Westminster Hall Sitting of 31 March 2004

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Cast Metal Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I am delighted to have secured today's debate in the ballot—a success achieved after several fruitless attempts. I have been particularly keen to debate the subject in Westminster Hall because the cast metal industry faces serious problems, caused mainly by the shortage of scrap metal and the consequential soaring of prices but also due to other increases in the price of raw materials, which are putting additional pressure on the industry. As a result, one cast metal firm has gone to the wall—Keighley castings in Yorkshire. It would not be an exaggeration to say that unless action is taken a number of other companies could find themselves in a similar situation.
About two weeks ago, the Minister for Industry and the Regions met representatives from the cast metal industry to discuss the matter, for which I am grateful. None the less, the problems are becoming more serious week by week, so it is appropriate to have a wider debate, in which other hon. Members with similarly affected companies in their constituencies can express their views.
I declare an interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am secretary of the all-party group on cast metal. I also have a distinct constituency interest, because no fewer than 11 foundries can be found in West Bromwich, West; indeed, I am told that my constituency has the highest number of foundries in the country. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact of the problem on the welfare of my constituents.
I am proud to say that one of those companies, Eurotech Industries of Wednesbury, won the annual company of the year award, given by the Cast Metal Federation, for having invested and expanded over the past couple of years, and for winning new contracts. Like many cast metal companies, Eurotech supplies parts for the automotive industry, including BMW, Audi, MG Rover and DaimlerChrysler, and it has just won two more contracts to make roof castings for Skoda and BMW. I mention that to highlight the fact that although foundries are often thought of as "old" manufacturing industry, some successful companies have invested in new production techniques and are being very successful in a highly competitive market.
The success of one company cannot mask the real issues that confront the sector nationally. I stress the importance of the industry to the country. It has a national turnover of about £2.26 billion a year, and it employs 34,000 people in 580 companies. Most of those companies are small and medium-sized enterprises. Crucially, many of them are concentrated in traditional
428WH
industrial areas with higher than average unemployment, and the loss of those companies would have a disproportionate effect on the local economy and the local community.
In my constituency, unemployment stands at 5.9 per cent. It has reduced by about a third since 1997, and the local economic situation has improved enormously over the past five years. However, the prospect of local cast iron companies folding, with the resulting unemployment, would be a serious setback. I cannot view it with equanimity.
The cast metal sector's market is hugely concentrated in the automotive industry, and about 50 per cent. of total production goes to the car industry. That is enormously significant in the west midlands, because the viability of the cast metal industry can have an impact on the automotive sector. Nationally, the industry produces 1.2 million tonnes of castings: 970,000 tonnes are ferrous castings, and 900,000 tonnes come from ferrous scrap, so scrap is a vital component of total castings production.
Scrap is vital. The proportion of scrap that we export has gone up from 40 per cent. in 1995 to 70 per cent. at present. Overall, there is sufficient scrap in the country, but the growth in exports is now causing local cast metal companies extreme difficulties. The result has been an increase in dock prices. Between January 2000 and January 2003, the price of low-grade scrap increased by just 30 per cent.—a significant but not devastating increase; but between January 2003 and January 2004, it increased by 130 per cent. The price of cast iron scrap increased by 70 per cent. and it seems to be increasing further.
Those price increases are caused almost entirely by China's economic expansion, which has led to a phenomenal increase in demand for steel and the raw materials used in its production. In 2002, crude steel production in China rose by more than 21 per cent., and it is expected to rise a further 20 per cent. in the coming year. China's production is greater than that of Japan and the United States put together; they are the two next largest producers, and manufacture huge amounts. Significantly, even China's current huge level of production is insufficient to meet its home demand. China's phenomenal growth has had a profound effect on raw materials and steel prices., but nowhere more so than in the scrap metal sector.
A further potential problem needs to be highlighted. Currently, only 10 per cent. of steel production in China involves electric arc furnaces, which use scrap metal. Therefore, with China using scrap in just 10 per cent. of its steel production, we have a world shortage of scrap. If China increases production using electric arc furnaces because of constraints on the supply of raw materials used in the other 90 per cent. of its steel production, there will be further significant pressures on the world scrap metal market.
What has been the reaction worldwide? The South Korean Government have already limited scrap exports. In the United States, an organisation called the Emergency Steel Scrap Coalition has been formed. Its president, Robert Stevens, has warned that the US is
"facing a crisis in many manufacturing sectors".
Liz Blackman: Saint-Gobain Pipelines in Erewash, which employs 1,400 people and deals predominantly in ferrous scrap, has seen its prices for that commodity rise by 40 per cent. over the past year. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Government examine how the global market is working, report back on whether it is fair and, if not, suggest ideas to address the inequalities?
Mr. Bailey: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although it may be argued that the cost of scrap metal has gone up as a result of international free trade, there are other issues, such as the price of coke. We have no indigenous coke producer in this country. We have to import it from Europe or China, ironically, and there is some evidence that China is restricting the export of coke. Our cast metal producers face a double whammy: scrap metal prices are going up because of the pull of the Chinese economy, while the fact that China restricts the export of coke further drives up costs for cast metal companies in this country. The issue obviously has to be explored because there is some evidence that there is not a level playing field. Although we may be conforming to the best principles of international free trade, China, as the main beneficiary, is not doing so. The Government must explore that issue.
I return to my point about the United States. Mr. Stevens also commented that there is provision under US law for a possible remedy for injurious increases in steel scrap exports: the temporary imposition of export restrictions by the US Secretary of Commerce. Although the United States has done nothing yet, we have to recognise that there is a significant lobby in that country for restrictions on the export of steel scrap. If that were to take place, the impact on the international scrap metal market would be huge, over and above the problems faced at the moment.
Let us consider other countries. Italian producers of steel have already called for protectionist measures. Ukraine has a ban on scrap metal export and Russia has export duties. All over the world, there are already significant moves to ban the export of scrap metal or, in one way or another, to preserve scrap metal for particular host countries. The situation is already serious and has the potential to be devastating. As prices continue to rocket, more countries will be under greater pressure to take unilateral action to protect their interests.
Things might not be so difficult for cast metal companies if other raw materials were not also increasing in price. I have mentioned coke. When we consider the range of prices for raw materials used not only in the cast metal industry but in the steel industry as a whole, we find that the pull exerted by the expansion of the Chinese economy is increasing those prices across the board. Whatever elements are used in the production of cast metals and in the wider steel industry, they are all increasing in price and adding cost pressures to production.
Looking at the impact on other industries, there are three major players in the sector. The first is the scrap metal industry. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that the scrap metal industry is happy with the current situation. It is enjoying prices that it has never had before. The industry legitimately points out that in
430WH
this country it produces more scrap metal than is needed for the domestic market and that the current price is determined by global demand. Of course, that is true, but it prompts the question whether, if the global market price continues to accelerate as it is doing, some of the domestic bread and butter market could disappear. Although the scrap metal industry may be enjoying a boom at the moment, the loss of its domestic bread and butter market could mean that at some time in the future it will be dependent on a far more volatile and risky international market. Notwithstanding the current good times in the scrap metal industry, it is appropriate to exercise a cautionary note.
Soaring raw material prices have affected the steel industry as well as the cast metal industry. Corus has increased prices by 20 per cent., and there is an increase of another 18 to 20 per cent. in the pipeline. It accounts for about 90 per cent. of UK steel production. The industry has been more relaxed about the issue of scrap metal prices, but that is largely because it has contractual agreements with its consumers whereby it can pass on the prices. However, the scale of the price increases is such that even some of the consumers of the raw steel are beginning to complain and there is some evidence that they may be trying to find cheaper alternatives elsewhere.
Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how the problem has become perverted? It has affected us north of the border. On my way to the airport this week, I was faced with a series of cones along the road I normally pass down because all the manholes and grids had been removed. They had clearly been sold to the scrap metal industry. Not only is the situation encouraging theft and resulting in costs to the public authorities, some scrap metal dealers are colluding in crime.
Mr. Bailey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is a somewhat bizarre manifestation of the problem; I did not realise that it had emerged north of the border. In Gloucester, 40 manhole covers have disappeared and in Cambridgeshire, 150 disappeared over only a couple of days. Even in China, bizarrely, 1,800 disappeared in Shanghai over several days. So, in China, the main manufacturing country and the driver of this increase in prices, manhole covers are being stolen and recycled, presumably to replace the manhole covers that have been stolen. The only beneficiary of that bizarre cycle of economic activity is the thief who steals them.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am listening with great interest to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. Leaving aside manhole covers, does he accept that scrap metal prices are rising so steeply partly due to the sort of protectionist measures he mentioned, which are being taken in some countries? Such measures limit the international market and lead to price rises.
Mr. Bailey: Certainly, any country that takes protectionist measures and thereby limits the supply of scrap metal on the international market is contributing to the problem. However, it is fair to say that the main cause of the problem is undoubtedly China's economic

431WH
expansion. Obviously, there is potential to ease some of the pressure by negotiating with countries that are restricting export and might be persuaded not to. That is an avenue that the Government should consider.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Is that not the reason why we need the World Trade Organisation and why we need to operate within its rules?
Mr. Bailey: Yes. All the players in this situation recognise that not to operate within the limits laid down by the WTO could cause problems. We should ensure that everyone who operates in that market situation does so according to the rules, so we are bringing pressure on the Government to work through the European Union and other allies to ensure that that happens, but I shall come to that later.
I was talking earlier about the impact on the steel industry alone. I said that some consumers of raw steel products are beginning to complain, which could affect the basic steel industry itself. Furthermore, UK Steel said in a submission to me that its position would change if the United States took unilateral action to export scrap metal. In that event, UK Steel is anxious that the Government should be in a position to take immediate action.
The cast metal industry is the most affected. For example, raw materials constitute about 22 per cent. of the total costs of cast metal manufacturers, and scrap metal accounts for 60 per cent. of that figure. Price increases on the scale that I have outlined mean that prices must be increased by about 10 per cent. to cover those costs. Many companies operate on tiny margins and cannot pass on that increase, especially those with fixed price contracts. Such companies have experienced huge difficulties, which to date they have met with great resourcefulness. However, as prices continue to rise, the pressure becomes greater all the time. I am not talking about the long term, but about price increases of 10 per cent. per month, which is hugely significant for such companies.
The issue involves not only prices, but the availability of scrap metal. Some companies cannot obtain the scrap metal that they need to operate. I received an e-mail from one company that said:
I have a buyer spending most of his time trawling the local scrap dealers to obtain adequate supplies and the prices are still rising!! As you can imagine this has also resulted in huge increases in the price of pig iron and we are still finding it very difficult to get these costs recovered in higher selling prices.
One company told me that it had come within half a day of having to stop production. I heard a tale of another company that expected a delivery of scrap metal that never arrived. When the company phoned the supplier, it turned out that somebody else had made a bid for that lorry-load of scrap while it was en route and the lorry was diverted to another manufacturer. That conveys something of the knife-edge existence that some companies endure.
Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend says that firms are living on a knife edge, but does he accept that most in the industry suffer from the added burden imposed by the near doubling of insurance, which also makes trading difficult?
Mr. Bailey: My hon. Friend tempts me down a path. That issue has been the subject of much debate. I completely agree with him, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not develop that point, because I am conscious that other Members want to join the debate.
Other effects will include not only pressure on the margins of companies in the cast metal sector, but increases in the prices of a range of consumer goods, particularly in the automotive industry. We could suffer from a double whammy, because if the prices of castings become too high, the automotive industry might look to other sources, including, again, China. We are looking for a level playing field, to ensure that the costs of finished castings from our local cast metal producers do not become excessively high and thereby provoke that course of action.
I conclude with some observations. I agree with the Government that the free market and international trade are extremely beneficial, and that intervening unilaterally at one point can have unintended consequences that may not be helpful to anyone. I know that the Minister has ruled out export quotas and, as nne who was vociferous in his criticisms of the American Government when they introduced steel tariffs, I cannot logically argue that unilateral action is the most appropriate way forward. However, the Government must recognise that there are certain situations in which industry conditions can change so dramatically in a short period that the potential consequences are dire. That is the situation that the industry faces. If prices continue to accelerate at the current rate, the consequences could be devastating.
The European Union needs to take urgent action and work globally to pre-empt problems that affect not only this country but the whole of the EU. I am informed that about two weeks ago there was a meeting in the EU to discuss the situation and to monitor trends in the industry.
Mr. Sutcliffe: To help my hon. Friend, and because there may not be time at the end of the debate to go into enough detail on all these matters, I can tell him that the meeting was deferred.
Mr. Bailey: That reinforces the need for this debate. The industry is in such a situation that it cannot afford to have people in key positions deferring meetings.
Mr. Dennis Turner: I have been a committed European all my life, but I would just like to advise my hon. Friend and the Minister that they should not place too much store in the collective commitment of the EU on these matters. I have a long memory of the EU and remember the d'Avignon plan, under which we all contributed to a reduction in steelmaking capacity in our country and throughout Europe, but Europe did not honour its commitments. We lost a great deal of capacity in this country, and I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that fact.
I have very fond memories of Bilston steelworks. We lost that plant, which made wonderful steel for this country, 25 years ago. I ask my hon. Friend to point out to the Minister that we ought to consider production

433WH
targets in this country. Looking after our own economy is crucial and we should not have to depend on so much importation.
Mr. Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend, and I would be the first to defer to his long experience in the sector, which goes beyond any experience that I have had. However, I think that he would agree that it would not benefit anyone to have any sort of international trade war. Action must be taken within a regulatory framework that is best for everyone collectively.
Monitoring is not enough. We need action, and the purpose of the debate is to convey to the Minister the depth of feeling among hon. Members who represent companies in the sector about what is to be done and the implications for the well-being of their constituencies. There is evidence that in certain areas of production, particularly coke, there are imperfections in international free trade. If we cannot do anything about price pressures on cast metal, it will bring some relief to a beleaguered industry if we can relieve such pressures in other areas. Will the Minister also consider the potential of EU industrial policies to enable assistance to be given to small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): The Chair is anxious to accommodate all right hon. and hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate, and I will never complain about the brevity of contributions, but I must offer the admonishment that in this Chamber we normally start the first of the three wind-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion. We therefore have exactly 30 minutes left for Back-Bench contributions. I ask hon. Members to take that into account when making their speeches and when accepting or responding to interventions.
10 am
Mr. Peter Pike: I take note of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had in any event intended to be brief, but I did not want the debate to be dominated by the west midlands, although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on securing the debate. I know that he has taken a great personal interest in the subject since he was elected, and he is a founder member and officer of the all-party group.
The issue is of concern in my constituency, where most people are still employed in manufacturing, although the number is diminishing all the time. As soon as my hon. Friend told me that he had secured the debate, I contacted two companies in my constituency to check exactly how they saw the situation. I spoke first to Stephen Gill at Lupton and Place, a company that I have visited many times. I have had a good relationship with the present boss and his father, Derek Gill, over many years, and I know about the work that they have done to enable the industry to survive through difficult times so that it is still in business now.
Steven Gill emphasised all that my hon. Friend said in his speech about the problems of scrap shortages, including the particular problems for smelters and the fact that aluminium is attracting such high prices. China
434WH
is the main buyer and the main source of problems for the industry locally. The company has a battle to survive and to obtain the raw material that it needs. There is a big impact on prices. Many products that the company makes are now made in China and sold here, so there is a double whammy: they lose the raw material and are not able to sell their products, because cheap labour costs in China mean that it can outbid them.
I spoke also to Mr. Keith Taylor at Lupton Smallshaw. As a result of my conversations I intend to visit the company soon to see exactly what it does. Mr. Taylor said that the price of scrap iron has risen from £85 to £142 per tonne in 12 months; the price of nickel has doubled from £8,000 to £16,000 per tonne in four months. He mentioned China, but he also said that India is increasingly moving into the market. We all know that both India and Pakistan are enjoying GDP growth of between 8 and 9 per cent. Their economies are beginning to move ahead, and things are becoming extremely difficult, for the same reasons that they become difficult when cheap labour moves into the market. Mr. Taylor also mentioned insurance. I accept that we do not want to focus on that, but, for someone who is on a knife edge, the doubling of insurance costs can make the difference between surviving or not.
Europe was mentioned too, as it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). The argument keeps coming up about Britain enforcing and honouring European regulations and commitments far more than our partners in Europe. I am a strong pro-European, like my hon. Friend, and I believe that we should have entered when the original six members signed the treaty of Rome. If we had gone in with a position of strength right at the start some things that have presented difficulties would have been different.
We want to ensure that all our partners honour European commitments and regulations exactly as we do. We want the industry to survive. I look forward the Minister responding to the debate and showing that the Government are prepared to try to ensure the industry's survival.
10.5 am
Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on securing the debate.
I start by talking about the big theme of economic globalisation and the impact on world markets of the massive industrial revolution that is taking place in China. As my hon. Friend said, the voracious demand for steel is having an impact on the price of ferrous scrap and coke. One only has to look at the figures to see that. Crude steel production in China amounted to more than 220 million tonnes in 2003, which is about a quarter of world output and double what was produced in the United States. It is also 70 per cent. more than was produced two years before.
Economic activity in the US is also increasing, which is leading to more steel production and partly to a demand for scrap. Supply, too, has been very slow to pick up. The US downturn meant that scrap, which to a degree is a by-product of economic activity, was not available, so there was pressure on demand and supply.

