asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, details of a pilot scheme to attract people of outstanding ability from abroad to enter the country to seek work, rather than a prospective employer applying on their behalf, were published in the Pre-Budget Report. The criteria will enable people with PhD or equivalent level qualifications or not less than five years' experience at a senior level to apply for their own work permit to seek work.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has the Minister yet tried to use the system, as I have? I put myself into the position of an applicant and checked the Overseas Labour Service website, for which the noble Baroness is responsible. Although it is updated and can provide some information, it fails because it refers the user to the Home Office website, which has not been updated for months, despite promises to the contrary. It holds no details as regards special skills. Furthermore, does the Minister realise that the respective telephone helplines for these services each refer the caller to the other line? Although I have 30 pages of printout from the website, I still have not been able to track down the necessary information. For years, countries such as Australia and Canada have operated good, coordinated systems of this kind. Given that, when can we expect to see a co-ordinated system put in place here?

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has had so much trouble with this. I have to admit that I have not tried out our website, but I am a little puzzled because the pilot scheme is not due to be launched until the turn of the year. Given that, I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness has been looking for on the website. However, I agree that we need to co-ordinate the activities of the DfEE on work permits with what is being done by the Home Office in another pilot project, which is also about to be launched. I shall certainly look into the matter. Once the scheme has been established in the new year, there should be joined-up website provision.

My Lords, will the Government ensure that the criteria mentioned by the Minister will be made known to non-British citizens already staying in this country? I refer, for example, to asylum seekers. Furthermore, will the Government use this requirement for skilled workers as another means of facilitating the reunion of families, some of whose members are already living here?

My Lords, that is not the purpose of the scheme. It has nothing to do with asylum seekers and the requirements put in place for them. This scheme seeks to recruit a relatively small number of people with special skills. We are discussing hundreds of positions rather than thousands. Those positions need to be filled by extremely highly qualified people. They will work in areas where we are experiencing skills shortages. However, that is not the primary purpose of the scheme. Some of the suitable applicants will not want to work for one employer. It is for that reason that the normal route to acquire a work permit, namely, that of an employer securing a work permit for a new employee, is not appropriate. The scheme aims to attract people with very high levels of qualifications and skills who want to build up a portfolio of different jobs.

My Lords, does this mean that the Minister does not hope for an influx into the teaching profession through this new skills initiative?

No, my Lords, the scheme is not designed primarily for those coming into the teaching profession. It may well be that some of those who come here through the scheme will work at senior levels in our universities. They may want to combine consultancy with research and possibly some higher education teaching. However, this scheme is not aimed at schoolteachers.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that a good deal of direct recruitment from abroad is currently being carried out to secure teachers for our schools. Indeed, the newspapers have reported that at least one school has a predominance of teaching staff who have been directly recruited from abroad. What programmes are in place to ensure that such teachers are competent and fully conversant with the system of education in this country?

My Lords, I think that the question put by the noble Baroness moves rather wide of that which has been set down on the Order Paper, which concerns work permits for a quite different group of people. However, it is important to ensure that, when we employ teachers from abroad, they should be fully qualified to teach in our schools. Be fore recruiting, we take into account the present qualifications of potential staff, along with the requirement for fluent English. All this is done before any teacher is appointed.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that at present there is a surplus of general practitioners in Australia, whereas in this country the National Health Service is desperately short of them? Is not this a typical example of the kind of person who should be encouraged to come over here?

My Lords, yes. The noble Baroness has cited a good example. Highly qualified people in the medical professions, in particular those with postgraduate qualifications, may be able to establish themselves quickly over here. However, I should point out that we are training a substantial number of additional medical students to try to meet the shortfall in the number of doctors working in NHS hospitals and in general practice.

My Lords, will applicants be fast-tracked through the Home Office procedures? As someone who, in the past, has had to recruit people from abroad, I experienced considerable problems coping with Home Office procedures, particularly in regard to people from eastern Europe. Can the Minister assure us that in future highly-qualified PhDs will be processed quite quickly?

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question. Such a pilot scheme requires the DfEE to work closely with the Home Office to ensure that, when an overseas application is received, there are proper fast-track arrangements and that immigration procedures do not stand in the way.

My Lords, can the Minister give full details of where such skill shortages in the UK are to be found?

My Lords, I refer the noble Baroness to the reports of the National Skills Task Force. I shall be happy to ensure that she receives copies of them.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the proposal concerns the treatment of some 13,600 products from the 48 least developed countries in the world, 39 of which are also ACP countries. The European Commission's proposals should benefit these ACP countries and their exports, as well as the nine LDCs that are not ACP countries.

The Commission has recognised the sensitive nature of three products—rice, bananas and sugar—by proposing that duty-free access for them should be phased in progressively over three years. At the request of member states, including the UK, the Commission is currently looking at the various impacts that the proposals could have. Discussions are continuing in Brussels. The Government have launched their own written and electronic consultation and are producing their own analysis. The Government support the proposal. The ACP countries have also welcomed it, while calling for its impact to be studied.

