO, RMP. It is standard practice during this review to seek assistance from the DSS to see if they can provide a current address ie. if the individual is claiming financial support.
It was through this action that it was established that Christopher had been living with his mother and had been doing so since October 1994. On the 19th June as a result of this new information a signal was sent to the civil Police in Ashington who would have been expected to visit the address and if Christopher was present arrest him."
That raises the following question. If, by its own admission, the Army's review of Christopher's case was held on 30 January 1995, why did it take another five months before a positive attempt was made to locate him? The Minister's letter focuses on the records on Christopher on the police national computer. There are no records remaining on the police national computer because any file relating to a deceased person is automatically erased 12 months after death.
However, in this instance, historic intelligence on Christopher exists on Northumbria police's criminal intelligence system. It includes details of stop checks made by traffic officers on two separate occasions, which resulted in the production of driving documents at police stations and the placing of those details—including a full postal address—on the CIS. It shows no record of any locate trace marker for Christopher having been created before 19 June 1995. The responsibility for that omission rests solely with CCRIO.

59WH
The role that the WRVS volunteer played in the affair is important. If she had not called Christopher's parents, they would not have embarked on their quest for the truth. His parents told me that she was the catalyst that provoked their questions and fuelled doubts about whether Christopher had received the care to which he was entitled from the Army. Although the family were clearly distressed and upset at Christopher's death, they did not look to apportion blame or responsibility to any individual or organisation, but the conversation that the volunteer initiated with them set alarm bells ringing.
Terry Haley, Christopher's stepfather, is a police officer with more than 20 years' experience. He is trained to collect, evaluate, record and disseminate information. He has a distinguished and commended career and is a holder of the Queen's medal for long and exemplary police service—it is unlikely that he would misinterpret his conversation with the WRVS volunteer. We were therefore astonished to read that the volunteer had informed the Royal Military Police investigator and made a statement retracting everything that she told Mr. Haley during their telephone conversations. I have been informed that at no time during those conversations did she mention domestic problems between Christopher and his girlfriend, even though Christopher's problems must have been grave to warrant such leave being granted. I have also been told that that information and the reasons for granting leave would, no doubt, be recorded on file.
Mr. Haley is sceptical about that explanation. First, the WRVS volunteer was a complete stranger to him and until he spoke to her over the telephone, he did not know that she existed. He is clear about the detail of their conversation, and says that it was she who mentioned post-traumatic stress disorder. It was she who first raised concerns about Christopher's psychological state, resulting from his tour of duty in Bosnia, and she who was so concerned about him that she persuaded the commanding officer to allow him compassionate leave.
Christopher's parents are rightly concerned that the first mention of alleged domestic problems was made almost six years after his death. At the time, Christopher was engaged to be married. Letters that were written by Christopher at that time are in his parents' possession. They contain no hints of domestic grief. Indeed, the opposite is the case; he writes fondly and enthusiastically of his and his fiancee's plans for their future. Their relationship began to deteriorate after he returned from Germany, and the engagement was broken off six months later.
It is significant that, only weeks after Christopher's death, Mr. Haley wrote a letter to Christopher's commanding officer in which he recounted details of his conversation with the WRVS volunteer. The commanding officer could have spoken to her, as she was still attached to the regiment in Germany at that time and had refuted the allegations.
The commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Webb-Bowen, made no mention of domestic problems, nor did he attempt to refute Mr. Haley's accusation that Christopher was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He merely rubbished the WRVS volunteer as
60WH
unqualified. That has been a consistent theme in response to subsequent letters on the matter written by Christopher's parents and me. Mr. Haley was so concerned about the commanding officer's reply that he attempted to telephone the lady in Germany. He was told that she was unavailable. Unsatisfied with that response, he contacted the WRVS headquarters in London and spoke with a retired Army officer who said that he knew the lady concerned, and promised to contact her on his behalf. The retired Army officer rang back and said that she could not speak to Mr. Haley because she was the subject of some form of judicial army inquiry or review. That was confirmed to Mr. Haley when he contacted a member of RMP at Catterick who was involved in the initial investigation into Christopher's death and implied that an inquiry was on-going.
A letter dated 16 December states that a senior member of the Army medical directorate had examined Christopher's medical records and had found no evidence of psychiatric or psychological problems. All the entries related to minor physical problems associated with thy, rigours of soldiering and, regrettably, a "fit for detention" certificate was not found. The lack of a certificate suggests that Christopher was not examined at that crucial time and that it is improper of the Army to suggest that all was well when it cannot confirm that he was fit to be detained.