435WH
When, in my hon. Friend's expert opinion, does he think that the market will correct itself? When will prices either plateau or reduce? Significantly, only 40 per cent. of our scrap was exported in the late 1990s, as my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening remarks. The figure is now some 80 per cent.
The change in world market prices is also having an impact on our cast metal industry. Over the years, there have been cyclical downturns. An answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) last June, when he was in the Department of Trade and Industry, showed that there has been a long-term downward trend in the number of foundries and in employment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West pointed out when he opened the debate, the current crisis will have an impact on that cyclical downturn which is out of the ordinary.
Let me cite an example at the micro level. The foundry in my constituency, which is run by Thomas Dudley Ltd., was started in 1920. Yesterday, Martin Dudley, the joint managing director, gave me some figures to underline the crisis faced by the foundry. It employs 130 people and has a turnover of some £5 million. This year, that turnover will be the lowest since 1987–88. The price for ductile spheroidal graphite pig iron was £143 a tonne in December and January, but for April delivery, it is £225 a tonne—an enormous increase. The foundry anticipates that the price for delivery later in the year will be about £300 a tonne. Such a rise in prices brings enormous pressure to bear on companies. It is all very well to say that they can increase their prices to their customers, but they are bound, in important respects, to long-term contracts that have fixed prices with, say, the water industry, so they are under severe pressure.
So far, the company has been socially responsible in its actions. As I mentioned, it has long had a commitment to the area. It is a private company, so it is not subject to the stock market demands for returns of 15 or 20 per cent., which the City demands of manufacturing in this country. It has cross-subsidised the foundry from its very successful plastic moulding business. Frankly, however, it would be unrealistic to expect it to continue for long.
If the company closed, 130 jobs would be lost. The work force are multi-racial, but the unemployment caused would accentuate the black country's problem of older, unemployed white males, whose skills are not easily transferable elsewhere in the job market. Those 130 workers would pay the price for globalisation. As well as the impact on their lives and families, there would be a broader impact on the body politic. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West, extreme right-wing parties have a foothold and often feed on the disillusionment that comes from unemployment among that group of proud men.
What is to be done? The Under-Secretary, who is standing in for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions, will no doubt tell us, rightly, that World Trade Organisation rules prevent us from taking unilateral action, but that does not cut much ice with people when they see other countries breaking the rules. Other countries do not seem to have the same compunction about complying with WTO rules. My
436WH
hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West referred to Korea, and even the United States acted to protect its steel industry when it imposed section 201 tariffs a couple of years ago.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that at that time the Government acted with our European partners to take the USA to the WTO.
Ross Cranston: Absolutely. My point is that other countries take unilateral action when faced with a crisis. No doubt my hon. Friend will also tell us about action that is taken with our EU partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) made the point that my constituents make: they are mightily under-impressed by the EU in many respects. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can give some assurance. I understand that the EU has tried to take action on the ban that Russia and Ukraine have apparently imposed to restrict the export of scrap.
I do not have the answers to the problem, but what I do know is that a family company, Thomas Dudley Ltd., is operating in my constituency under enormous pressure, and its closure would cause the loss of 130 jobs with all the implications that I mentioned briefly. I hope very much that the Under-Secretary can send me away from this debate with something substantial that I can relate to that company and its employees.
10.13 am
David Wright: It is appropriate that I speak in this debate because I represent Ironbridge gorge, where Abraham Darby first smelted iron with coke and started the industrial revol0ution—
Mr. Dennis Turner: With John Wilkinson.
David Wright: Indeed; he used to be called John "Iron-Mad" Wilkinson.
I want to give a slightly different perspective to the debate and talk about the impact of prices on world-class companies. When people think of this business, they often imagine dirty plant and people working in poor conditions, but we are talking about world-class products and companies that are innovative and flexible, as they must be in a competitive world market. In Telford and Wrekin is Aga-Rayburn, which is a world leader in the production of high-quality cookers that are sold at high prices around the world. They are a world-class product. Around 850 employees work for Aga-Rayburn: 180 in my constituency at Coalbrookdale and 450 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). We have been working jointly with the company to try to see how it can manage the escalation of raw material prices.
It is important to point out that Aga-Rayburn has recently produced its profits table, which shows that profits are up. That is incredibly positive, but its main concern is that if there is continuing pressure on raw material prices, it may be cheaper for it to import materials and assemble the product in the UK. That is my major concern, as it may affect the 180 jobs at the Coalbrookdale foundry in my constituency. That foundry sits within 100 yd of where Abraham Darby carried out the first smelting operation. It would be

437WH
terrible if the Ironbridge gorge and Coalbrookdale area were to lose it. The company has told me and my hon. Friend that it may have to consider importing panels, which are assembled into cookers, from Asia or China. The manufacturing director, Mr. O'Brien, has written to me about that.
I have also spoken to Mr. O'Brien more generally about price increases—an issue that a number of Members have already addressed. He told me that the company was paying about £70 a tonne for cast scrap in January 2003, but that that price had increased to £90 a tonne in January 2004. We have heard today that those costs have increased since then. The cost per tonne of pig iron was £127 in January 2003 and £155 in January 2004. The list goes on. We have world-class companies in the west midlands, and we are concerned that the escalation in the price of raw materials will significantly damage them.
I acknowledge the Government's position on export controls, which the Minister made clear in his interventions. I am not in favour of such controls. I have always been in favour of free trade, and I have made that clear when speaking in debates and in the public arena.
We need to consider three key themes. First, we need to challenge the nations that do operate barriers. We need to look closely, through the WTO, at what other countries are doing. in order to determine whether their actions are affecting overall price increases. We will never be able to cope with some of the economic expansion in Asia, but if other countries are applying barriers, they are falsely escalating prices, and we need to stop that.
Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is also important to realise that when we talk about scrap metal we are talking about a microcosm of the global economy. This afternoon we will debate higher education; one reason that we need world-class universities is to keep up with the investments that are being made in China and India. We are talking about keeping up not only with universities such as Harvard and Princeton, but those in China and India.
We must flex every muscle to ensure that the relevant international organisations do their jobs, not just for us in the west midlands and for scrap metal, but for every economic sector. We need also to convince our partners who have let us down in the past that it is as much in their interests as it is in ours to ensure that there is proper understanding, agreements and alliances in the global economy.
David Wright: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There is nothing for me to add to that.
My second point is that we need to work through the EU, and I was disappointed to hear that the EU meeting on the issue was recently deferred.
Mr. Sutcliffe: To help my hon. Friend, I can tell him that the meeting has been rescheduled for 21 April. will talk about that in my closing remarks.
David Wright: I am grateful to the Minister. That will encourage those involved in the industry who read the
438WH
record of this debate. They will look forward to hearing a report of that meeting from him or the Minister for Industry and the Regions.
My third point relates to coke prices, which are particularly significant for the industry and have increased substantially in recent months and years. Aga-Rayburn has informed me that the price per tonne of coke has increased from £140 in January 2003 to £160 in January 2004, and that it is still going up. I believe that there may be a degree of protectionism around the world regarding coke pricing. We need to use that as a bargaining tool. We must go to the table at the WTO with a wider perspective and talk not just about metal prices, but about other raw material prices that affect the industry. It would be useful if the Minister went away and considered how coke prices are affecting the industry and whether there is any action that we could take.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point on coke, production of which has been eliminated in this country. We cannot widen this discussion to a general debate on energy, but is not it true that that example should be taken as a warning not to make ourselves totally dependent on other nations for gas and other fuels in the years ahead?
David Wright: My hon. Friend is right. We need a comprehensive energy strategy, particularly for industry. Coke prices are important to the energy sector.
Liz Blackman: My hon. Friend, whom I thank for his generosity in giving way, is mapping out extremely clearly some courses of action that the Government ought to take. Does he agree that the cost of ferrous scrap is rising so swiftly that action needs to be speedy?
David Wright: I wholly agree. That is why it is incredibly important that the EU meeting takes place soon and that we rapidly communicate the results, which will influence business decisions in the coming months, to industry.
I do not believe that the situation poses a threat to jobs in my constituency at present. I certainly do not get the impression from Aga-Rayburn that there is such a threat. However, there will be a problem for world-class products such as those that the company produces if the price of raw materials increases, because the price in the marketplace also increases as the costs are directly passed on to buyers. My concern is that that is creating pressure in the United States. Aga-Rayburn sells a lot of its product there—as I said, it is a world-class business—and, as it is difficult at present to export into the US generally, price escalation on raw materials could create problems for the company. I want Aga-Rayburn to remain competitive. I have already indicated that its profits are healthy and, in the global market in which it operates, it is important that the situation is maintained.
Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend is rightly proud of Aga-Rayburn, although 1 point out that it smelts the metal in his constituency but makes the product in mine. He makes an important point: as the price of raw materials increases, there is pressure on either production costs or costs to the consumer. Does not Aga-Rayburn's recent record tell a tale? Perhaps it

439WH
cannot compete on the cost of raw materials or even labour, but it can compete and succeed on quality. There is a lesson there for the rest of British manufacturing.
David Wright: My hon. Friend takes the words from my mouth. That was exactly the point that I was about to make in closing. Quality is crucial: we are not able to compete with the far east on labour costs, so we have to compete on quality. There is a company in Telford and the Wrekin that does just that, so let us ensure that it is able to do so for the next 10, 20 or 30 years and on into the future.
10.23 am
Mr. Dennis Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on securing this debate. I feel passionately about the subject. Whatever is discussed in Westminster Hall, I am absolutely sure that there will not be a more important debate for the future of this country. There have been many debates in this House on the steel industry because, clearly, it is a basic industry, and our economy and world trade depend on it. As an industrial country, we neglect it at our peril.
A little bit of history does not go amiss when we discuss the steel industry and how important it is to us, so it is appropriate that we have here a Minister who will tell us about Government policy on that vital industry. I can recall the 1970s, when our steel industry was far larger than it is today. We had massive capacity—too much, I concede—and some of it had to be removed. It is imperative that a country as industrialised as the UK has a steel industry. The Government have to give careful attention to the industry's needs to maintain the country's economy and retain its wealth for the people whom we represent.
Although it is history, the second world war tells us how important the steel industry is. Within a month of the outbreak of war, Mr. Stewart of Stewart and Lloyds, the largest steel maker in the country, was wining and dining with Adolf Hitler. Quotas were allocated at that time, and the quota given to this country was far less than those given to Krupps of Germany or to Italy. We came very close to losing the second world war as a result of that allocation. It was a miracle that with those quotas we were able to produce the steel that gave us the capacity to win the conflict. That indicates the importance of the steel industry to our country.
We have now taken out a lot of the industry's capacity. We invested massively in electric arc furnaces, which have to take very clean scrap. Open hearth furnaces, which we had in this country, could be fed with any scrap, and out of that process came very special steels. The present need for clean scrap explains why we have a supply problem.
In addressing the needs of the interdependent steel, foundry and forging industries, we must ask all countries in the WTO to play their full part in planning the way in which the steel countries operate. If we can do that, we can work on an international level. We must be sure that our home production is such that we can maintain and support the industries that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) talked about
440WH
The steel industry has lost many thousands of jobs. Unless the matter is addressed correctly, not only by the DTI, but by all Departments, we are in danger of losing many more thousands.
10.29 am
Malcolm Bruce: This has been an interesting, topical and important debate. We clearly have a problem that has escalated over the past two years and continues to do so. In a way, the problem is due to global economic success. The main cause of that is economic expansion in China, which means economic benefits for the whole world, but leads to disruption in the process. We all acknowledge that development in China cannot be stopped, and we would not want to stop it. The question is how we accommodate it.
The point has been made that a substantial increase in economic activity in a market such as China causes strategic bottlenecks and problems with commodity prices, which international organisations may not be fully equipped to deal with. It is true, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) said, that we were largely self-sufficient in steel in 1970, but the reduction in capacity means that nearly half our steel requirement is now imported. That situation cannot be reversed. It is probably not worth going back over the history to see why we went from there to here, but it is fair to suggest that there is a strategic reason for having sufficient capacity and not being too dependent on imports of steel or the raw materials and fuels that enable us to make it. We are, however, operating in a global market and in a privatised industry, which it is sometimes difficult for the Government to control.
That raises the issue of steel quotas and demonstrates the short-sighted folly of the American Administration in imposing them. We now hear that they may do the opposite, particularly as this is an election year, but we must remember that when steel prices were low, they sought to restrict imports to protect their domestic steel industry. I fear that it was not the EU or the WTO that led to a resolution of the problem, but domestic consumers of steel in the US who, within a relatively short period, were saying that the restriction on imports was disadvantaging their industry by forcing up the price of domestic steel products in the US market.
We now hear that the US is considering a ban on the export of scrap products, and I believe that it will shortly have the same problems as before. I have made that point several times, and I am very much at one with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the issue. The speech that she made in Mansion house a few weeks ago was bang on the button. She said that it is frustrating to deal with the US, which presents itself as the great engine of free trade but is one of the most protectionist economies in the world. We want to be persuasive, not confrontational. We should tell the Americans that trade ultimately benefits everyone, even if it creates short-term difficulties. Providing short-term, knee-jerk political solutions to commercial problems often causes more long-term damage than trying to find ways through them. All hon. Members' speeches today have suggested that we try to do the latter.
I mentioned the bizarre local impact in Aberdeenshire that I observed last week. Each week that the House sits, I drive from my house to Aberdeen airport to fly down

441WH
to London. Every 50 yd for about a mile and a half along the narrow country road that I drive down are cones marking holes where drain covers had been. Such a story gets on to the national news and people think that it is a bit of a joke.
David Wright: In the west midlands, we call it tatting.
Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that black country jibe. The cones were treated as a bit of a joke, but a local official from Aberdeen city council rightly pointed out that the removal of drain covers was extremely dangerous because it left deep holes in the road without warning. The explanation was that the soaring scrap prices were creating a market for drain covers. Apart from anything else, it would be enormously costly if that happened in every local authority area throughout the country, and we would start to see accidents and even fatalities. Although one might consider it bizarre and take a light-hearted view of it, it is a serious point.
As I said in an intervention, there is a concern that scrap metal dealers or users in this country may be colluding in that activity, and it is important that we get to the bottom of it. If one considers that scrap prices have risen, according to the figures that I have, from £49 to £122 a tonne in two years and, according to one contributor, are now rising by £10 a month, one can understand how that strange market is developing.
On many occasions, I have expressed concern about the imbalance of the British economy and in particular the weakness of manufacturing. I do not regard what is happening as anything like turning the corner, but there is evidence of a manufacturing recovery, and, if that is borne out, it is of course welcome. One indicator of recovery is an increased domestic demand for steel, and I am concerned that the international situation could constrain that recovery just as it begins.
As several Members have mentioned, we must address the issue in the EU. The most important thing is to ensure that we do not impose short-term constraints that would make the problem worse. We must consider what can be done to increase the overall supply of ore, steel, scrap and resources. It can be done. Perhaps we have been short-sighted, but we seem to have been taken aback by the impact of growth in China. We had been discussing and acknowledging it for years, but no one was evaluating what its impact would be.
I was privileged to visit India recently, and I will declare in the Register of Members' Interests that effectively my trip was paid for by the Indian Government. They wanted to show us their high-tech developing economy, which includes car making. Tata Industries in Mumbai is making the new, small, commuter Rover, the City Rover, which is an adaptation of one of their Indian-made cars. If Indian manufacturing is moving into the truck, bus, car and other metal-using markets, its increased use of steel will add to the increased use we have seen in China. It is not in our interests to discourage that or to constrain the dynamics of Indian and Chinese success; it is in our interests to find ways to accommodate it and adapt to it.
The population of India is more than 1 billion, but two thirds of the world's poorest people are in India. With 260 million people there living on less than a dollar
442WH
a day, Indian expansion has a long way to go before it transforms the lives of those millions of rural poor. I would not support any policy that placed any constraint on the ability of China and India to improve the standard of living of their population.
This debate has been very good. We must address and resolve the bottleneck problem, but we must do so in a way that does not damage trade or our manufacturing recovery.
10.39 am
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am delighted to take part in the debate both as a spokesman for my party and as a west midlands Member of Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on the way in which he presented the debate and on raising a subject of importance to the whole country as well as to the region in which he and I are Members of Parliament.
I welcome the general agreement across the Chamber on the diagnosis that the hon. Gentleman put before us. Although the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) widened the debate beyond the west midlands and the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) returned it to the west midlands, there is agreement among us on what the problem is.
One point that I had not appreciated before the debate was the extent to which there appears to be agreement among us that protectionism is not the right way to proceed and that free trade enriches all nations on the planet. That is perhaps why I, followed swiftly by the Minister, intervened on the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, to ask him to clarify what he had said about South Korea. It was not immediately clear whether the hon. Gentleman was urging us to follow the Koreans and protect our domestic industry or whether he felt that such activity increased the world price of such commodities and should not be permitted, as I think he was suggesting.
I want to make it clear that I am an unashamed, unabashed supporter of free trade as a way of enriching some of the poorest people on the planet, to whom the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the spokesman for the Liberal party, referred. It is free trade that offers them the route out of poverty, not protectionism.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West was right about the scale of the problem that he outlined. He said that the cast metal industry employs 34,000 people in the UK and produces 1.2 million tonnes of castings, with an output value of more than £2.2 billion a year. He mentioned the large number of companies involved in the business—about 580—of which 80 per cent. are SMEs and nearly half employ fewer than 50 people.
One of the key issues raised was the price of the furnace charge raw materials used by the industry. Such raw materials are all internationally traded commodities, with prices reflecting changing patterns in supply and demand on a month-by-month basis. The Cast Metals Federation has indicated that, with steelworks using a similar mix of materials, the escalation in international scrap prices is a direct result of the increase in the world demand for steel. The federation has suggested that the increase is due largely to high demand for raw materials in China, which was