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not have the usual courtesy to thank him for that Answer. It is, if I may say so, very complacent about an extremely serious situation for the countries of the Caribbean. If those countries are unable to export their basic commodities, they will turn to drugs. The ACP countries signed the Cotonou agreement in July, under which the transitional period would extend until 2008. The new initiative overrides that, thus breaking a freely entered into negotiated agreement. Does the Minister think that this is the right way to proceed?

My Lords, I do not think my Answer was at all complacent. We are well aware of the great importance of these proposals to all the people affected—not only Caribbean producers, but farmers and processors in this country and in the LDCs involved. It is important to realise that we are talking about countries with an average income per head of 200 dollars a year. That level of income makes even the Caribbean countries look very wealthy. I am not at all complacent. The Government will take account of all interests in their response. I do not agree that it is obvious what the impact will be. It depends critically on the supply response from the LDCs, which is not at all clear given that they are net importers of sugar. As to the final point raised by the noble Baroness in regard to the Cotonou agreement, I am sure she is well aware that in Article 37(9) it is anticipated that by 2000 the Community will start a process which, by 2005 at the latest, will allow duty-free access for essentially all products from all LDCs, building on the level of existing trade provisions of the fourth ACP-EC convention. That was anticipated in the agreement.

My Lords, what plans are there to encourage ACP farmers to diversify into non-drug-related crops?

My Lords, the Government's position is clear. We shall await the outcome of the impact studies and the action taken as a result. We shall then look at the consequences which flow from that and decide what action should be taken.

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the British-Caribbean Parliamentary Group. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the effect of the proposals on the Caribbean. Has he seen the comments of the Guyanan Foreign Minister, who says that the proposals are virtually a knock-out blow which Guyana cannot sustain? If the proposals go through, it will effectively become impossible for Guyana to export rice, sugar and rum. As those commodities account for 44 per cent of Guyana's total exports, this will force Guyana into becoming one of the poorest countries in the world. Can my noble friend give some assurance that the interests of the Caribbean will be properly looked after?

My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that consideration of the interests of the Caribbean islands is foremost in the Government's mind. May I also remind my noble friend of the point I made in my original Answer. The impact of this will critically depend on what the supply response is from these very poor countries, which, as I said, are themselves importers of sugar.

My Lords, is the Minister surprised that I was surprised by his original Answer when he said that these new measures were welcomed by the Caribbean countries? That is not at all the situation. I back up entirely what his noble friend Lord Faulkner said. Is not the Minister aware of the very serious situation facing the Caribbean countries in regard to their primary products of bananas, sugar, rice and rum, which will be devastated by the "Everything but Arms" initiative? It will also have an effect on sugar beet producers in this country. Is he really not aware of the existing situation?

My Lords, I hope that I referred to the ACP countries, which are spread far wider than the Caribbean islands and include many other countries. They welcomed the proposal but wanted to see its impact. We are conscious of the potential impact on the Caribbean islands. We all know that they have suffered serious consequences on crops such as bananas—which are crucial to their economies—and obviously any further blow would be very serious. But I should emphasise that that will depend on the response to opening up the EU market to the other countries.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a report from the European Union Select Committee of this House on the workings of the WTO was somewhat critical of the ACP agreement, which spoke about "essentially all goods" in the context of free trade, and advocated that it should refer to "all goods"? That is the broad position taken in this House.

Does my noble friend agree that the Cotonou agreement requires extensive consultation with those countries that are adversely affected? Does he further agree that that should include the Caribbean; and that there should be a willingness to negotiate transitional times and arrangements—not necessarily of long duration but in order to mitigate the worst effects?

Yes, my Lords. Clearly, consultation is extremely important. I remind my noble friend that it is part of the proposals that they should be progressively phased in over three years. That takes in the point that he raised.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I always buy Commonwealth bananas, particularly Caribbean bananas? I hope that all other noble Lords do the same.

My Lords, I have to admit that I was not aware of that fact, but I am now better informed! I join with the noble Baroness in her appeal to other noble Lords.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, under current guidance local planning authorities are advised to consult the Environment Agency on any proposed development in the flood plain. LPAs need to consider the agency's advice alongside other material considerations in deciding whether planning consent should be given. The LPAs' decisions will in most cases turn on the agency's advice. They may, for example, refuse permission, or allow it to go ahead provided that the developer undertakes measures to mitigate flood risk as advised by the agency. However, current case law indicates that neither the agency nor the local planning authority is liable for individual losses suffered as a result of such a decision to grant planning consent.

My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, following yesterday's announcement that she has become a Privy Counsellor.

I declare an interest in this Question as a resident in the new Sussex archipelago! Is the Minister aware that, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister visited the capital city of West Sussex, Chichester, and warned its residents that, thanks to climate change, they could expect storms more frequently in the future? What is the Minister persuading the Government to do in order to ensure that the Environment Agency has the resources to deal with this huge challenge? Does it have the money and the staff? What can be done to ensure that bureaucratic delays are broken? At present, a flood protection scheme that has been designed and improved is often delayed for years before being implemented.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations.