The lack of supporting documentation from the Army—an organisation that prides itself on and is famed throughout the world for its efficiency—is a prominent feature of the Ministry of Defence's case. Most of the evidence is circumstantial, based on procedures that were presumed to have been carried out, and does not bear close scrutiny. The Army admits that it failed in its duty of care to Christopher by not locating him immediately after he went absent without leave. There is no evidence that the Army followed its procedures, although there is considerable evidence that it did not.
In the years since Christopher's death, his parents have searched for the simple truth. They feel that the Army betrayed them by failing in its duty of care to Christopher. There are too many contradictions and unacceptable omissions in the inquiry document. Nobody admits to making mistakes, although it is clear that many were made. How can Christopher's parents have confidence in a system that has let them down so badly?
I met Christopher's:, parents on Saturday. They are still seeking the truth. They have not received any assurances that the systems have been improved or that new safeguards haw been introduced to prevent another tragedy. Therefore, I ask that my hon. Friend the Minister hand the inquiry over to an independent body. A third party should examine the evidence, interview witnesses and, crucially, make recommendations, if necessary, to improve the system.
I represent an area that supplies more young men and women to the armed forces than any other. We have a duty to those young people to ensure that systems are in place to protect them. The inquiry has not satisfied me that protective systems are in place, and I urge my hon. Friend to carry out a speedy, independent inquiry.
1.49 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) for the opportunity to discuss further the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Trooper Christopher Young, following the response given in the House by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), on 24 February 1999.
First, and most importantly, I wish to take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to Christopher's family for their very sad loss. Mr. and Mrs. Haley are clearly concerned about the circumstances surrounding his death, and their desire to obtain a detailed explanation is both natural and understandable. I have carefully noted the points made in my hon. Friend's speech. I am worried about the details of the case and the questions that it raises about some of the general procedures. Accordingly, I am arranging a meeting between my hon. Friend and the Army authorities to consider both aspects and to prepare a report for Ministers.
Mr. Murphy: Would it be possible for the Minister to invite either one or both of Christopher's parents to that meeting?
Mr. Spellar: I undertake to give Serious consideration to that request and to write to my hon. Friend about it.
I wish to place on record the information that we have on the case, and I shall begin by giving an insight into the young man's career in the Army. Christopher Young joined the Army on 11 January 1901. He served with his regiment, the Light Dragoons, in the United Kingdom, Germany, Cyprus and Bosnia. Throughout that time, as my hon. Friend said, he was highly regarded by his superiors and well liked by his peers. He was a hardworking, efficient and capable young man who had been singled out for possible promotion to junior non-commissioned officer. Christopher was a fit and active member of the troop, who boxed for the squadron. A promising career seemed to lie ahead for him.
However, after three years of service he decided to leave the Army, and applied to be discharged. That was to become effective on 2 August 1994. Later in 1993, Christopher's unit began a tour of duty in Bosnia. In December 1993, during a period of rest and recuperation and, while in transit to his home, Christopher was involved in an incident with another soldier. As a result, he was awarded a period of 28 days' detention, which he served in the Hohne guardroom. While in detention, he asked to speak to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service representative who regularly visited the guardroom to talk to all detainees. It was during their confidential discussion that Christopher said that he did not want to return to Bosnia after his release. It was, and continues to be, usual practice for soldiers given periods of detention to return to their parent unit on completion of their sentence. Were it otherwise, it would be possible for some to use it as an excuse to avoid operational service. There is nothing to suggest that Christopher saw his incarceration as a method of avoiding service in Bosnia.
It was also usual practice. in accordance with the Imprisonment and Detention (Army) Rules 1979, for all soldiers undergoing detention to be medically
62WH
examined. During their examination, soldiers have every opportunity to express any worries that they may have. As may be expected, the WRVS representative expressed her views about Christopher to the commanding officer—as she did about all the other soldiers who were held in detention. Not being medically qualified, she did not offer any comment or opinion on Christopher's psychological well-being. However, she remembered that he was upset at having to spend the festive season in the guardroom and was worried that that would prevent him from returning home to discuss relationship problems with his girlfriend.