443WH
a point that the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North eloquently made. Another point of common agreement in the debate has been about the massive impact of China and, to a lesser extent, India on our economy and on the world economy. We have only begun to glimpse the effect of growth in China and India. They are huge economies, with high growth rates, which will have a marked effect on the world economy.
I was reminded of an incident involving a senior Chinese tax official—hon. Members may have heard about this—who recently negotiated a bilateral tax treaty with a European country. He told his interlocutor that he employed more people in his department than were resident in the country with which he was negotiating. What is happening in China will have substantial impacts on our economy and Europe's economy.
I reinforce a point that many Members will be aware of and of which I recently became aware, owing to a survey among business men that I conducted in Sutton Coldfield. There are things that the Government can do to help all businesses to deal with the costs that they face. I am talking about regulation and taxation, both of which have a direct impact on the cost base that companies face. In the west midlands there is a feeling, which I am sure Labour Members share, that southern-based decision-makers often make decisions that are southern England-centric. We would like more of the Department of Trade and Industry to relocate to the west midlands so that we can connect much more directly with it and ensure that it fully understands the pivotal importance of manufacturing to our region. About 20 per cent. of jobs in the west midlands are in manufacturing and although it is understood that the number may decline in coming years, I hope that the level of manufacturing by value will not do so.
Transport is very important, and I welcome the Government's decision to make extra funds available to the west midlands. However, I urge the Minister to consider the fact that funds are made available only in a very prescriptive way and cannot, for example, be spent on road or rail. That, too, has a significant impact on the industry.
The road transport directive, which the Government are due to implement by March 2005, will also have a direct impact on the matters before us, and I am concerned about the possible threat to the cast metal industry. The directive, which will increase restrictions on the working hours of mobile workers, is likely significantly to increase costs to the industry and to those who rely on heavy goods vehicles. The Road Haulage Association estimates that the directive will cost companies at least £7,000 per driver and that operational costs in the UK will increase by £3.8 billion in 2005 and £24.8 billion in the period to 2010. The association also estimates that, at a time when it is difficult to attract and retain drivers, at least 60,000 additional drivers, and between 8,000 and 12,000 additional trucks, will be needed. The Quarry Products Association has outlined similar problems with the directive, of which I am sure that the Minister is aware. It is apparent that the directive could present a damaging threat to the industry, and I would like to be
444WH
assured that the Government do not intend to gold-plate the directive, as they have seen fit to do in so many other cases.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman will know that the directive is currently with the Department for Transport, and negotiations and consultations are taking place with the various organisations involved.
Mr. Mitchell: I am very much aware of that, but the Minister will know that the issues would be well put by his Department. I hope that he will undertake to ensure that his colleagues in other Departments understand the directive's effects, about which the industry has eloquently told us.
To conclude—hon. Members will want to hear the Minister speak for longer than me—it is important to understand the negative effects of the Government's regulation policies on industry. The Conservatives are committed to a free trade solution to the problems before us and will support the Minister in ensuring that the WTO bites, and that nations that introduce protectionist measures, which cause some of the problems outlined by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, are strongly encouraged to desist from implementing them. Such measures neither enhance their trade policies, as was recently shown in America, nor help the poorest people, whom we want to prosper as a result of free trade.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: I thank the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) for giving me a little extra time to respond to the debate, because many issues have been raised, particularly by my hon. Friends, and I want to respond as best and as quickly as I can.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, or rather I should say my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey)—I am sure that he will be a right hon. Friend some day—on raising this important issue. Through his involvement with the all-party group on cast metal, he has since he was elected taken the issue forward in as many ways as he can.
I am also grateful for the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley ( Mr. Pike), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), my hon. Friends the Members for Telford (David Wright) and for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), and the hon. Members for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). There were also extremely important interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). They all showed their knowledge of this major issue. From the tone of the debate, one might think that it principally affected the west midlands, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said, it is a national issue.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West met the Minister for Industry and the Regions recently. I am not standing in as her deputy, but as the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition

445WH
and Consumers, I am aware of some of the issues that have been raised this morning in connection with jobs and the industry's culture.
I was sad that my hon. Friend should mention that Keighley castings went to the wall. It was in a constituency that neighbours mine, and I was well aware of the impact of its closure on the industry. However, I was pleased to hear that Eurotech Industries at Wednesbury has received an award. I, too, express my congratulations to the company on its excellent work in a difficult and competitive industry.
I want to talk about my foundry experience. As a 19year-old, I applied for a job in a foundry, never having seen one before. The experience of going round it was a shock, to say the least. I have nothing but awe for those who work in the industry and for the hard work that takes place there.
As hon. Members have said, the cast metal industry lies at the centre of the United Kingdom's industrial heartland—both figuratively and geographically. It plays a crucial role in many of our key manufacturing industries, supplying cast metal components for a variety of consumer and industrial applications. It has a significant input to the automotive supply chain, which accounts for 50 per cent. of the castings produced. It is a significant employer and contributor to the UK economy.
According to official statistics, in 2002 the industry employed 24,000 people, generated a turnover of £1.65 billion, and contributed a gross value added of £708 million to the UK economy. I understand that those totals may be even higher when in-house facilities, and companies working exclusively to a specific end-user industry, are taken into account.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's expression of concern for the industry's future, for its employees and for the communities in which they live. I recognise that the cast metal sector remains an increasingly difficult market in which to operate. Traditional markets in UK manufacturing have globalised, and UK producers have become exposed to fierce competition from around the world. That has resulted in significant rationalisation since the mid-1980s. The sector also faces stiff competition from imports, particularly from low-cost countries such as India and the far east, where low labour costs, the exploitation of economies of scale and the latest technology have given those producers a competitive advantage.
I can well understand the industry's concern, which has been brought about by recent developments in the price and availability of raw materials, particularly ferrous scrap, which is the raw material used to produce approximately 40 per cent. of the world's steel. The availability of scrap is related to levels of industrial development. Countries such as the UK, with a long history of manufacturing, are major collectors and processors of scrap. Traditionally they are also exporters. By contrast, newly industrialising countries such as China do not have sufficient domestic supplies of scrap and must therefore import. As my hon. Friends said, it is generally known that China's steel-making capacity is increasing rapidly.
446WH
The growth in the Chinese economy, particularly in steel consumption, has been quite startling. Over the past four years, China has been responsible, either directly or through imports, for over 90 per cent. of world steel growth. According to the Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau, Chinese demand for steel increased by an estimated 22 per cent. between 2002 and 2003, and it is forecast to grow by a further 13 per cent. this year. Overall, world consumption went up by 6 per cent. in 2003, and a further rise of 6 per cent. is expected in 2004.
China currently consumes 50 million tonnes of scrap, 20 per cent. of which is imported. This year, China's imports are forecast to grow to 15 million tonnes—a 66 per cent. increase. Add to that the appetite for scrap in other countries, such as Turkey and South Korea, and the global supply becomes tight, leading to the recent unprecedented price increases.
The rapid expansion of economic activity in the far east has had a similar or even greater impact on the market for other basic materials; for example, coke, ferro-alloys and non-ferrous metals. It seems that the sheer pace of Chinese demand in recent years has caused a considerable upset to the traditional balance of supply and demand.
I accept that those developments are causing problems for all users of scrap. I acknowledge that the situation has brought about hardship for some UK cast metals producers, as they have limited scope to pass those price rises on to their customers. However, no one suggests that it is being caused by anything other than the normal operation of market forces, so I am sure that hon. Members would agree that, in the circumstances, it would be undesirable for the Government to intervene.
Mr. Mitchell: I fully understand what the Minister is saying and he is obviously right. Will he tell us what steps the Government are taking to raise with the South Korean Government the importance of not pursuing a protectionist agenda?
Mr. Sutcliffe: I shall come to that point. I am trying to race through my brief to deal with the points that need to be covered. I will deal with the WTO and the EU; today's debate is vital and I will give whatever answers I can. I will pass on to my hon. Friends in the DTI and the Treasury, and to the Prime Minister, information on the various negotiating routes in the EU or the WTO to ensure that the impact of today's debate, and of future meetings that hon. Friends hold with Ministers, is that we continue to work with the industries involved to find a solution.
Although we are able to diagnose the problems, the solutions are more difficult, as my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield have said. We welcome the WTO rules and it is important to raise concerns with that body if we identify problems. We feel similarly about our EU colleagues, and the meeting on 21 April will be an opportunity to raise industry concerns and ensure that we consider what can be done. Measures have already been taken against non-EU countries that have not been playing the game.
The rate of increase in prices has been a problem for the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley raised the issue of insurance. He will know that the Department for Work and Pensions and my

447WH
Department have been considering matters such as employers liability insurance. We need to do something about that and we are having discussions on the matter. A document was published in December considering what can be done to solve some of the problems that industry faces.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that the matter was all about the burden of regulations; I do not accept that. I do not have time to issue the challenge that I normally issue to Opposition Members: to name which particular employment regulations they do not wish to apply to UK workers which are available in the rest of Europe.
As a member of the European Community, the UK is not able to take unilateral action on trade matters. Decisions that impact on or affect the European Community's commercial policy are taken collectively by the European Commission and member states working closely together. We are liaising closely with the Commission on that important issue.
To obtain a fuller understanding of the issues we have asked the Commission to prepare an analysis of the impact on the European industry of the current ferrous scrap price trends. That document is due to be discussed in Brussels on 21 April. The UK will ensure that the matter is handled with the seriousness that it deserves. We are aware that Eurofer, the trade association representing the interests of European steel-makers, has proposed the establishment of a monitoring system for Community exports of ferrous scrap, but we understand that that has been rejected.
We are aware that certain sectors of the US steel industry are experiencing difficulties similar to those in the UK. The Government are also aware of rumours that the US Administration are contemplating some form of initiative to restrict or limit scrap exports. I can inform my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West that as of today no such steps have been taken by Washington. We are not aware of any specific proposal from the US industry. We shall continue to monitor the situation in the US and elsewhere closely.
Hon. Members can rest assured that the Government will take all necessary steps, within the WTO and elsewhere, to secure the removal of any measure taken by the US or any of our other trading partners to limit scrap exports. In our view it is in the best interests of all stakeholders that an open and transparent global market for ferrous scrap is maintained. It is important that we respect the free trade rules of the WTO. We did so when the US took the action that it did under section 201.
The debate has been vital, but there is a long way to go. It was important that my hon. Friend raised it in the way that he did. I shall write to hon. Members about the issues that I have not been able to address to ensure that they know what the Government are doing about this important issue. I shall ensure that there is no underestimation of the Government's—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must turn our attention now to the next topic on which we must focus today, which concerns the death of Mr. Steven Fitzsimmons.

Mr. Steven Fitzsimmons
11 am
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: This is an occasion that I wish that none of us had to participate in. However, it is an opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the family of Steven Fitzsimmons. I thank the Minister and her staff for all the work that has been undertaken between my making a request for this Adjournment debate and today's debate. I have found the staff and the Minister most helpful.
When Mrs. Fitzsimmons first came to see me, I treated the matter as one of a mother grieving for her lost son, but on the basis of the inquiry, as it unfolded, and all the information that came my way, I began to have doubts about some aspects of the case and some of the notes that had been taken. It is that issue that I want to concentrate on this morning.
As I understand it, Steven Fitzsimmons left Irvine to watch his two favourite teams play in a testimonial game. Celtic were playing Manchester United. He travelled by train from Irvine and got on a train at Glasgow going to Manchester at 12.30 pm on 31 July. Apparently, he travelled by train and not on the Celtic supporters bus because he had a twisted spine, for which I understand that he was taking quite a degree of medication. He stayed overnight at the house of Brian Gallagher's mother, Irene Gallagher, who lives in Manchester at 226 Graeme street.
The next morning—the morning of 1 August and the day of the match itself—according to Mrs. Gallagher's statement, Steven got up at 8 am, had his breakfast, went for a shower and at 11 am went outside to lie in the sun. According to Mrs. Gallagher's statement, at 2 pm her nephew, Jack Gallagher, and Brian Gallagher, with whom Steven had travelled from Irvine, moved Steven from the right hand side of the garden to the left hand side since it was a very hot day. They put Steven in the shade to prevent him from getting sunburn. She said:
They lifted him and he just made a few groaning noises.
They left him. The first question that arises is: why did they leave him? Why did they not try to do more? Alarm bells should have been ringing at that point.
Steven had, after all, a ticket for the game. That is now a proven fact. As I understand it, he went to see Kenny McCleary, who is the Irvine Celtic supporters club secretary, some two to three days before the game and collected his ticket from him, paying him £21. I have all the verification of that; it is not in doubt. Mrs. Gallagher says in her statement:
At 18.15 hours that day I got in a taxi from my home address to go to Old Trafford"—
the locus of the football game—
to watch the match. Steven was still in the garden.
I think that almost bizarre. We are talking about a boy who has come all the way down from Irvine to watch the game. He has got a ticket and they know that, yet they leave him to lie in the garden and Mrs. Gallagher goes off to the football game.
At approximately 23.15, a neighbour, Mr. Neil McGowan Frame, who had been babysitting for Mrs. Gallagher's grandson, who had travelled down from Irvine as well, apparently calls an ambulance. That

449WH
happened five hours after Mrs. Gallagher had left by taxi. To give him his due, the man had tried to wake Steven on a number of occasions, but he had failed. Again, one has to pose the question why he did not react more quickly.

I also want to know about the conversations between Mr. Frame, Mrs. Gallagher, Brian Gallagher and others. There is no record of them whatsoever. One would have thought that there would have been in such circumstances. However, we just do not know what those conversations were.
One would also have thought that much more would have happened than did. Action should have been taken and more assistance given. One thing that is certain is that it was subsequently discovered that Steven Fitzsimmons's ticket for the game was not on his person. No adequate check has been made to establish whether it was used. Money and jewellery, Mrs. Fitzsimmons alleges, were missing, never to be found. Steven Fitzsimmons died as a consequence of events that are unexplained.
Brian Gallagher does not appear from the record to have been interviewed by the police at the time or subsequently. PC Picton's statement of 22 February 2004 states:
I have attempted to contact Brian Gallagher to ask him about Steven Fitzsimmons' ticket. I have liaised with Irvine police in Ayrshire who attended Brian Gallagher's last known address on my behalf. He no longer lives at the address and unfortunately there is no forwarding address for him. Gallagher's mother states that she has no contact details for her son.
Again, that seems strange, almost bordering on the bizarre. The question has to be asked: why not? I am sure that had Brian Gallagher been interviewed, most if not all the outstanding issues that pose questions and have no answers, so far as Mrs. Fitzsimmons is concerned, would have been addressed. Today's debate would perhaps not have been required.
There were also other discrepancies. The adult postmortem report, under clinical history, indicated
following alcohol and drug intake.
However, the subsequent toxicological report stated "negative for alcohol". Why the discrepancy? Steven Fitzsimmons was diagnosed as having consumed a cocktail of drugs, including methadone. Where did he get the methadone? I have asked Home Office officials to try to establish that. I do not know whether there are any answers, but I know one thing for certain. Having talked to some of those in the medical profession locally who knew him, including his GP, I know that none of them was aware that Steven was prescribed methadone, and there is no record of it having been prescribed. It is my understanding that methadone is normally prescribed and taken on premises, so I do not know how the methadone got into the person as established by the reports. One has to pose the question of where Steven got that methadone.
Mrs. Helen Fitzsimmons, Steven's mother, believes that foul play took place. One can see why, because of the unanswered questions, although one could easily apply the science of the conspiracy theory. We need to get to the bottom of this, to establish what the facts were, and we need a remedy to answer all the questions to satisfy Helen Fitzsimmons in part.
450WH
As a remedy, I would suggest that we look at the whole question of some kind of investigation, say by the coroner, that would reopen the case and establish the reasons for death and the answers to some of the questions. Why do we need that? Well, the facts as we know them need to be explained. The suspicions of the boy's mother need to be addressed. I am looking forward to the Minister's answers and I also want to know something about what action is likely and how, some two to three years after the event, this outstanding matter can be resolved.
11.10 am
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for raising this matter and expressing his concerns about the death of Steven Fitzsimmons. He has raised important questions and I shall do my best to deal with them. However, clearly those matters do not necessarily concern the Home Office directly. They are also the preserve of Greater Manchester police and the coroner.
It is, of course, important that family and friends can have confidence in the answers that they are given following the tragic death of a loved one. I hope that today's debate will assist in bringing comfort and reassurance to Mrs. Fitzsimmons and Steven's family and friends. I entirely understand that, while these matters are in the air, it is difficult for Mrs. Fitzsimmons, in particular, to feel a sense of confidence in relation to the issues surrounding her son's death.
During any investigation it is for the police to determine their lines of inquiry. They are the arbiters of the most reasonable way to conduct an inquiry. It is part of their operational discretion. I know that my hon. Friend is fully seized from his own experience of the relationship between the Home Office, the police and the police authorities.
When there is a death requiring an inquest, the coroner may guide the police in their inquiries and instruct them to make any inquiries that he or she considers necessary to inform the inquest before a decision is reached on the cause of death. That is what happened in this case, so the coroner has been fully involved.
It would riot be appropriate for me to offer comment or make a judgment on decisions taken by the police or the coroner. There are lines of investigation and review for both of them. However, I am conscious that there have already been numerous communications between my hon. Friend and Greater Manchester police, so that much of what I say now may not be new to him. I hope, nevertheless, for a better understanding between us of the remaining issues.
The coroner's verdict was of accidental death and I am informed by Greater Manchester police that they remain satisfied that that was an appropriate verdict. However, the Manchester coroner has agreed that if my hon. Friend or indeed Mrs. Fitzsimmons make any inquiries of the coroner's office, the coroner will seek to provide any information that might be helpful.
If Mrs. Fitzsimmons is dissatisfied with the outcome of the inquest and the verdict of accidental death, it is of course open to her to seek a fresh inquest. That is the

451WH
appropriate route to take in such circumstances. It is possible for an application to be made to the High Court under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, with the authority of the Attorney-General. I would recommend that if such action is being considered, Mrs. Fitzsimmons and my hon. Friend should be informed by discussions with the coroner and by appropriate legal advice.
It is, of course, understandable that loose ends in any case lead to concern and distress for the parties involved, so I shall try to deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Donohoe: May I establish whether there is a cost implication to the applications that would be needed to have the case reopened?
Ms Blears: If an application were to proceed to the High Court, I am sure that Mrs. Fitzsimmons would need legal representation, so it would be necessary to explore the possibility of obtaining legal aid or whatever assistance might be available. That is why I would advise Mrs. Fitzsimmons to discuss the matter first with the coroner's office, if she is considering such action, to establish the basis on which it could be pursued, and to obtain initial legal advice before embarking on the significant course of reopening the inquest and seeking a fresh verdict. She may well not want to pursue that course of action, provided she gets answers to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. That is the appropriate legal route to challenge the verdict of accidental death if she really believes that that was an inappropriate verdict.
I appreciate the concern that Steven was apparently in the company of other people for a considerable time before it was recognised that anything was wrong and an ambulance was called. I am unable to offer a comment on the circumstances of that, but my hon. Friend was right to raise the issue of what had happened to Steven during the day and in the evening, and that an ambulance was not called until quarter past 11 at night. Those are matters of concern, but I am informed by Greater Manchester police that they still hope to speak to Steven's friend, Brian Gallagher, who was present. They are happy to keep my hon. Friend informed if they can answer any specific questions about what happened in the chronology of events on that day.
I am informed that Mr. Gallagher is not at this time suspected of offences by Greater Manchester police, but they tell me that he has been registered on the police national computer in an attempt to locate him. As my hon. Friend said, Mrs. Gallagher says that she does not have a forwarding address and it is important that Greater Manchester police continue to try to find him with the purpose of interviewing him about Steven's death. He clearly spent a considerable amount of time with Steven, so it is important that the police interview him.
Greater Manchester police are also pursuing enquiries with the Benefits Agency to try to locate Brian. Irvine police have made attempts to locate him by following up his last known address. A great deal of work is going on and the matter has not been laid to rest. Inquiries are ongoing, and I hope that that is some comfort to Mrs. Fitzsimmons.
452WH
At this point, Steven's friend is not a suspect, so the police must be very careful about how they approach Brian Gallagher if he is to provide information that is useful. He may well be fearful of speaking to the police at this point and if my hon. Friend has further information that could be useful to the police, I urge him to share that with them. It is important that the interview takes place and that information is gathered about exactly what happened to Steven on that day if it is to be of assistance to Mrs. Fitzsimmons.
My hon. Friend referred to Steven's match ticket and I understand that there is an issue about missing jewellery. I am informed by Greater Manchester police that both Manchester United and Celtic football clubs have been contacted about the match ticket. Unfortunately, neither club has the means to confirm whether Steven's ticket was used. Inquiries have been made and the clubs have pursued the matter, but presumably neither of them has an information technology system that is able to trace the number of the ticket. At this point, we cannot confirm whether the ticket was used by any other person to gain access to the match.
Property inquiries have also been made at the Manchester royal infirmary, the bereavement centre, the mortuary and the cashiers office, but there are no records relating to the missing property. Again, I assure Mrs. Fitzsimmons that Greater Manchester police made inquiries with all those bodies to see whether the missing jewellery could be found, but, at the moment, there are no records.
The mother of Brian Gallagher has been interviewed. As my hon. Friend said, she occupies the house in which Steven stayed the night before his death. She was unable to provide any further information about whether the ticket had been used or what had happened to the jewellery, so she was unable to give that information to the police.
It seems that the key to providing the answers to many of the questions about this matter is with Steven's friend. His interview is crucial and efforts to trace and interview him are still ongoing. I will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept informed as those inquiries develop and provided with any new information about what happened that day.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of the coroner's findings on drugs and alcohol. I am informed that the toxicology report referred to a cocktail of drugs—cocaine, methadone, cannabis and benzodiazepines—in Steven's body. At this stage, no one knows where the methadone came from, and my hon. Friend believes that it may be possible to contact the relevant health board to find records of the possible source.
If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the matter, it would be a good idea to get in touch with the coroner, who published the findings of the post-mortem and toxicology screen. The coroner was contacted by my officials and said that he would be happy to provide any further information that he can about the circumstances surrounding Steven's death. For Mrs. Fitzsimmons's sake, it would be a good idea to get in touch with him to discuss the findings and try to ascertain the reason for the initial reference to alcohol that was then not

453WH
substantiated by the medical tests. That would be a fruitful course of action for my hon. Friend to follow, and I am sure that he will do so.
I have little further to add, other than to express my sincere condolences to Steven's mother, family and friends for their tragic loss. I entirely understand that, because there are still loose ends, Mrs. Fitzsimmons feels that it is difficult to close the case. The fact that the death occurred at a distance from the rest of the family—Steven was hundreds of miles away in the company of others—has caused real problems for them. I hope that the further inquiries of the Greater Manchester police, particularly the interview with Brian Gallagher, will bear fruit and bring reassurance to the family. I also hope that the discussions with the coroner will result in progress and give the family reassurance that the matter has been dealt with properly.
Mr. Donohoe: Can my hon. Friend the Minister give some indication, if not today perhaps by contacting my office later, as to who to contact in the coroner's office? The information that I have gives two or three names, and it is difficult to track down the person to contact.
Ms Blears: I am more than happy to provide that information. I said at the outset of the debate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on operational decisions of the coroner and the police, but I believe that it is appropriate for me to facilitate my hon. Friend's pursuing the matter on behalf of his constituent. As this is an important constituency case, I shall ensure that my officials and I do everything that we can to provide information and assistance to him. We shall get in touch with his office with the names of the relevant contacts and do whatever we can to facilitate a meeting so that the matter can be properly and thoroughly explored.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend raised this extremely important issue, and I hope that we are able to help the family to achieve some resolution of the outstanding matters. I am grateful to him for the manner in which he has pursued this difficult and potentially contentious issue. His co-operation with all the authorities involved will lead to a better resolution.
11.24 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Horse Exports
2 pm
Gregory Barker: Good afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I begin by declaring an interest. I was brought up with and around ponies; I am today the proud owner and part owner of two horses; and I am actively in the market for a suitable little shaggy pony for my four-year-old daughter. So, I cannot pretend to come to this debate from a dispassionate and objective viewpoint.
I feel very strongly about this issue and so should anyone concerned with not only riding, but the wider agenda of animal welfare. I find the prospect of the live export of British horses and ponies to the meat trade of continental Europe an abomination. Although we can be encouraged by the noises emanating from Strasbourg yesterday, we must be in no doubt that the resumption in the trade must be stopped. The Government will ignore the growing anger of thousands of horse lovers at their peril.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality: The hon. Gentleman and other Members know that the Government's objective is to prevent the development of a trade in live horses for slaughter. Will he explain why he thinks that one might emerge?
Gregory Barker: I am sorry, but I am not at all clear about what the Minister is getting at. I do not think that we disagree about the Government having an objective, however like so many things with this Government, they have targets and objectives but they are very rarely met. We are concerned to ensure that the objective is met and that before the current regime is ended, there is a strong, reliable and robust regime in place. I had exactly that concern last Friday when a Minister in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs failed to turn up for my debate on GM crops. In a way, that is a totally separate issue, but it is in fact similar. The Government may share the objectives but everyone concerned must be sure that the objectives are robust and will be followed through.
Mr. James Gray: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a bar room. Will you indicate to whom you are relinquishing the Floor, sir?
Gregory Barker: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
Mr. Gray: I was going to suggest to my hon. Friend an answer that he might have given the Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that not allowing a market in horses to develop on the continent of Europe is quite different from introducing an absolute, outright ban, which is what we seek?
Gregory Barker: That is the point, and I am sure that the Minister will respond when he has a chance a little later.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman asked about whether the Government have objectives. The answer is

455WH
yes, and we deliver on them. We are delivering on the objective of preventing the development of a trade in horses for slaughter. That is the priority, rather than giving an appearance of dealing with the issue, which is the great risk.
Gregory Barker: I do not want to pre-empt our hourand-a-half debate by jumping around from issue to issue. I am sure that the Minister will address those points, but perhaps we may continue in a more logical fashion.
I pay tribute to the remarkable and tireless campaign conducted on behalf of horses and ponies throughout the country by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. His arrival at the Houses of Parliament today mounted on a fine-looking horse is just the latest of his efforts to raise the public's awareness of what could be an impending disaster for British horses. He also hosted an excellent International League for the Protection of Horses reception to highlight the dangers of impending changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has been equally tenacious in the battle to get the Government to see sense and stand up for British horses and ponies—he even took the issue up with the Prime Minister in the House last week.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend is very kind. Does he agree that I was right to be surprised when the Prime Minister did not provide an immediate answer to my question, but had to write to me subsequently? Only a few weeks earlier, he had received a 60,000-signature petition on that very question.
Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend's point is extremely well made. The Minister says that the Government have objectives, but last Wednesday the Leader of the Government was totally oblivious to that big campaign and the serious and deeply felt worries of horse and pony owners. That is why those of us who are concerned about animal welfare are worried.
Whatever warm words the Minister comes up with, the matter has not even registered on the Government's agenda and may be bumped out of the way by other priorities and crises as they come along. We are here today, first and foremost, to put the matter at the heart of the Government's agenda for the next 12 months. We must ensure that they do not get distracted, that they take the matter seriously and that they listen to the concerns of horse and pony lovers throughout the country.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire and for New Forest, West, I believe that hundreds of thousands of people throughout the kingdom, regardless of political persuasion—I am pleased to see Members from other political parties here today to voice their concern—would find it unforgivable if the Government allowed the resumption of horsemeat trading to sneak through. That trade was stamped out by Stanley Baldwin's Government back in the 1930s.
The horse holds a special place in the affections of the British people, particularly our children. Pony ownership is not the preserve of a privileged few, but a
456WH
sport and hobby for hundreds of thousands of people. Indeed, for many young families, it is a way of life, and financial sacrifices are often made to keep the family pony. A wonderful informal network ensures that elderly ponies are often passed from generation to generation and to new young riders, often for next to nothing except a guarantee that a much-loved family friend will be cared for and looked after responsibly by its new owners. In that way, thousands of families—many of limited means—can enjoy all the fun, happiness and responsibility of owning a pony.
That happy status quo is threatened by the exposure of Britain's ponies to the predatory and insatiable demand of the continental horsemeat market. The market for horsemeat in Europe is not a figment of the British imagination, nor a product of Europhobia. Every year, about 165,000 horses are subjected to horrific journeys, travelling thousands of miles to the EU from eastern Europe or being transported long distances within the rapidly expanding EU, which now stretches from the Baltic to the Atlantic. They are frequently transported in appalling conditions with little or no water or rest, only to be slaughtered when they reach their final destination. The majority of those horses are destined for Italy, which annually imports between 85 and 95 per cent. of Europe's market in live horses. We must not allow our British horses and ponies to suffer the same fate.
Let me remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the basis of the current rules governing the export of ponies and horses.
Mr. David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene before he moves on. I entirely support what he and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire are trying to do. I apologise, as I shall not be here for the rest of the debate—I have to chair the Select Committee inquiry on milk. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is no good isolating the live export of horses and that we should campaign strongly against the export of all livestock that goes from these shores and elsewhere in Europe? I hope that the Opposition also take up that cause.
Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point, but I want to concentrate on the clear danger facing us today from the live export of horses. I am grateful for his cross-party support, which is much appreciated.
The Exportation of Horses Act 1937 forbade the export of live horses under a certain value from our shores. The minimum limit was deliberately set well above the carcase value and the Act has successfully prevented UK horses from being exported live for slaughter. The European Union granted a dispensation to the UK for that to continue after the creation of the Common Market. That dispensation expired in 1995, but remained part of UK law. Unfortunately, it seems that the Government will not again seek the derogation that we acquired in 1995 with the result that the minimum value legislation is in danger of being lost in the European courts. The overall effect of that would be to allow ponies and horses of any value to be exported from the UK for slaughter. We must not allow that to happen.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is putting the case eloquently, but there is one area that concerns me: the indigenous horses of Exmoor, Dartmoor and Bodmin moor, which do not have any protection at all because nobody owns them. They are herded and used for overseas trade. Does he think that we should pressure the Government to close that loophole as well?
Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know that he probably speaks for the whole west country in raising that issue. I do not for one minute pretend that the minimum value legislation is a satisfactory regime for caring for horses and limiting the trade in live exports in the 21st century. It is without doubt in need of updating, and we need better legislation to govern the welfare of horses, but as things stand it is the only game in town and we do not want those protections for horses to go without having something equally robust, if not better and more appropriate, in their place.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is certainly making a strong case. He mentioned the debate in Europe yesterday and the agreement to accept an amendment with regard to the draft regulation that will go before Ministers in April. Has he sought advice, or made any assessment, in respect of a comparison between the likely impacts of that amendment and of the Government's proposed solution regarding trained-to-halter restrictions for live exports?
Gregory Barker: I have still to see the full details and to be briefed fully on this matter, but from what I have seen that route seems far better than the rather unsatisfactory DEFRA proposition. I would like DEFRA to grip the opportunity with both hands. There is obviously a great distance between cup and lip when it comes to taking up the proposition from Europe, but I understand that there is no fundamental barrier to prevent Britain from going for it.
Mr. Gray: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend—this comes hot-foot from Strasbourg. I understand that the amendments state that it would be perfectly possible for member states to
ban exports of certain species for moral reasons.
They would also allow a total national ban
on the export of live equidae…for production or slaughter.
I am pleased to tell him that in response to those amendments Commissioner Byrne said last night that the Commission supports stricter national rules:
I am pleased that this would effectively maintain the UK's restriction on the export of horses destined for human consumption.
So, the European Parliament and the European Commission are happy for us to go ahead with the ban.
Gregory Barker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point so clearly. What we can be sure of is that the current DEFRA muddle is the least satisfactory alternative to the minimum value legislation. I hope that DEFRA grips this opportunity from Europe and takes it forward in the manner he suggests.
Alun Michael: While we are seriously considering clarity, has the hon. Gentleman examined what the current regulations ban? They do not, for instance, provide a ban of the sort that Commissioner Byrne seems to think they do. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the moral grounds on which a ban might be founded? It is important to understand the principles of the approach that he is adopting. He is wrong to say that the opportunity is not being gripped by DEFRA; it is being gripped very firmly. However, we need to get at the principles that underlie the way forward and he is right to say that there is a need for the regulations to be updated.
Gregory Barker: If the Minister allows me, that will emerge in my speech, which I am trying to make. I will make some progress, but if, towards the end of my remarks, he feels that I have not covered that point I will happily return to it. To summarise, we need something that specifically addresses the welfare of horses and is not just a by-product of European legislation.
The situation with regard to the live export of horses is further complicated by the imposition of horse passports. Last weekend, to help to prepare my speech, I visited the Brown Bread horse rescue centre in the village of Ashburnham in my constituency. The trustee of the centre, Tony Smith, showed me and my daughter around the site, which does fantastic work in rescuing and looking after unwanted horses and ponies from all around East Sussex and well beyond. The centre has even taken in ill-treated animals from as far away as Greece.
From June, however, sanctuaries and retirement and rescue centres, such as the wonderful Brown Bread centre, will come under massive financial threat from the Government's bureaucratic horse passport scheme, which could drive them out of existence. A lot of people do not realise what a shoestring such operations work on. They have the most minuscule of budgets and there is no flexibility to accommodate a sudden surge in costs. Mr. Smith is subsidising the centre out of his own pocket.
Those centres are so worried because, technically, horse passports are being introduced to protect humans who consume horsemeat by ensuring that records are kept of the drugs that horses have been given to prevent those chemicals from being passed on into the human food chain. As horse passports are designed to protect humans rather than equines, they do not fall under the remit of equine charities. That presents charities such as the Brown Bread sanctuary with serious difficulties. About 80 horses and ponies at Brown Bread will require horse passports and many other similar sanctuaries will face such struggles to fund the cost of the new regulations.
To sanctuaries such as Brown Bread, the cost of up to 80 horse passports will be a huge financial strain. The total cost of completing a passport can easily pass £50 or £60. Although the passport costs a lot less than that, the cost of the various consultations and of implementing the paperwork required makes the total much bigger than the initial cost of the passport suggests.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that setting up passport schemes is immensely complex and difficult? In the cattle passport scheme, 100,000 cattle were lost at a cost of EIS million a year, according to the National Audit Office. The horse passport scheme will be hugely difficult, but it would be unnecessary if we kept the ban.
Gregory Barker: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who draws a good example giving a major reason why people in the horse world are so worried by this latest bureaucratic initiative from the Government.
Mr. David Cameron: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Gregory Barker: Certainly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. George Osborne.
Mr. Cameron: David Cameron, actually, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A dangerous mistake is made.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a similarity between the issues of horse passports and of the live export of horses? In each case, we are asking the Minister to take a robust stance on behalf of British horse owners and this country. He must stand up for Britain on horse passports and say that they should not be compulsory because we do not need them. He should also say that we will maintain our current position of a virtual moratorium on live exports.
Gregory Barker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a keen horseman. He speaks with his usual authority and is absolutely spot on.
The passports will load costs on to the informal market in ponies, to which I alluded earlier, which could serve to drive the animals out of the reach of those young families who want to offer them a temporary home and into the arms of those seeking to buy them to make a quick profit by selling them on to the meat trade. I find it extraordinary that a Government—and, indeed, a Minister—who are prepared to risk a constitutional crisis over foxhunting can be so blind on such a burning and immediate issue of animal welfare.
Only by opposing the export of live horses will we show proper care and respect for horses and properly fulfil the cultural traditions and desires of the British public. We must support the hundreds of thousands of horse and pony lovers in Britain. The Government must persuade the European Parliament and other member states to allow the UK to continue to prohibit the export of all equines for slaughter. They will find that if they do they are pushing at an open door, if they are sufficiently robust and clear about what they are trying to achieve. We need regulations that are right for the 21st century. If that will not work, we must be prepared to take unilateral action to preserve our horses and pets.
Moreover, by aligning our rules with those of the EU, we would do something that runs contrary riot only to the interests of horses, but to the sentiments of the British public. In British culture, the horse is regarded as a companion animal, not a meat source. That goes back to the Minister's point about the moral argument that underpins my case.
460WH
In Britain, the horse is a greatly loved companion, not something that we like to see on the table. We do not eat horsemeat in the UK. We understand, of course, that other cultures have different customs and that some people eat horsemeat. We must respect those customs in so far as they do not cause harm to others, but I strongly believe that the British public would be horrified if we allowed our horses, even by default or with the best of intentions, to join the harrowing horse slaughter trade, in which economics dictates that noble creatures suffer a long, terrifying and degrading final journey.
Andrew George: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the EU regulations must be tightened up with regard to journey times and the welfare of animals, irrespective of the country to which or from which the horse or pony is being transported? The issue affects not just the EU.
2.21 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.36 pm
On resuming—
Andrew George: I shall continue my intervention, on which I expect the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) will have sought advice. It is important that there should be controls in EU regulations on absolute journey times and welfare, not only of ponies and horses transported within Europe, but of those brought to Europe for human consumption.
Gregory Barker: I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, with enlargement very much upon us, the European Union is that much bigger and the journey time from, for example, the Baltic states or Poland to southern Italy is very long indeed. I am worried not only that the current regulations are not strong enough, but that they are rarely enforced. We must be concerned about proper regulations and proper enforcement.
Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend should not hang his hat too much on the benefits of a European directive to limit journey times, as the markets for the animals are nearly all well beyond the eight to nine hours travelling time that the European Union is discussing. I believe that the main markets for horses are in southern Italy, for salami. He is absolutely right to mention regulations, but even regulations for a nine-hour journey would not be adequate, as the journey times are much longer than that.
Gregory Barker: That is another very good point.
Mr. Gray: I am deeply sorry to correct my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), but the European Union proposal is not that there should be a time limit for the journey, but that there should be a gap. The animals would remain on the lorry for a short time to rest, then the journey would recommence. It is perfectly possible that the horses could be on the lorry for many days, albeit with rests in the meantime.
Gregory Barker: I am grateful for that clarification. Either way, we would not wish such a trade or fate on