Christopher was also given a further opportunity to make known any personal worries that he may have had. His commanding officer, through the WRVS representative, advised all the soldiers held in the guardroom at Hohne at that time that if they were upset or believed that they were suffering from stress, they should make their concerns known by reporting sick and discussing their situation with a medical officer. Christopher did not report sick, and chose not to say anything about how he was feeling.
When speaking further to the commanding officer about the detainees, the WRVS representative mentioned specifically that Christopher had some worries about his leave. I understand that he was worried that, because he was detained for an offence committed while on leave, he would lose what leave entitlement he had left. As a result of that conversation, the regiment decided that it was appropriate to grant Christopher an additional period of unscheduled leave at the end of his detention before his return to Bosnia.
I should emphasise that at no time did Trooper Young give his chain of command any cause to be concerned about his behaviour. In fact, he conducted himself well and displayed no signs of severe stress, or, as my hon. Friend suggested, post-traumatic stress disorder. If Christopher was psychologically disturbed, it was not apparent to the regiment or the Army medical authorities.
Christopher spoke to the WRVS representative on a number of occasions, and he could have asked to see the medical officer or the community psychiatric nurse, but seems to have chosen not to do so. Either could have arranged for him to be properly assessed and treated if necessary. I assure my hon. Friend that if there had been any doubt about his mental state, he would have been referred immediately to the medical officer. As Christopher did not choose to ask for medical advice, and showed no signs of stress or obvious psychological problems, he returned to Bosnia, after a short period of leave, to complete his tour with his unit. That was completed without further incident. He was, of course, offered counselling before, and on his return from, his tour, as are all service personnel.
On 24 June 1994, Christopher underwent a full pre-release medical, in which he was assessed to be fully fit. He was due to attend a final, more informal release medical on the last day of his service, and that was scheduled for 1 August 1994. On 11 July 1994, having completed the documentation required at that time, Christopher returned to his parents' home and told them that he had been discharged from the Army. It

63WH
seems that he did not explain that he had to report to Bovington camp on 1 August 1994 to complete the release process and undertake his final release medical.
I am advised that when Christopher failed to return to Bovington on 1 August 1994, the garrison administration office tried to contact him at his home address, which was listed on his documentation and shown on his discharge instruction. Unfortunately, when it telephoned to speak to Christopher it was told, for some unaccountable reason, that Christopher had not been heard of at that address, so he was posted absent without leave. I am advised that the civilian police were informed. After failing to reach Christopher at the address shown on his records, the garrison administrative office at Bovington camp contacted the manning and records office for help. It provided a further address from his vetting forms—that of his natural father—but Christopher had not been heard of at that address for the previous two years.
On 15 December 1994, the manning and records office contacted his regiment, the Light Dragoons, asking for further assistance. Although not normal practice, on 7 January 1995 the regiment contacted a close friend of Christopher who had been discharged the previous year, asking him to pass on a message to report to Bovington camp, with an assurance that he would not be in any trouble on his return. His friend confirmed to the regiment that he had seen Christopher, who had acknowledged the request. Unfortunately, he did not report to Bovington.
The House may know that when a solider has been unlawfully absent, a board of inquiry is normally convened to investigate the matter. A board of inquiry into Christopher's absence was convened in Hohne on 30 January 1995. It concluded that Christopher may not
64WH
have known that he had been required to report to Bovington camp for final discharge procedures, or that he had simply forgotten during the three weeks that had elapsed between his return home and the reporting date.
Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend not consider it unusual that, if the board of inquiry concluded in January that Christopher was absent without leave, it took a further five months to contact him?
Mr. Spellar: I understand that that may have been due to a move within the police system, which was transferring from one location to another, so communication between the two authorities was difficult. However, that is one of the matters that I hope will be discussed at the meeting between my hon. Friend and the Army authorities.
The board of inquiry recommended that in the circumstances, Christopher should not have any disciplinary action taken against him for his failure to report, and that all possible efforts should be made to allow him to report to collect his last salary payment.
It is not current practice, after the initial contact to the individual's last known address, for the civilian or military police to be proactive in locating absentees unless they are in receipt of new information about their possible whereabouts. Attempts were made by personnel in the manning and records office to locate Christopher during his period of absence, but to no avail.
When a soldier hay been absent for six months, the case is automatically reviewed by the central criminal records and information office of the Royal Military Police. It was through that action that the Army became aware that Christopher was living with his mother—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.