461WH

British horses and ponies. I hope that we use our influence in Europe to get a derogation to prevent our horses and ponies from being shipped to Europe. Even so, we must be equally robust in Brussels in arguing for strong restrictions on the transport times and in levering up the welfare regulations. I hope that the Minister is taking note of the very strong feelings on the issue.
In short, we must recognise the divergence of cultural habits and traditions between the UK and other European countries, and ensure that the law reflects it, but that cannot be at the expense of horse and pony welfare. It would be a travesty if an attempt to harmonise European legislation meant watering down the regulations on horses.
I have not come here with an inflexible proposition. There are different ways in which the Minister could tackle the problem, but we need far greater clarity and a much more direct approach from the Government. We must continue to prohibit the export of live horses for slaughter, and we must do that by front-door regulation, not by thinking that we can play about and achieve those ends by tinkering with other rules and regulations. I fear that that is what he has in mind.
I want a bold, clear-cut prohibition of the live export of horses and an improvement on the current system. The challenge for the Government is to be clearer, more robust and more straightforward in how they tackle the issue.
Ministers have said that the minimum value legislation that underpins the system will not be repealed until something is in place that is equally robust in law, which will either maintain or improve the protection for our horses. I hope that the Minister takes this opportunity to give the House, and the country at large, a cast-iron guarantee that that is the case and that he takes the clear route that seems to have been offered by Commissioner Byrne and the European Parliament, rather than the more complex route that DEFRA has pursued to date.
In an intervention, the Minister asked what is so different, in welfare terms, about horses and ponies. He shakes his head, but when he addressed the moral question he asked what is different about the moral issue of animal welfare. I promised to come back to him on that before I finished speaking.
Alun Michael: I may have misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I did not ask about the difference between horses and ponies. Is that what he says I said?
Gregory Barker: No, no—not the difference between horses and ponies, but the difference in our culture and the moral difference as between horses and ponies and other types of animal. The Minister shakes his head, but I think that the record will show that that was the gist of his intervention.
Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gregory Barker: Let me complete my speech, because we are getting into a rather scrappy exchange.
462WH
Horses and ponies are an integral, almost unique, part of the British way of life and our culture. They appear in our literature, film, folklore and works of art, and they are an incredibly important part of our pastimes, sports and recreation. We are a nation of horse lovers and we need to recognise that the horse occupies a special place in this country—beyond that which it occupies in other European nations. That is why we need a derogation and an extra guarantee, and that is why our ponies and horses must be protected.
Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gregory Barker: I shall allow the Minister to reply fully in his own time, as I am reaching my peroration.
We must send a clear and unequivocal message from this debate to the meat traders of continental Europe that Britain's horses and ponies must be kept off the menu. We want a clear solution to the problem and we will do whatever is necessary to maintain the current situation.
Several hon.Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whereas we would normally commence the first of the three winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock, we must now do so at 3.15 pm to allow for injury time. I hope that hon. Members bear that time limitation in mind when they make their contributions and accept interventions, of which there have been many, or respond to them, which has taken even longer.
2.44 pm
Bob Spink: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on securing this important debate on a subject that touches the hearts of many people in Britain. I hope that we continue to push this campaign over the coming years.
The British people have a special relationship with horses and, indeed, dogs. As my hon. Friend explained, they are companion animals, not meat animals. We simply do not eat them. In that, as in so many other things, we are quite different from the French, and from other continental countries, to which I say, "vive la difference".
This is a matter of improper and unnecessary interference from the European Union. The EU Commission decision 200/68 is a disgraceful imposition on this country. Yet again we see new Labour eager to pander to the EU and its regulations and centralised control in a way that the people of this country increasingly seek to resist.
The horse passport is a disgraceful regulation. It is simply being pursued to feed the cruel and poorly regulated European slaughterhouses—largely to provide horsemeat for the salami trade, which is something that people in this country find repugnant. We should seek to stop the live export for slaughter of all animals from this country, not seek to extend it to horses. There are two clear reasons for that. The first is moral, but the second is economic and that has not yet been mentioned today.

463WH
The moral reason circles around animal welfare. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the animal welfare issues. I know that our Front-Bench spokesman will be focusing on it, so I will say no more about it so as to be brief, as you requested, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The second issue is that of sound economics. We need to support the added value on the slaughter and provision of animals for food in this country. The export of live animals for slaughter is equivalent to exporting British jobs. I do not want to see this new Labour Government export any more British jobs to continental Europe, even though they consistently seek to do so.
Public opinion is clear on the issue. They want the export of live horses for slaughter to be prohibited. Anything less will be yet another reason for my constituents, like those of many other hon. Members, to seek to vote the new Labour Government out at the next general election.
Several hon.Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is time for a small explanation and a large apology. Due to a foul up by our intelligence services, I am afraid that I must apologise to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for getting his name wrong. On this occasion, I call Mr. David Cameron.
2.47 pm
Mr. David Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I quite understand. The mistake has also been made by Mr. Speaker. If he can make it, it is quite acceptable for his deputies to do so as well.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on raising an important issue. He has done so with a great combination of reasonableness and passion. I know that, as a keen horseman, he will be riding in his first point to point over the Easter break. Conservative Members do not want a by-election, so we all wish him the best of luck with that.
I start with two clear propositions. First, horses are companion animals and I do not want to encourage the eating of them. Secondly, the transport of horses for human consumption often results in great cruelty and suffering. As I understand it, virtually no horses are exported from the UK to European countries where horsemeat is eaten. I believe that continuing that should be the aim of all those who care about this branch of animal welfare Those are simple propositions that we would all sign up to.
As I understand it, the Government are proposing two things. The first is to introduce the compulsory passport legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and I did as much as we could to oppose. I thought it profoundly misguided to have compulsory passports containing a record of every drug taken by the horse just to facilitate the eating of horses. The second thing that the Government are doing is proposing to end the effective moratorium on the export of live horses from the UK. They say that they hope to get such tough welfare standards approved across Europe that that moratorium will effectively remain in place. I will come on to whether that is true in a minute.
464WH
I want to raise another point, however. The Minister wrote a letter to The Daily Telegraph on 8 February, in which he said:
There is absolutely no connection between horse exports and equine passports.
I am not at all sure that that is true. If every horse in Britain has a passport and that passport shows what drugs have been administered, it surely makes it more likely that those horses can end up in the food chain. If, at the same time, the Government say that the current status of the law about live exports has to change—everyone agrees that the current status of the law means that horses exported from the UK are always on the hook rather than on the hoof—changing the law could change the situation. Our fear is that for some horses it will mean, "Have passport, will travel." That is what we are trying to avoid.
What does the Minister propose to do? It seems to me that the European Commission is in the process of introducing new regulations for the live transport of horses and other animals. They will be by no means ideal but they will probably be an improvement. I accept that. They will make a bad situation in the EU rather better. However, the question for us in this Chamber is what the effect will be on the UK. That is the key question for the Minister when he winds up the debate.
Why will the Government not go down the route suggested by the International League for the Protection of Horses, which is to ask for an opt-out for the UK from the EU rules so as to prevent effectively the live export of horses from the UK? I cannot do better than to quote from the very good briefing that the ILPH has given to Ministers:
The new European rules will not be good enough when you consider that there is no export trade at all from the UK now. In short, the rules will make a bad situation on the Continent a bit better. They must not be an excuse to make a good situation in Britain into a bad one.
That is the nub of it.
I want to make one last point. There is another relationship in the Government's proposals relating to horse passports and the live export of horses. It is quite clear from the Adjournment debate that I held, from the statutory instrument Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I served and from all the questions that we asked that it was unnecessary to bring in compulsory passports for the UK. The Minister could have fought for a different situation for the UK, where only horses going into the food chain would need a passport, yet the Government gave in. They initially said that we could do that and then they said that it was not possible; they then gave in.
The situation with live exports is similar. We do not want to export live horses for meat. We do not think that it should happen. We think that it is an evil trade—I expect that the Minister would agree. I challenge him, or anyone else, to go out on to the street and find five people who want to see the export of live horses from this country to the continent. They will not find them.
The Minister can go to the Council of Ministers, he can do what is easy and convenient and he can negotiate something that will make life a little better in Europe and a lot worse in Britain or he can stand up and defend his country and negotiate something that allows us to maintain our moratorium on the live export of horses.

465WH
The Minister heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire that the relevant commissioner in the European Parliament has now said that an opt-out for Britain is acceptable, and the Minister has no excuse not to make sure that we can get that opt-out. He likes to style himself as the Minister for the horse. If he is, he will fight for that opt-out and will deliver something that is as good as the status quo for this country. Otherwise, he will not be the Minister for the horse, but the Minister for something else—I fear that he will be the Minister for eating horses.
The Minister failed the test on hunting. He promised things to the countryside that he simply did not deliver, such as listening. He then suddenly said that an all-out ban was a jolly good thing, even though that was not what he initially proposed. He failed the test on passports and he let the country down over that. He now faces a third test, on keeping the situation so that horses cannot be exported live from this country for the meat trade. He has got to pass that test, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
2.54 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on bringing a topic of enormous interest to the House's attention. I should declare an interest: my family has always owned horses, and I have several now. It might interest my hon. Friend to know that I have an ancient, retired Shetland pony who is vicious at both ends and tends to come into the house for cake, but I think that we should discuss that later.
I would like to help the Minister. The Government are engaged in a big conversation, talking to the country and to interested groups, and we all know that an election is not terribly far away. I introduced an Adjournment debate on ragwort about three years ago in which I established that an enormous number of people are involved in the horse world: three million people ride, and 500,000 households own more than 1 million horses between them. I calculated that the horse industry is probably the second-largest industry in the countryside.
I totally endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I have not met a single person who would support the proposal to end the moratorium. There are a lot of horses in my constituency, and when I go home at weekends I go racing, but I have met no one who supports the proposal. It is extraordinary how obtuse and pig-headed the Government have been.
I shall not go through the reasons for keeping the moratorium, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle went through them in depth. I entirely endorse his comments, and I am sure that that will be reflected in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who has fought an absolutely splendid campaign. There are good reasons not to remove the moratorium or, indeed, to relax it in any way. Only 7,000 horses are eaten in this country, and we have a totally satisfactory mechanism, involving knacker's yards and hunt kennels, for disposing of redundant and dead horses.
466WH
One huge advantage of the Minister taking the opportunity offered by the European Union to take up the derogation would be that we would not have to burden the countryside with the ghastly nightmare—the bureaucratic cost and nonsense—of horse passports. Incredibly, the cattle passports scheme has lost 100,000 cattle. As I said, the National Audit Office reckons that that costs us—the taxpayers—15 million a year. We have not even started the scheme for horses, which are owned by a far more heterogeneous group of people and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who has left the Chamber, said, some horses, including some on Bodmin and other moors, are not owned by a particular person.
If the moratorium were maintained, introducing horse passports would be total nonsense. As the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website says, the only real reason to have passports is that they
will satisfy the European commission that the UK has a viable method of identifying horses that have been treated with medicines that must not be administered to food producing animals.
If we are not going to export horses for food, the only horses that will require passports will be racehorses, which already have them, and the 7,000 horses that go into the food chain in this country.
Getting rid of the passport scheme would save an absolute nightmare of costs to the countryside. We are talking about a passport possibly costing up to £50, fines of £5,000 for not having one, and the possibility of a month's imprisonment for a second offence. A lot of riding schools are right on the edge of viability, and the passport scheme will push them over the edge, which would be tragic because horses provide splendid recreation; they are a marvellous way for young people to learn about animals and to get into the horse industry, which is, as I said, enormous.
If the Minister screws his courage to the sticking-place and uses the opportunity that the European Union gave him yesterday to maintain the moratorium, he will agree that there is absolutely no necessity to persist with the bureaucratic nonsense of horse passports.
2.59 pm
Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) not only on securing the debate and making a strong case but on timing the debate so fortuitously. A Committee of the European Parliament recently considered an amendment to the regulation that we are debating, and the Council of Ministers is due to debate the issue only two weeks after we return from the Easter recess. In view of the large number of questions that we have for the Minister—to be fair, he has engaged in debate—I shall do my best to keep my comments brief and give him the maximum available time between now and 3.45, when the debate will, sadly, have to end.
I, too, come to the debate happy to declare that in my youth I was the proud owner of a pony. I fully understand the strong passions that the issue arouses. I congratulate the Western Morning News, a newspaper in my region, on mounting a first-class campaign to draw its readership's attention to the potential plight of ponies and horses from the UK. The paper raised a

467WH
66,000-signature petition, which made the Government well aware of the issue and which formed part of an 85,000-signature petition that was presented to the European Parliament only yesterday.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In endorsing the hon. Gentleman's views about the role of the press, I praise The Southern Daily Echo on its efforts. I draw his attention to a headline in today's edition, which states categorically "Ponies off the menu", which suggests that the whole episode as over and done with as a result of the European decision. A Liberal Democrat MEP is even quoted as saying that there is now no question of New Forest ponies being exported for slaughter. Given the hon. Gentleman's more cautious remarks, am I right in thinking that that is not quite yet the position?
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It would be quite inappropriate of me to admonish a fellow member of my party for perhaps being a little hasty in his conclusions. However, it is obviously encouraging that a Committee of the European Parliament has accepted the amendment in its present form. No doubt my Liberal Democrat colleague hoped that the robustness and strength of the case made in that Committee would make the Minister highly likely to take on board the logic of our argument. Perhaps my colleague assumed, on the basis of such robustness and logic, that the two things followed as night follows day. We shall see if that happens.
I congratulate the International League for the Protection of Horses, which has been steadfast in the campaign. The league has provided an excellent briefing for today's debate and has always been forthcoming with information and advice in response to my questions. The league was responsible for part of the 85,000-signature petition delivered to the European Parliament yesterday.
I asked in an intervention whether the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had made an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed amendment compared with the Government's alternative. That alternative focuses on the trained-to-halter condition, which would constrain the export to other European countries of live horses for human consumption. That is the nub of the argument, and I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication about the assessments and reassure us that his assessment is that the proposed trained-to-halter constraint on the export of live horses would provide at least the same level of constraint as the current derogation allows. Has the Minister had the opportunity to review the situation since yesterday's debate in a Committee of the European Parliament? Has he come to a conclusion about the position that the Government will take on 30 April, when I understand the Council of Ministers is due to meet to consider this crucial issue? I hope that the Council will come to a conclusion with which the general public in this country, especially horse and pony owners, will be content.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to raise the question of journey limits. Irrespective of the question of the fate of ponies and horses from the UK, journey limits affect ponies and horses from other European nations, including eastern European nations, some of which are accession
468WH
countries. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) rightly pointed out in an intervention that the present draft indicates that the current constraint on journey times is likely to be lifted. As for welfare, under the proposed new regulation the rest, feeding and watering of animals is likely to happen only after 24 hours, or even some time after that—and it will take place on the vehicle. Those who love ponies and horses and have regard for them, whether they are from the UK or Europe, or have been brought into Europe from outside, believe that horses should be treated with consideration. I hope that when the Minister debates the issue in the Council of Ministers on 30 April he will consider it carefully. It is important that the UK stands up in Europe and makes a strong case for robust constraints on journey limits. The majority of people in this country who care about horses and ponies will also be extremely worried and concerned about their treatment in other European nations or those potential accession countries such as Romania, which export horses and ponies into the EU—particularly Italy.
I hope that the Minister will have the time to answer questions on whether he will take up the proposed derogation and the amendment to the regulation proposed yesterday in Committee. I wonder what assessment he has made of that, and what efforts he will make to ensure that much more rigorous and robust controls are introduced to constrain journey limits.
Gregory Barker: I concur with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he be sure to reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and thus not encourage his colleagues to think that the war is won? There is much more to do. It would be wrong to send a message out now that we can relax and everything will be all right. We must keep up the pressure.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is right. We could have adjourned this debate had the war been won. The fact that we are here and feel passionate about the issue helps to make the point. It is important that we do not give a false impression that the battle is won—of course it is not. We have achieved something important, which members of all parties should celebrate, but the battle is certainly not won and that is why constructive engagement with the Minister and the Department is important. I hope that, rather than bludgeon the Minister into submission, we shall persuade him to accept a logical, robust and sensible measure.
3.8 pm
Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). It is nice to know that the Liberal Democrats are with us on this. I join him in congratulating the Western Morning News in particular, and my local paper, the Western Daily Press, both of which have campaigned long and hard on the issue. There is strong feeling about it throughout the west country. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken part in the debate, and I was glad to hear his words of support.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have made useful contributions to the debate; in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory

469WH

Barker), whose timing was, as always, immaculate, and who introduced the debate eloquently and elegantly. It is also nice to have the expertise of my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron), each of whom contributed to developing today's arguments.
I was pleased to exercise the age-old right of a Member of Parliament and come to Parliament today on a horse. I believe that that has not happened since 1920 and the last person to do it was a Conservative MP called Sir Arthur Samuel. I was delighted to be escorted by two outriders from the International League for the Protection of Horses, and I join the hon. Member for St. Ives in paying tribute to that organisation, which has done a fantastic job on campaigning on the issue and changing minds in all parts of the House, in the European Parliament, the Commission and elsewhere. This debate is a tribute to its determination to ensure that the issue is properly aired.
It was a great treat to ride a 23-year-old ex-police horse called ILPH Pascal—three times a winner of the police horse of the year award in the early 1990s. That is exactly the kind of animal that, if we cannot change the Government's mind, will be piled on to lorries, carted off to the continent and turned into sausages. It was an important piece of symbolism that we arrived on horses to show what animals we are seeking to protect.
As several hon. Members have commented, the debate is timely because the European Parliament yesterday agreed to two amendments to which I shall refer shortly. The purpose of the debate is to persuade the Government that their proposals are insufficient and that the vast bulk of the British population are opposed to the proposals, and, in a positive way, to suggest a solution to the difficult problem—a way out of this nasty hole. I hope that, contrary to what the Minister said on the farming programme on which he appeared this morning, he is ready to listen constructively and act on some of our suggestions.
As we have heard, here in Great Britain, we do not eat horses; we never have. Their export to abattoirs on the continent has been banned for some 70 years thanks to the so-called minimum value regulations introduced in 1937 by a Conservative MP, Sir George Cockerill. Those regulations have been extremely effective; they were introduced to prevent the export of live horses, and no horses have been exported from the UK to be eaten. Whatever one might say about the regulations, they work. At this moment, no horses are being exported to the European Union or elsewhere to be eaten.
I accept the Minister's point that it may be time to reconsider those regulations, and that the introduction of the EU transport regulations may make that need more urgent. The purpose of the debate is to try to find an alternative solution to the proposed export of live horses and to replace and replicate the protection of horses afforded by the minimum value regulations.
It is worrying that the Minister seemed to suggest that he could see no moral justification for a ban. He seemed to be saying that, as far as he was concerned, it would be morally legitimate for us to export horses to the continent. No doubt he will say that that will not happen
470WH
and that he will put in place measures to ensure that it does not. However, his comments suggested to me that he sees no moral justification for banning the export of live horses to be turned into sausages. When he said that, he was alone among the 55 million people in Britain. I suspect that the people of Britain, to a man, woman and child, believe that there is an overwhelmingly strong moral objection to the export of live horses to be turned into sausages—the people of Britain do not want it. If the Minister believes that it is morally acceptable for horses to be exported to Italy to be made into salami, he is on his own.
The Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle a moment to intervene. If he now wants to tell us that we, on this side of the House, have the moral case and that he disagrees with us, he should do so.
Alun Michael: I have a question for the hon. Gentleman that neither he nor his hon.. Friend have answered. Will he set aside his misinterpretation of what I might say and I have not said, and explain on what moral argument he would base a simple ban?
Mr. Gray: That is precisely the point, and I notice that the Minister did not correct us or say that he believes the export of live horses to be immoral. I believe it to be immoral, wicked and scandalous, and something that we must ban. The Minister has not said that he considers it to be wicked, so I shall tell him why I believe that this is a moral issue. There is a simple moral difference that is reflected in European laws: on the continent of Europe, the horse is an agricultural, food-producing animal. All the regulations on horses on the continent consider them to be a food-producing animal. In this country, we have never done that: the horse is specifically not an agricultural animal, although some would like it to be. If it were an agricultural animal, there would be no business rates. It is often said that there would be all kinds of advantages in it being considered an agricultural animal, but we have always resisted that.
Here, as my hon. Friends eloquently said, the horse is considered to be a companion animal—a sporting animal—not a food-producing animal, and with the exception of 6,000 or 7,000 broken-down racehorses among the 1 million to 1.5 million horses in Britain, we do not kill them to be eaten. That is the moral difference. We in Britain love our horses: we do not see them as food-producing animals, and we do not want them to be slaughtered and made into sausages. That is an overwhelmingly powerful moral argument that the people in Britain will almost unanimously accept, and we shall see that in the papers tomorrow.
Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend has put it brilliantly, but would he not agree that the fact that the so—called Minister for the horse has to ask the question in the first place, because he is not clear what the moral argument is, is really quite scandalous? It is a matter of huge concern to anybody who loves horses that he throws the question open for debate.
Mr. Gray: I would not be so harsh on the unfortunate person who finds himself being the Minister for the horse, because he is in an awkward position. He has

471WH
been advised up to now that he must do this because of European law, so he regrettably seeks to make out that that there is no moral objection to what he has been forced to do. We should be gentle with the Minister, not force him into a corner or call him immoral. However, we intend in this debate to offer him an alternative—an escape from his awkward position.
Let me give one analogy. Let us suppose that some madman concluded that we should herd together the many millions of stray dogs and cats on Britain's streets, put them on a ship and take them to Korea. I believe that dogs and cats are eaten in Korea, although I find that nauseating. If that were to happen. would not the Minister consider the herding together and shipment of dogs and cats—live and in horrific conditions—to Korea to be eaten, to be immoral? I most certainly would, just as I consider the export of live horses to be entirely abhorrent and obnoxious.
The Minister will tell us that the minimum value regulations will not stand up in court, and he may be right. It is reasonable that we should seek to assist him in trying to find an alternative to them. He is probably right, too, to say that the live transportation regulations, which are currently under consideration on the continent, may make that even more difficult. Incidentally, the Conservatives welcome much of what is proposed in the new EU transportation regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said, we hope that they will make a bad situation slightly better, although we have real reservations about the end product of the regulations, because they will still mean that horses and other animals could be on lorries for many days, albeit with rest periods for food, water and veterinary care. However, we see no reason at all why those slightly better transportation regulations on the continent of Europe should necessarily interfere with the ban on the export of live horses from this country.
Having listened to the Minister on various recent occasions, it would appear to me that his intended solution to the problem is to ensure that the export of live horses is not restarted, and I accept that he has said several times that he does not want it to start again. He seems to be indicating that he intends to prevent that by gold plating the welfare regulations, making them so stringent that the trade will become uneconomic. To be fair to him, he has achieved that in one category of horse: unbroken ponies. The regulations on unbroken ponies will almost certainly make that trade nearly impossible.
What about the other types of horse which are not covered, however? If the Minister has in mind extremely high standards that would, in effect, ban any resumption of the live export of all categories of horse and pony, he must at the very least spell out today precisely what those high standards are. It is no good saying, "I'm going to put in place high standards, which I hope is gold plating. I therefore hope that there will not be a market, because it will be too expensive for live export to start." We want to know precisely and in minute detail what those standards are and why they will be achieved. The horse that I rode to Westminster today is probably worth £500 or £600 in the dead meat market. What standards will the Minister put in place to ensure that traders do not want to sell their horse overseas for that amount?
472WH
The Minister may also argue that he does not believe that there is a market for live export, or that he hopes that there is not, and that in any case there will not be one under these new, stringent conditions. I am not convinced, particularly in the aftermath of the absurd EU regulations that prevent the burial of carcases on farms. Unscrupulous owners and traders are likely to find an alternative market for end-of-life horses on the continent. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Witney have said, the Minister's absurd, bureaucratic and unenforceable horse passport regulations will make that export much easier. Live export overseas would not be possible were it not for passports. I call on him to abolish the horse passport scheme, which would solve his problem at a stroke.
The Opposition are by no means convinced that the Minister's promised gold plating will replicate the effective ban that the minimum value regulations provided, and we demand an effective total ban. As one or two of my hon. Friends have commented this afternoon, we now have something that gives the Minister exactly the solution that he seeks. As we have heard, yesterday two of my Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament, Roger Helmer and Neil Parish, to whom I pay tribute, secured broad acceptance of two amendments to the draft regulations. New article 1.2(a), inter alia, reads:
This regulation shall not be an obstacle to any stricter national measures, including a total ban on the export of live equidae intended for production or slaughter.

New annexe 1, chapter V, paragraph 1.1 reads:
Journeys by road and rail for slaughter of animals such as domestic equidae
shall
not exceed 9 hours…Member States can apply shorter transport periods … within their own territory or ban exports of certain species for moral reasons.
Incidentally, it was the European Parliament, not the Committee, that passed those amendments in plenary session yesterday. They will go to the Council of Ministers and then to the Commission, which may or may not ratify them. The difficulty is—and here we come to what the Minister must do—that we do not know whether the British Government are asking for those amendments to be passed. We heard that Commissioner Byrne, who has responsibility for these matters, believes them to be perfectly sensible. Last night, he said:
The Commission supports … stricter national rules … I am pleased that this would effectively maintain the UK's restriction on the export of horses destined for human consumption.
The European Parliament has unanimously agreed to the amendments, as have the various Committees. The commissioner says that he understands them, that he is ready to go along with them, and that he believes that the Commission will go along with them. The whole European structure says that we can ban the export of live horses. Only one person says that he hopes that more stringent regulations will somehow ban the trade that all of us, except him, believe to be obnoxious and immoral.
Mr. Cameron: The Minister for the horse.
Mr. Gray: As my hon. Friend says, that comes from the Minister.

473WH
The regulations have been amended to allow the ban to continue. The European Parliament wants that, and the commissioner is perfectly happy about it. We need to persuade the Government of the political urgency of continuing the ban. The Minister cannot shelter behind what he calls the unsustainability of the minimum value regulations. He cannot merely blame the EU, because we now know that it agrees with us; nor can he rely on what he claims are much improved standards of welfare in transit.
The Opposition say that no standards of welfare in transit, no matter how gold plated they may be, are sufficiently humane. We believe that we speak for 99 per cent. of the people of Britain. We demand an absolute ban on the export of live horses for slaughter for human consumption. The Minister should deserve his name as Minister for the horse; he must not become the Minister for the slaughtering of horses.
3.25 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality: I shall seek to cover the wide range of issues raised this afternoon. First, however, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on securing the debate. He has highlighted an important issue, but he and others are wrong to worry people without justification. Serious issues are involved, but to worry people by suggesting that the Government are going to relax, or somehow allow a diminution in, the protection of horses or their welfare is wrong.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we need to improve the regulations and that they need to be based on horse welfare. That is precisely what we have done, but that was not the drift of all the hon. Gentleman's speech although it is an important point.
The hon. Gentleman and one or two others strayed on to the question of horse passports. The Government have not introduced a top-down bureaucratic system; we have worked with the horse industry to strengthen the role of our country's horse organisations and to produce a sensible system. He and others should talk more to the horse organisations with which we worked. They would then realise that they have missed a great deal of the point.
Mr. Gray: The Minister may have consulted the horse industry, but has he consulted the Pony Club, the breed organisations or the Association of British Riding Schools, of which, I should warn him, I am president?
Alun Michael: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's affection for one or two horse organisations, but we consulted with a wide range of organisations, including the breed societies, the International League for the Protection of Horses and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is right to highlight that issue, which is one that people feel strongly about. We have received several thousand letters, postcards and petitions from hon. Members, campaign groups and the
474WH
public on the subject, which demonstrates the strength of feeling, but some of those communications were not about anything that we have ever contemplated doing.
Gregory Barker: Does the Minister not agree that, contrary to his opening remark that we have raised the subject to worry people, we are articulating the genuine concerns of thousands of people? This is not an issue that has been whipped up in Parliament; the Opposition are articulating a real concern.
Alun Michael: I have to say that some Conservative Members sought to exploit the strong feeling held by many. Indeed, I welcome the idea of positive engagement, which was put forward by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). He, at least, wants proper protection for horses to result from today's debate and from how those issues are addressed in the long term. I invite Conservative Members to engage in such a constructive debate, even though doing so may seem strange to them.
Mr. Cameron: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: In a moment.
Most of those who have written to us expressing such strong views support, without seeming to know it, what the Government are trying to achieve—namely, the prevention of the live export of horses for slaughter. I welcome their support. The Government are working to protect and improve the welfare of horses.
Let us look at the facts. There is no ban on the export of horses for slaughter, and there never has been. The national rules on horse and pony exports, which are sometimes referred to as the minimum values rules, merely place restrictions on the export of certain working horses—that is, horses intended for work abroad, not those sent for slaughter—and some ponies. Those long-standing provisions prevented the export of unfit or worthless older working horses and ponies—that is why they were introduced—but so-called working horses such as shire horses are now more likely to be exported for showing or competition. In other words, the minimum values do not apply. That is why I asked Conservative Members several times whether they had read the rules or understood them.
Some people believe that those restrictions have served to limit horse and pony exports. The fact is that there is hardly any such trade, and because we do not want to see it grow or to send the wrong signal, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I do not intend to relax or remove the minimum values until and unless we have new arrangements that protect horses and their welfare. I have made that absolutely clear in a letter, which I have sent to hon. Members, including Opposition Members here today. I am surprised that they sought to cast doubt on that during the debate.
The minimum values are relatively small. They have not been updated for 25 years, so it is a pretty poor nag that would be protected by the law as it stands, even if it happened to be a working horse that came within the very limited categories to which the rules apply. The current arrangements also provide a bureaucratic obstacle to the legitimate and worthwhile movement of

475WH
horses and ponies for sport and recreation. Increasingly, people go abroad and have to follow the regulations, which is an obstacle for those who have nothing to do with the export of horses for slaughter.
The problem is that the alternatives that Opposition Members are providing do not necessarily do what they think they will do. I have said on several occasions that laws do not always prevent what they forbid. We want legislation that works. We want regulations that prevent the trade and address the issues of horse welfare and animal welfare.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), as promised.
Mr. Cameron: When raising this concern with every Member of Parliament, the ILPH said that it is extremely concerned that there is a real risk that this vital legislation will be repealed. Does the Minister think that the ILPH is whipping up trouble?
Alun Michael: I would put it this way: it is interesting that in private the ILPH has congratulated me on what I am doing to protect the welfare of horses. It did that at a large meeting last week. It is interesting that the ILPH and the RSPCA came to talk to me about the need to keep up the slaughter of horses in this country so that meat can be exported to avoid the animal welfare problems that arise from horses travelling abroad for slaughter. I can see their point entirely. It is a good, straight point and hon. Members need to understand it.
It is important to separate the issue of the slaughter of horses—where they go, how we get the value that pays for that slaughter, the horse slaughterhouses and how humane slaughter is dealt with in this country at the end of an animal's life—from the issue of export and the welfare of horses in transit. Those issues are both important, but they need to be understood if Members and the general public—a well-informed general public, I would like to think—are to understand what is necessary to protect horses from the trade that several Members have rightly said that they want to prevent and which we are working hard to prevent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, although I shall draw a blind over the fact that he seemed to be praying in aid the RSPCA and the ILPH, which is quite incorrect. They are both entirely opposed to what he proposes.
The Minister says that the minimum value legislation is ineffectual but, none the less, he is certain to keep it in place until we have something better. Will he answer two questions? If the legislation is so ineffectual, why does it work? Not one horse is being exported at the moment, so it seems to me that it is working pretty well. Secondly, if he is to put something better in its place that has
476WH
exactly the same effect—I welcome the fact that he says that he does not like live export—will he explain in detail what it will be?
Alun Michael: First, the legislation is ineffectual: if the hon. Gentleman simply reads the law he will see that it does not ban what he and his colleagues suggest it bans.
Mr. Gray: It works.
Alun Michael: It does not. Look at the law and what it does. It does not ban what Opposition Members say it does. There has been a general understanding that the minimum values protect a limited range of animals, and to get rid of those regulations would send the wrong signal. That is all I am saying. The idea of a trade in horses for slaughter from this country is abhorrent to people in this country. The organisations that I said have agreed with me have said that controlling the export of horses for slaughter is the issue.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire cited the RSPCA. That organisation has just written to hon. Members to express its worry about elements of the presidency's proposals for dealing with the issue of animals in transit. I spoke to the RSPCA yesterday to clarify whether the point involves general animal welfare issues and whether it is happy with the situation that we have achieved for horses. It confirmed that it supports the situation that we have achieved for horses. Its concerns relate to the wider issue of the welfare of animals in transit, and it is worried that the presidency's proposals are not strong enough.
Andrew George: The Minister says that he wants regulations that work, but I do not think that we in this Chamber are better than anyone else at second-guessing the likely outcome of the various proposals. He says that his proposals would be as good, if not better, than the current arrangements. Is he prepared to stake his career and reputation on that, is he confident of the outcome and will he support the amendments proposed by the European Parliament? Surely that would directly achieve the outcome that all of us, including him, want.
Alun Michael: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. First, our categoric intention—I have written to all Members of the House about this—is not to relax the minimum value regulations unless and until something a great deal better is available. We want to achieve what people believe the regulations achieve. One reason for wanting to be sure that that is practical is that instead of just discussing it with DEFRA officials, my officials and I have been discussing it with the horse welfare organisations and organisations such as the RSPCA, and looking at what would work in practice.
A lot of hard work has been done and I commend the willingness of horse welfare organisations to engage with us to try to achieve something that works. A great deal of serious work is going on and the way in which some Opposition Members talk that down shows outrageous opportunism. The emotive language of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire on turning our horses into sausages is the opposite of engagement.
What the European Parliament decided yesterday is interesting and may be helpful. We shall examine that in detail. As I understand the amendment, it would allow

477WH
a provisional ban on horses for slaughter, but subject to an assessment of the legal issues concerning the treaty. We need to know how it would work in practice and what is the relationship between the resolution, to which the commissioner gave a general tick, and other parts of European legislation.
I certainly give a commitment to examine that carefully to see whether it provides something that we can use, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will consider the matter equally seriously. We are not sure that it will do so and I do not want to build up hopes, because it is not the easy stroke that a resolution sometimes seems to be, but we will consider it and what the Commission has to say about it to see where we can get to.
Clearly there are concerns among animal welfare organisations generally about the presidency proposals. We are taking a lead in Europe by working for effective regulation to protect the welfare of horses, not just in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe, including the accession states.
I shall explain the current EU legislation. A lot has been made of the opt-out clause in the 1991 directive on welfare during transport. That clause was an attempt to acknowledge that the directive did not set welfare rules for horse journeys, so member states were able to make up their own rules. From that clause stemmed our legal basis for retaining the minimum value rules, although they do not do what many people think they do. In 1995, rules for horse and pony journeys were agreed at EU level and implemented in the UK in 1997—not immediately after they were agreed and not by the party of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, but by the incoming Administration. There was a dragging of feet over the implementation of those rules and some hon. Members will remember the controversy over that.
In contrast, this Government are committed to and put high priority on high standards of animal welfare, but improvement in welfare rules, including enforcement, will really count if they are made at European level so that horses and ponies receive better protection during transport on the continent and not just in the UK. Last year, the European Commission brought forward its long-awaited proposals to amend the transport rules. This is where the issue of the impact of its proposals comes in. We are pleased that both the Italian and Irish presidencies have taken things forward.
During the negotiations, Britain has been seeking high standards for horses, along with better enforcement. Campaigning organisations say that long journeys for horses and ponies take place on the continent. I agree. That is something that we want to prevent. It is the prospect of British horses and ponies being subjected to such journeys that leads campaigners to press for a ban on live exports, and I entirely sympathise with those concerns, but let us be honest: the minimum value rules are out of date and, even more importantly, do not achieve the improved welfare standards for horses. It is not an option to continue to operate those rules unchanged. We want similar or better controls.
478WH
We considered an outright ban, but the problem is enforcement. That is why we have to look carefully at the suggestions made yesterday to see whether they would achieve what we want. There is no prohibition on horses being exported for other reasons—breeding, riding or exhibition. Once exported, we have no control over what happens to those animals. If we were simply to ban exporting horses for slaughter, the regulation would be enforceable only in the case of horses presented as destined directly for slaughter.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is right to say that the issue is what is good for business—that is, the slaughter taking place in this country—and good for horse welfare as well.
Bob Spink Bob Spink rose—
Gregory Barker Gregory Barker rose—
Alun Michael: I must give way to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle.
Gregory Barker: The Minister is intent on seeing everything to do with horse welfare through the prism of the transport regulations. Would he be happy if, with the introduction of horse passports, there was a large increase in the number of British horses slaughtered to feed the Italian market for horsemeat, but the slaughtering took place in the UK and the horses were simply shipped as carcases? Is he prepared to preside over a regime that produces a major increase in slaughtering horses to feed the salami market?
Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman want to stop the slaughter of horses in this country for export as meat? In that case he would be contradicting the ILPH and the RSPCA. They came to me recently to ask for a variation in relation to horse passports simply because they want the number of horses that are slaughtered in this country and which enter the food chain abroad to be maintained—they believe that that is in the interests of horse welfare. He must come clean about where he stands.
Bob Spink: My point is not that we should slaughter animals in this country to export them for food, but that we should seek to stop the live export of all animals from this country.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; if animals are slaughtered for export the meat goes abroad. He is right about the animal welfare imperative of approaching the matter in that way. I agree with him—I am delighted to say that I am prepared to make an exception on occasion.
Horses hold a special place in the heart of the British public, but we need to understand the relationship between the different elements. Those who are involved in the welfare of horses understand the issues and understand that the welfare of animals in this country—I am talking about humane slaughter at the end of a productive life—depends on the value of horsemeat after slaughter. That is an animal welfare consideration. It is also a consideration in relation to other animals.

479WH
In this country, we view horses and ponies as sporting animals, pets and companions rather than as food, but we need to be honest about the position of horses and ponies that are unwanted or have completed their useful life. Horses are slaughtered in this country for meat for human consumption abroad. Horse welfare organisations tell me that they want that to continue because it is good for the welfare of horses and it means that there is humane slaughter. Last year, more than 6,700 horses were slaughtered for meat for human consumption. They were slaughtered in this country for their meat to be exported—
Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Drug Rehabilitation Services (Somerset)
3.45 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am very pleased to have secured this short debate about drug rehabilitation services in Somerset, and I am delighted to welcome the Minister. He may be aware that I have already met his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and we discussed the issue on 27 January. Therefore, some dialogue has already been opened up, but I appreciate that drug services is an issue on which there is partnership between the Home Office and the Department of Health. I am therefore very pleased that a Health Minister is present.
The Minister knows that I was keen to secure the debate because there is something of a crisis in access to drug rehabilitation services, particularly in South Somerset. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is present because we both represent that area.
The Minister may know from the briefing that he has received from the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse that the waiting time to access drug rehabilitation services in South Somerset is way over the levels set by the agency, way over the targets set by the Government and way in excess of the waiting time that we want for the very vulnerable people we are talking about.
Perhaps I can highlight for the Minister two issues about access to services locally that give me most concern. The first statistic is the national target for the maximum acceptable waiting length for specialist prescribing. The Minister knows that, through the NTA, the Government have set a maximum waiting time of three weeks. That seems to be a sensible figure and it demonstrates that they want to give priority to people with serious drug misuse problems and get them into the system as quickly as possible. In Somerset, against the access target of three weeks, the average waiting time is 14.3 weeks. In South Somerset, the current average wait is 36 weeks, with the longest being 40 weeks. Those figures are very unsatisfactory and way above the time limit that the Government have set.
I received a letter from a consultant psychiatrist in substance misuse who works for the Somerset drugs service and assists many of the individuals who require access to the service. On 9 January, he wrote to me to say:
Whilst access to prescribing is currently determined by an assessment of risk I have been told to prescribe only to those within the Trust's red band on the risk matrix. This is defined by people who are at possible risk of unexpected death or likely or certain of permanent injury or serious assault on others. Excluded are those who are at possible risk of semi permanent injury, violence, aggression or self harm. The threshold … is at considerably above what I would consider to be the clinical requirements for immediate prescribing.
There is therefore a very serious problem in Somerset, and especially in South Somerset.
Mr. David Heath: I concur with absolutely everything that my hon. Friend has said. A third issue is recidivism in the criminal justice system. Recently, I spoke to a constituent who was a

481WH
habitual criminal in order to pay for his drug habit. He had been released from prison and had returned home desperately wanting to get off drugs and find a way of escaping from a life of crime, but he will not receive treatment for the best part of a year. Inevitably, he will slide back into criminal behaviour unless he is helped. Is not that another factor that suggests that we need a much better service?
Mr. Laws: My hon. Friend is right. It is because many individuals with such needs have come to my advice centre in the past three to six months that I have taken up this issue. It is not only the individuals and their families who suffer as a consequence of the lack of timely access to drug rehabilitation services. It is almost certainly the case that the crime levels that we are experiencing in Somerset, in particular, are inflated because many people who have serious drug misuse problems are offending to fund their addiction. What is more, those people tell us that that is precisely what they are doing.
I acknowledge the progress that the Government have made since they came to power in 1997. The prime purpose of this debate is not to apportion blame among the various agencies in Somerset and the Government. I acknowledge that many people across the country are now receiving drug rehabilitation treatment. There has been a significant increase in the number, particularly since 1998.
I also wish to pay tribute to the work of the many agencies in Somerset, not least the drug service, the primary care trust, which seeks to work in partnership with the drug service, and the drug action team. All those agencies are trying to get on top of the problem, but in the past few months there has been too little progress in reducing the scale of it.
As my hon. Friend said, we have seen many individuals in our advice centres in the past three to six months who have come to us because they cannot get access to drug rehabilitation services at precisely the time that they need them. Ministers in the Department are on record as having said during the past few years that they want a service that will allow people, when they are ready, to access in a timely fashion the drug rehabilitation assistance that they need. We do not have such a service at present.
I have seen in my advice centre in the past few months individuals with a serious criminal background who tell me that they continue to offend to fund their illegal drug addiction because they cannot get assistance through the drug service. They have come out of the criminal justice system and are trying to re-establish their lives and their family's stability, but they have gone back on to drugs because they are not able to get support from local services. I have also seen individuals outside the criminal justice system who have been told that their best chance of getting access to drug rehabilitation services is to commit an offence so that they can be put through the criminal justice system and then perhaps be fast-tracked for drug treatment and testing orders.
Most tragically, I have seen individuals such as the parents of a young man who tried to commit suicide a few months ago. He is now in Yeovil district hospital
482WH
with severe brain damage, having failed to get drug rehabilitation assistance when he needed it. Obviously, the details of that case must be investigated to establish precisely the reasons behind his actions, but it cannot have been a helpful factor that access to drug rehabilitation services is as constrained as it is.
Of course, all those individuals have a responsibility to themselves and to society to tackle their problems of misuse. We must not put all the blame on agencies, the Government and others. However, we have a strong interest as a community in resolving the problem, not only because of the effect on individuals but because of the effect on our community of higher crime levels and the effect on families of members who have drug misuse problems.
The figures that the Somerset drugs service sent to me yesterday and which I cited briefly at the beginning of the debate are horrific, particularly for the South Somerset area. I go back to specialist prescribing, which is where much of the pressure is. The waiting time limit set by the Government is three weeks, but the average waiting time in Somerset is 14.3 weeks, and that in South Somerset is 36 weeks, which is horrific. The Government's target for shared-care prescribing is, again, three weeks, but the average for the county is 6.5 weeks and that for South Somerset is 14.5 weeks. The Government want people to have assessments within a couple of weeks, but it takes roughly double that in Somerset and South Somerset. The local agencies and the Government face a huge challenge in dealing with the problem.
The waiting list for access in Somerset at present stands at 118 people, of which three quarters are waiting in the Yeovil area and in South Somerset. Therefore, there are particular difficulties in those areas. As a result, only priority and perhaps even only top-priority cases are being seen. People are being seen for assessment but not for treatment, unless they fall into the category of suicide risks or are pregnant women. That leaves out a huge range of people with really serious needs, some of whom pose a serious risk to society because of their drug addiction habits and the criminal activity needed to fund them. A huge range of people are altogether outside the system, including serious drug addicts, who are having to wait months on end—up to six, seven or eight months—to access treatment.
The Minister will probably know some of the reasons for the problems that we have in Somerset, which are rather well set out in a letter from the consultant psychiatrist in substance misuse whom I cited earlier. In his letter to GPs in the South Somerset primary care trust area on 9 January, he explained the background to the problems there:
Last year we undertook a review of SDS prescribing policy. Our revised approach was consistent with Models Of Care (a National Treatment Agency document which in effect is a National Service Framework for drug services). We moved from an abstinence orientated service to one espousing harm reduction as a primary goal. We now aim to maintain people within treatment whilst offering a range of prescribing options within an evidence based framework. This policy was launched and endorsed at a multi-agency seminar in February 2003. At that stage and indeed subsequently SDS managers highlighted the prescribing cost implications. At an operational level the strategy has proved successful in so far as we have increased the numbers of people in treatment by almost 100 per cent.

483WH
I am afraid, however, that in the first half of the last financial year the Somerset drug service was so successful in getting people into the service and dealing with their needs that its prescribing budget, which was only £130,000 for the whole county, ran out about halfway through the year. At that stage, the service was still willing to continue assessing people but could not provide any treatment. That is why we now have such horrendous figures for waiting times, which are probably among the worst in the country—at least I hope that they are, because I would not want other areas to be experiencing worse problems.
We must consider what some of the solutions to the problem might be. The local agencies are already doing important work to help deal with the problem on the ground. The prescribing budget is to be increased in the next financial year by about 50 per cent., from £130,000 to £200,000. I believe that that uses some of the money from the Home Office's criminal justice drive to improve drug rehabilitation services for offenders. However, that may be of less use to those without an offending history. There will be more work locally with the primary care trusts to provide shared care and nurses. There will also be a shift in the staffing resources in Somerset, away from some of the areas that have lesser problems and towards South Somerset.
Significant problems are likely to remain, however. First, although the increase in the prescribing budget sounds quite impressive, it will be enough only to stabilise the existing number of people being dealt with. It may well not be enough to clear the backlog. Secondly, shifting resources in Somerset to South Somerset may improve the situation, but at a cost to other areas in the county. There is also a wider budget problem, in that the drugs action team budget for Somerset is to increase only by 0.07 per cent. in the financial year 2004–05. That will make it difficult to put the resources into prescribing, residential rehabilitation and other forms of treatment to improve the situation on the ground.
At my last meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, she pledged to look into the problem. She wrote back to me on 26 February to clarify that she accepted that we have a serious problem in Somerset and that she had asked the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to look into the situation and to prioritise the waiting times in Somerset. She said that she had asked to be kept informed about progress on the issue. Does the Minister here today accept that there is a serious problem in Somerset and in South Somerset in particular? What can he do to encourage the NTA to take a proactive approach along with the local agencies to resolve the problem?
At present, we are in an unsatisfactory position, which is putting many people and their families at risk. It is also increasing the level of crime across the Somerset area and in South Somerset in particular. It will undoubtedly cost money to resolve some of the problems, but if we continue to allow them to go unresolved, it will be even more expensive to us in terms of broken families, failing services and the increase in crime that will result.
4.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health: I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing a debate on this important topic. He and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raise valid concerns about service levels in their local communities.
From the remarks of the hon. Member for Yeovil, I know that he shares the Government's belief that effective drug treatment is vital if we are to drive down the misery and damage to society that the misuse of illegal drugs causes. The Government have shown themselves to be prepared to back up that belief with substantial extra funding. In this financial year, the pooled drug treatment budget has risen to —243.6 million, which coupled with substantial increases last year means that, in the past two years alone, local drug action teams have received average increases in funding well in excess of 50 per cent.
The Government's view that treatment works is supported by research. The national treatment outcome research study, the most important UK research into drug treatment, shows the enormous benefits to both society and those individuals who complete treatment. From an economic perspective, the findings have shown that every £1 spent on treatment saves £3 of expenditure in the criminal justice system. That finding alone would have been enough to persuade the Government that increasing the public money spent on drug treatment was justified and that helping individual drug users was cost effective for the population as a whole.
In addition, the national treatment outcome research study showed that the longer we are able to retain an individual who misuses drugs in treatment, the more likely it is that a successful outcome will be achieved. One of the key measures of whether additional funding is being used effectively is the Government public service agreement on treatment, which set a target of doubling the number of users in treatment by 2008. I am pleased that the latest figures, published in December 2003, show that the estimated numbers in treatment during 2002–03 increased by 41 per cent. against the estimated baseline of 100,000 in 1998, which means that we are on track to achieve our target.
The new funding that the Government have made available for drug treatment, to which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to allude, needs to be spent effectively and that is why the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse was established in 2001. The NTA was created to set standards for the provision and commissioning of drug treatment performance and to monitor and tackle variations in treatment standards and availability wherever they occur.
One of the areas that the NTA has prioritised is ensuring that there are sufficient trained staff to work within treatment services. To address that issue, the NTA is implementing a work force strategy to encourage professionals to work in the field of drug treatment. That is already having a substantial impact, with the NTA reaching its 2008 target of 9,000 drug treatment workers by December 2003, an increase of more than 30 per cent.
We also recognise that we offer as much support and guidance as is possible for those groups who are providing treatment to drug misusers. Examples include

485WH
the clinical guidelines on the management of drug dependence published by the Department of Health in 1999.
We have also developed guidance on the optimum models of care for drug treatment services. That document is known as models of care. It aims to provide the national framework for drug misuse services in England necessary to achieve equity, parity and the commissioning and provision of substance misuse care and treatment. It has the status of a national service framework.
As part of models of care, the NTA has required all areas to publish local care pathways by April 2004. I believe that that will be a major step forward in the delivery of drug treatment services across the country. In addition, the Department of Health has made £3.6 million available to the Royal College of General Practitioners to allow it to develop a course to assist health care professionals to develop the skills needed to work with drug misusers. The funding has meant that more than 1,000 health care professionals have been able to undertake the accredited training course.
Agreement has been reached for drug treatment in primary care trusts to be subject to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection star rating system. That means that drug treatment is now one of the national health service's top 10 priorities. As part of the work of setting standards in drug treatment services, the NTA is providing specialist advice to CHAI. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has responsibility for drug treatment, has also asked the NTA to explore the potential for developing a joint inspectorate programme with CHAI.
Overarching all the work that the NTA does is the need to reduce the time that anyone who needs drug treatment has to wait before their treatment begins. That is crucial as a delay in offering treatment can lead to the drug user losing their motivation to enter treatment, so that by the time a place is available, they are no longer interested and the opportunity has been missed. That is why, in December 2001, the NTA, working with the NHS Modernisation Agency to ensure that the targets were consistent with work going on elsewhere in the NHS, set maximum waiting-time targets against which drug action teams are being measured. Although there is some way to go, with delays in accessing treatment unacceptably long in some parts of the country, the overall trend is positive, with waiting times reduced from eight to 11 weeks to two to four weeks in most parts of the country. We are convinced that those waiting time reductions have had a substantial impact in reducing the numbers of drug misusers who are referred but who fail to enter treatment.
We now come to the issues that will be of real concern to the hon. Gentleman. One of the effects of a reduction in waiting times is that demand for treatment increases, as fewer users drop out while waiting for treatment. That is an issue that has been identified across the country. As part of their planning, drug action teams are expected to include an expectation of increased demand for treatment as a result of a reduction in waiting times.
486WH
That seems to be at the root of the problems that have been encountered by the Somerset drugs service. I accept that local agencies should build in plans to cope with increased numbers seeking treatment as a result of the reduction in waiting times. However, I understand that the increased demand in Somerset was far in excess of anything experienced elsewhere in the country. To put that into context, if drug action teams are to ensure that the Government meet their target of doubling the numbers in treatment by 2008, they need to increase the numbers in treatment by approximately 10 per cent. a year. The Somerset drugs service had 287 active clients in July to September 2002, but the number had risen to 426 clients by the same quarter of 2003. That is an increase of almost 50 per cent. in one year, which is five times the national average increase.
Mr. Laws: I understand the Minister's point entirely, but one could derive two conclusions from that big increase in demand. One could be that there are significantly worse drug problems in part of Somerset than in other parts of the country. The other could be that the Somerset drugs service has been too successful in taking into the service many of the drug addicts out there. In either situation, the solution must surely be more funding to enable the service to deal with those individuals rather than push them away.
Dr. Lady man: The hon. Gentleman is right. In many ways, the problem has been generated by success. It highlights the fact that we needed to start introducing these programmes and these substantial increases in expenditure to try to address what was clearly a hidden problem. We cannot simply turn a tap on and solve these problems overnight. That takes time. A particular problem arose in Somerset that is out of kilter with similar effects elsewhere in the country. We must examine the Somerset experience and ask ourselves how that needs to be managed in order to resolve it.
As I said, the fact that there should have been planning in no way removes responsibility from the local agencies to continue to reduce waiting times and to provide the treatment places needed. The hon. Gentleman voiced concerns about a particular local problem that needs a local solution. The NTA regional office, the Somerset drug action team and the Somerset drugs service have been working together to ensure that that happens. Delays in access to treatment are unacceptable. Delays in being able to offer treatment can lead to the drug user losing the motivation to enter treatment.
I know from a meeting that the hon. Gentleman had with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and from a subsequent written response that he is aware of the high priority that has been given to tackling these problems. Partners at a local level have been active in putting in place short and medium-term strategies to address some of these problems. For example, the Somerset drug action team opted into the opening doors programme run by NTA and the National Institute of Mental Health for England, which will help to modernise services and to reduce waiting times. It has improved operating procedures in line with the opening doors programme to ensure a more consistent approach to the delivery of drug treatment services.

487WH
A data collection system has been established to monitor waiting times more accurately. This has also meant that we have, for the first time, accurate data on geographic areas that were not available before. The team also invested in two peripatetic nurses for the Somerset drugs service in 2002–03 to help to reduce waiting times. They are currently working in the high waiting time areas to increase capacity. In addition, the drug action team commissioned a strategic review of the adult drug treatment system. The final report makes clear recommendations about reconfiguration of service provision, and the team will act on those recommendations in 2004–05.
Mr. Laws: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Ladyman: I have only a couple of minutes left, and I have a few more comments to make.
There has also been additional funding from the drug action team. In 2002–03 and 2003–04, increases in funding were made available to the Somerset drugs service. In 2004–05, –205,600 will also be made available for prescribing, which will provide another 74 places. That represents a growth in capacity of 56 per cent. since last year. Further increases in investment are expected in future years.
The NTA and the strategic health authority will work together to strengthen the commissioning of drug treatment services in Somerset to ensure that this particular local problem is overcome and that commissioning arrangements are as robust as possible. I have been asked to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and Ministers are kept fully informed of developments. I will also ensure that the hon. Member for Somerset and Frome is also appraised of progress and that they are both consulted on planned changes when appropriate.
It is always easy to blame a lack of resources for any problems that occur in the provision of services, but I do not believe that the concerns that the hon. Member for Yeovil expressed today about drug treatment services in Somerset can be explained simply by a lack of funding. The formula used to allocate funds will always mean that those areas with the greatest social and economic need will receive the largest increases, and I am sure that all Members will appreciate why that is so. This has meant that Somerset does not receive as large an increase in its pooled drug treatment budget allocation as some other areas of the country. Nevertheless, investment in drug treatment services in Somerset has increased by 47 per cent. in the past two years. The increase in 2004–05 may be very modest, but it was announced in advance so that it could be planned for, and Somerset will receive an additional 11 per cent. in 2005–06.
I again thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I hope that what I have said today makes it clear that the Government are committed to access to effective drug treatment services throughout the country, and that we are committed to helping to ensure that urgent remedial action is taken where that access is lacking. I hope that he is at least partly reassured that we are aware of the problems in Somerset and that we determined to put them right.

Print Cartridges
4.15 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: I am pleased to be able to raise the issue of the recycling of printer cartridges and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, known as the WEEE directive. The purpose of the debate is to urge the Government to incorporate print cartridges in the implementation of the directive by the UK and to consider printer cartridges as electrical equipment rather than consumables.
I raise the matter because of the threat to the recycling industry that remanufactures printer cartridges, and the threat to the environment. The threat arises from the anti-competitive practices of some major manufacturers of printers and print cartridges, which use smart chips and, worse, killer chips, to prevent the reuse of printer cartridges. That could have a serious impact on the recycling industry in the next two years. Unless printer cartridges are included in the implementation of the WEEE directive as electrical equipment, killer chips and devices that thwart recycling will be considered permissible, despite the intentions of the European Union.
I acknowledge the help that I have had in preparing for this debate from the United Kingdom Cartridge Recyclers Association, and especially Mr. Malcolm Kerman of LaserXchange, in my constituency. I am also grateful to Friends of the Earth for its support for the campaign. It has said:
The Government must support the reuse of printer cartridges by ensuring that they are covered by the WEEE directive.
I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about the matter a couple of times and tabled some parliamentary questions. I am grateful for the opportunity that I had to discuss the matter with him at the recent meeting of the all-party group on sustainable waste. Like many other hon. Members, I signed early-day motion 512, which has been supported by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
One of the companies in the industry is based in my constituency. It is called LaserXchange and was formed in 1990. It now employs just under 100 staff. The company specialises in collecting used printer cartridges, mainly from charity shops. Those cartridges are taken to the factory, opened and refilled with toner. The remanufactured cartridges are then sold to consumers as cheaper alternatives to new cartridges.
The practice benefits consumers, who find the cost of recycled print cartridges substantially less than the cost of the new product. Typically, a new black cartridge for the printer in my office in Westminster would cost £23.50, whereas a recycled or reused cartridge from LaserXchange would cost only £9.95 plus VAT. The prices for colour cartridges are £36.72 plus VAT, or £16.95 for a re-used cartridge.
The main products remanufactured at LaserXchange are laser toner cartridges that are used mainly by businesses, but the firm also manufactures inkjet cartridges, which are generally used by individuals with home computers. I have visited the LaserXchange factory twice in recent months—most recently with my

489WH
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is also, of course, the Leader of the House. He asked me to consider to what extent recycled cartridges are used in the Palace of Westminster and in the Departments. I shall come to that matter a little later.
Collecting used cartridges from consumers and supplying the remanufacturers is a valuable source of income for charity shops such as Oxfam, Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation. Seventy per cent. of the cartridges collected by LaserXchange come from those three charity shops. The remainder come from scout groups and schools. The charity receives about £2.50 for each cartridge collected. The industry therefore supports the developing world and the voluntary sector in the United Kingdom. Last year, LaserXchange distributed £162,000 to those three charities.
Apart from LaserXchange, there are several other major printer cartridge remanufacturers, including Green Man Toner in Epsom, IT Imager in Hemel Hempstead, PBTI International in Wells, Somerset, Applied Film Industries in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Cartridge World Ltd. based in Harrogate. There are also about 80 other companies in the industry. LaserXchange believes that its industry is under threat from increasingly sophisticated microchips, which are inserted into the cartridges. These are called antiremanufacture devices, and according to the UK Cartridge Remanufacturers Association, nearly all new laser toner cartridges sold by international companies, such as Hewlett Packard, Lexmark and Xerox, contain such microchips, which can prevent or make uneconomic their remanufacture and use.
Current practices include using highly encrypted microchips to control cartridge functions, which prevent cartridges from being used a second time. These are referred to as killer chips, and use highly sophisticated microchips, operated by radio signals to control cartridge function. They are extremely difficult and costly to copy and make most of the cost of remanufacture prohibitively expensive. Article 4 of the WEEE directive makes the use of such devices illegal. I shall touch on that subject later.
According to one argument, substitute chips are available, so why we should worry? The Minister will know there is a concern that, with ever more encryptions being applied to the chips, the time and cost of producing a substitute mean that it is increasingly likely that they will not be available in future. The Minister's officials suggest that this will be addressed under the energy-using products directive, but can he guarantee that that will be the case? Can the remanufacturing industry wait until 2008 or 2010? From my own discussions, I hear that the industry might well not be in a position to benefit from the EUP directive if the Government do not act quickly. When I raised the matter on the Floor of the House during the Welsh affairs debate just before 1 March, I quoted some examples, including that of Hewlett Packard using killer chips. However, I have met officials of Hewlett Packard and received correspondence from them, and I withdraw that comment. It was inaccurate, and the officials assure me that, although they use smart chips, they do not use killer chips.
490WH
Notwithstanding that correction, companies such as Hewlett Packard are clearly in competition and consider the remanufacturers to be a threat, although perhaps not a major one. However, the remanufacturers consider Hewlett Packard's devices, and those of other companies, to be a very serious threat to their industry. Unfortunately, there is no formal definition of a "killer chip", and that will be subject to much debate.
The WEEE directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment becoming waste, and to achieve that through reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery. It also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all parties involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment. Member states must comply with the directive by 13 August 2004. Under article 4,
equipment must not include any designed features that prevent it from being reused, unless there is a safety or environmental reason for doing so.
The Government's position, as I understand it, is that printer cartridges are considered to be consumables, and are outside the WEEE directive's scope. That has been set out in letters to myself and other hon. Members, and in answers to parliamentary questions. However, the Minister will be aware that that view is contested by a number of legal and technical experts, who question, first, whether consumables are automatically excluded, and secondly, whether printer cartridges are not waste electrical and electronic equipment in their own right. He will also know that, if printer cartridges were included, it would not mean that all consumables had to be included, as there is no campaign for other consumables, such as batteries or CDs, to be included.
There are a number of key questions. Are consumables specifically included or excluded from the WEEE directive, or is that just the Government's interpretation? On what basis are printer cartridges deemed to be consumables? Does the directive provide the Government with the scope to include cartridges if they choose to do so? That last question is absolutely critical, because if the directive allows printer cartridges to be included, the Government must explain why they refuse to do so. I understand that as the directive is a minimum harmonisation measure it does indeed allow the Government to include cartridges.
I have made the point about whether cartridges are consumables, or whether the WEEE directive has been disputed by European legal and technical experts. According to Cornelius and Judge, in an article in the June 2003 edition of Imaging Spectrum magazine, modern printer cartridges are dependent on electrical currents and electromagnetic fields to work properly and are to be considered as IT and telecommunications equipment. They therefore should qualify as electrical and electronic equipment and should be considered under the WEEE directive. In effect, that means that although a printer has to be recycled, the printer cartridges that it uses do not. However, a printer is of no use without a printer cartridge; they are inseparable items and pieces of equipment.
The volume of waste from cartridges over the normal life cycle of the printer is 10 times that of the printer. The implication is that if cartridges cannot be considered as equipment, there may be severe environmental consequences and they are likely to end up in landfill sites rather than being remanufactured and reused. Such

491WH
a practice is environmentally damaging and contrary to Government policy on sustainability and waste management, particularly the September 2003 publication "Changing Patterns: UK Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production". Yet the Government state that they want to support the recycling of cartridges.
I wrote to every Department asking for their policy on recycling. The responses were interesting—varied but encouraging. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services stated:
I agree that the remanufacture and recycling of printer cartridges is important for the environment and the safeguard of the remanufacturing industry. We have a system in place whereby used cartridges are deposited at dedicated collection points, local at several points on each floor of our buildings. The cartridges are collected on behalf of our stationery supplier. Wherever possible, these cartridges are reused and made available as products re-branded by our supplier.
The Serjeant at Arms also gave me an encouraging answer, as did Baroness Amos at the House of Lords, and an Under-Secretary from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Department of Health provided the only disappointing response. A reply from an official stated:
After consideration your letter has been passed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who have responsibility for these matters and they will reply to you directly.
That missed the point of the request, which was to ask the Department of Health what its policy was, not about wider Government policy.
In conclusion, the Government are clearly committed to recycling and the minimisation of waste, and Departments have indicated their support for recycling printer cartridges. I acknowledge that the subject is complicated and that the Minister has received much representation. I understand that his Department recently held meetings with both sides of the debate—the original equipment manufacturers and the remanufacturers—and I would be grateful if he could comment on the outcome of those discussions.
I urge the Minister to consider the position of the cartridge remanufacturing industry and the threat it is under from the use of anti-remanufacturing devices and other anti-competitive practices. Will he also state whether he believes that the EUP directive will protect the industry? How can he guarantee that and will it come into force in time?
The issue has been drawn to my attention because of the threat to a company in my constituency. I raise the matter on behalf of the 100-odd employees of LaserXchange, but also on behalf of thousands of individuals who want the right to buy recycled equipment for use with their computers and printers at home and at work, and of all those groups and individuals committed to the principles of recycling and sustainability. Encouraging recycling and the ending of anti-competitive practices that thwart the industry is in the interests of consumers, businesses and the environment. I urge the Minister to consider the points that I have made.
4.30 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)rose—
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister would give way before he starts speaking.
Mr. Timms: I give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a strange way of doing things, but the hon. Gentleman may carry on.
Dr. Naysmith: I intervene because we have an interesting situation, with two constituencies containing manufacturers of printer cartridges. Hewlett Packard is a major manufacturer and employer in my constituency. It is a high-tech industry—an example of the sort of employer that we attract. I want to reinforce the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards): Hewlett Packard does not use so-called killer chips, or any other device to prevent the refilling or remanufacturing of cartridges, nor does it seek to inhibit the activities of that industry. It tells me that it supports the right of consumers to choose its products in that field, or to recycle products from other manufacturers, and believes that it can compete successfully on quality. Of course, that is a matter for the consumer. I hope that the Minister will take those comments into account in his reply.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take advice on how best to make such an intervention in future.
Mr. Timms: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to what has been said. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), who has followed this issue with great interest and energy, and played an important part in drawing it to the attention of a wider audience.
This important issue has aroused strong feelings. In recent months, I have received many parliamentary questions—some of which were from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—and an extremely large number of letters from hon. Members on this matter, which I take seriously.
It is important to note at the start that cartridge refilling is flourishing in the UK. About one third of the printer cartridges sold have been refilled. There is nothing in planned legislation that would put that at risk. I am told that a large expansion of the recycling operations is proposed. For example, one of the companies that my hon. Friend mentioned, Cartridge World, which has 210 outlets, lists on its website the sites where it plans to add another 90 locations. That will increase its number of outlets by 40 per cent.
Clearly, nothing in current regulation or technology is proving to be a barrier to the growth of that activity. I am pleased about that, because I agree with my hon. Friend about the important benefits of cartridge recycling, such as extra competition in the market, and environmental benefits. I am grateful to him for referring to the framework for sustainable consumption and production, which I launched with my noble Friend

493WH
Lord Whitty last year. The framework sets out important aspirations on which the Government, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work together.
The independent printer cartridge refill sector has raised concerns that innovation in cartridge technology could make competition harder. At the heart of the issue is the question whether third-party refilling will be made more difficult. Two things are clear. First, the issues surrounding the development of chip technology in printer cartridges and the reuse of chipped cartridges are complex and certainly not as clear-cut as some think.
Secondly, the Government have been worried by the absence of a dialogue between independent refillers and equipment manufacturers, such as Hewlett Packard. I am pleased to be able to tell the Chamber that DTI and DEFRA officials were able to bring together representatives of the United Kingdom Cartridge Remanufacturers Association with several of the leading manufacturers last week. The meeting was held in confidence, at the request of both sides, but it was the beginning of what I hope will prove to be a constructive discussion between the parties on those issues. Both parties told us that they found the meeting helpful, and there are high hopes that the dialogue can be taken forward so that there can be more of a common understanding of the issues surrounding cartridge reuse. I have arranged to meet UKCRA representatives on 29 April to take that discussion further.
UKCRA has pressed the Government to use the WEEE directive to address its concerns. The directive was agreed in February 2003 and is due to be transposed into UK law this summer. It sets requirements for the separate collection, treatment and recycling of electrical and electronic equipment and makes the producers—manufacturers and importers—of that equipment responsible for meeting the costs of those activities.
UKCRA has asked the Government to use the directive to address the killer chip issue. It argues that cartridge manufacturers would have to comply with the product design requirements of the directive which aim to prevent manufacturers from designing out reuse and recycling. The cartridge refillers are concerned that, in a fast-moving market, it would be difficult to source replacements for chips used by cartridge manufacturers, although they might be replaced and the cartridge reused. The refillers have said that they are concerned that the increased rate of technological development in that context will squeeze them out of the market, as the chips will become more difficult or more expensive for them to replace.
I believe that it is important to make a distinction between killer chips and other types of smart chip, although I agree with my hon. Friend that this is rather a fraught area in which to reach consensus on a definition. I suggest that a killer chip is one that is designed to burn out the print-head mechanism of a cartridge so that it cannot be used again. As far as I know, only one manufacturer has developed and patented such a killer chip. However, I am assured that that chip has not been used in any products on the market.
494WH
Smart chips are often used to enhance the performance of cartridges for consumers; for example, they may assist in monitoring ink or toner levels in a cartridge. Their purpose is to provide an additional benefit to the user, and not to render the cartridge unrecyclable. Such chips do not prevent the refilling or reuse of the cartridge, although they may not be so easy to reset without proper equipment, to which refillers may not always have access.
We will continue to monitor the use of chip technology in cartridges.
According to our information, the technology for killer chips exists but there are currently none on the market, and there are no strong grounds for believing that that situation is about to change. Customer demand for more information on cartridge performance, partly driven by an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into the pricing of new cartridges, has led to an increase in the use of smart chips in the past few years, and no doubt that trend will continue. However, so far, there is no sign of the sector's growth being seriously impeded by that trend.
I agree with my hon. Friend on the benefits of recycling, and I am keen to see those benefits harnessed. The refilling and remarketing of cartridges helps to mitigate environmental damage. There is a healthy refill industry in the UK, and I want to see that continue. I made the point earlier that reused cartridges currently represent just over 30 per cent. of the replacement cartridges on the market today. As my hon. Friend said, the DTI has a policy of actively encouraging the reuse of our printer cartridges.
The Government have a good deal of sympathy with the views of the cartridge remanufacturing industry. Many of the companies involved in that industry are small businesses competing with large manufacturers; they provide a valuable service, which gives real environmental benefits and minimises waste. They also help in providing consumers with a wider choice of cartridges than might otherwise be the case and, as my hon. Friend illustrated, often at lower prices. I also agree with him about the benefits from their support for charities.
However, the WEEE directive is not the right way to address concerns about competition in this area. The directive is based on article 175 of the EU treaty, which deals with environmental protection, and it might technically be possible for us to add cartridges to the scope of our UK implementation. However, I suspect that if we did we would be open to challenge because—this is the view of the specialists whose advice I have access to—it is very hard to define a cartridge as a piece of electrical or electronic equipment. There is certainly no requirement to do that in the directive, and I have not seen a strong case for gold plating the directive in the way implied.
I shall set out why that would not be helpful. First, there is a legal view that the directive applies to whole products placed on the market, not individual components or consumables. Computer memory chips, graphics cards, CD-ROM drives and others are in the same category. They need to be recycled only at the end of their life while still retained in the whole device, and it is the producer of the original whole product who is

495WH
responsible, not the manufacturer of each component. It is clear that printer cartridges fall into that category, and the European Commission takes that view as well.
Secondly, the printer cartridge remanufacturing industry needs to consider the other effects on its operations of including printer cartridges in the scope of the directive. There are obvious cost implications for the manufacturers of the cartridges, which would need to take on the directive's producer responsibility obligations for supporting collection and recovery of the cartridges sold to domestic consumers. That would be likely to mean that the original equipment manufacturers had a strong incentive to take back cartridges when supplying new ones, which they would then have to reuse or recycle themselves instead of those cartridges being available to recyclers.
Lastly, printer cartridge remanufactures may become obligated under the WEEE directive. They would be liable for the end-of-life costs for any cartridges they refilled and put back on to the market. They would have to fulfil the various registration requirements and provide financial guarantees for the future recovery of their products. All those factors would mean that there would be fewer cartridges available for the remanufacturers to refurbish, and the refilling industry would have to take on a number of additional burdens that it does not currently have.
All cartridges currently on the market are capable of being refilled and reused, which I welcome. We are currently considering the approach that we should take to the implementation of the directive's provisions to require that producers do not prevent reuse of products in the scope of the directive. We are weighing the fact that the majority of respondents to our recent consultation on implementation supported our
496WH
proposals for a voluntary non-legislative approach, with a suggestion of a business forum to consider eco-design.
Should killer chips appear on the market, the right way forward would be for the Office of Fair Trading to examine evidence of abuse on competition grounds. I am not convinced that a smart chip used on a cartridge to tell a user the ink levels in the cartridge is an anti-reuse or anti-competition device. It seems to be a useful innovation, and I would be reluctant to see legislation passed against such innovation on the basis of the evidence that we have seen so far.
Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend accept that some of the smart chips will be smarter than we are assuming? They are likely to become more sophisticated. I wonder whether the Minister has visited any remanufacturing plants himself. Would he like to come to LaserXchange in Abergavenny?
Mr. Timms: I have not yet had the opportunity to visit one of the plants, but I am looking forward to a meeting next month with UKCRA. I am not in a position to accept my hon. Friend's kind invitation, but I will certainly bear it mind.
I think that my hon. Friend would agree that we should not use the directive to hold back the sort of technological improvements that are appearing in the industry, which some of those chips do provide in printer cartridges. If there is an issue of competition, it should be addressed in another way. The energy products directive that he mentioned is currently being negotiated and that would be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
It being fifteen minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.