I recognise the deep distress that has been caused to a large number of people by the recent flooding and their concern for the future. We obviously need a coordinated response. We have already announced more immediate help for local authorities dealing with the aftermath of flooding and more resources to ensure that flood defences are strengthened where appropriate. We shall also have to examine the effects of recent flooding on existing local defences to see whether any work needs to be undertaken. Equally, looking ahead and recognising the possibility of climate change creating more of these situations, we need to strengthen guidance to local planning authorities on developments in the flood plain and make sure that improved information about flood risk is available. We are taking action on all those fronts.

My Lords, I support my noble friend in his concern. I declare an interest as I live in the flood plain. Is the Minister aware that everyone living in and around Lewes knew perfectly well that there could be flooding and were waiting for it to happen? I live between the Ouse and the Winterbourne, both of which flood regularly. Is the Minister further aware that planning permission was given to build 20 houses on the flood plain in what was the old cattle market? Is the Minister further aware that the lock gates on the Ouse were opened to save Uckfield with the result that Lewes was absolutely inundated? Does the Minister agree that there must be some form of government control?

My Lords, I am aware of a great deal of what the noble Lord suggests. I understand that most of the development in Lewes that was flooded pre-dates the existing planning system, although two recent developments were involved. In both cases they were brownfield sites developed in accordance with current planning guidance. The Environment Agency's agreement to the development was subject to strict conditions being imposed, including the raising of floor levels. The Environment Agency believes that, even though there has been experience of serious flooding, where the agency's advice was taken flood damage was greatly reduced.

The town of Lewes has not expanded outwards for 20 to 30 years because of the constraints imposed by the flood plain along the River Ouse and the South Downs area of outstanding national beauty—now a prospective national park. That presents real difficulties. I agree that it is important that we take into account the best possible advice on the risk of flooding and that we ensure that prospective buyers, for example, receive that advice. There are ways of achieving that.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned extra money for local authorities to help with the clearing up operations around the country. She will no doubt be aware that her noble friend Lord Whitty told the House some three or four weeks ago that the Bellwin formula will operate in such a situation. Has any of that money been applied for by local authorities; and what is the contingency for money that may need to spent?

My Lords, we said that assistance under the Bellwin rules will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current flooding; that the rate of government support will increase from 85 per cent to 100 per cent; that valid claims will be settled within 15 working days; and that claims for advance payment can be made. From that, I deduce that if claims were made more than 15 days ago they will have been settled. If I am incorrect, I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, returning to the Question posed by my noble friend, have the Government considered ways in which they will help compensate those who have lost their homes and businesses? Are they thinking of, for example, X amount of money for a house, Y amount of money for a business or a percentage of any successful insurance claim? What is the position? Secondly, in referring to the Bellwin agreement the Minister said that valid claims would be settled within 15 days. How quickly shall we know what is happening on the insurance side and what progress has been made some 22 days on from the consultation that the Government were to have with insurance companies?

My Lords, perhaps I can guarantee to answer that question within 15 days! As regards insurability, Treasury Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, my honourable friend Elliot Morley, have met insurance industry representatives. They received reassurance that the industry will deal with claims as quickly as possible; that it intends to continue providing flood insurance—which is extremely important; and that recent flooding should have little or no impact on premiums. It is also taking action in particular areas—for example, I believe, by pro-actively contacting potential claimants.

As far as concerns the original Question, I believe that I have made clear in my responses that flooding has always been seen as an insurable risk; indeed, that has been the view of successive governments. Although the Government have put more money into both the compensation available to local authorities for the work that they have undertaken and into more flood defence work, we have not said that we shall compensate individuals for the damage they have suffered.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, legislation is already in place which gives local authority trading standards departments adequate powers to remove unsafe products from the market, thus protecting UK consumers.

As regards products carrying forged trade marks, there is an EC regulation applying in all countries of the European Union that allows trade mark owners to ask Customs authorities to seize counterfeit goods being imported from outside the Union. Customs authorities may also seize such goods on their own initiative. Where goods carrying a forged trade mark have entered the single European market, the criminal sanctions applying to counterfeiting activities within each member state are helpful. In the United Kingdom, the offences of distributing or selling counterfeit goods are relevant, and effective enforcement action is possible by trading standards departments, as well as by the police.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the particular case of a leading kettle manufacture, Strix Limited of Chester, whose position is being undermined by imports of faulty kettles from the People's Republic of China? Does my noble friend understand that this represents both a threat and a danger to consumers in Britain and in the European Union? Finally, what more can the Government do to remedy the situation; for example, what pressure can my noble friend bring to bear on the European Commission to ensure the safety of consumers throughout the European Union?

My Lords, the DTI is most conscious of the particular problems faced by Strix Limited, which has a lion's share of the world market for safety cut-off dry boil controls for kettles. That is why the department has taken a good deal of action, both to help that company and to protect consumers in this country. We have made all the trading standards departments in the UK aware of the problem. The DTI's consumer safety newsletter has also featured this particular problem.

Moreover, during an official visit to Beijing, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was able to arrange a meeting between executives of Strix Limited and a Chinese Government Minister. As a result of the action that we have taken, the Chinese authorities have now added electric kettles to the control list for commodity inspection, which makes kettles that are to be exported subject to official inspections. We have also made representations to the Chinese Government, both at an EU and at a UK level. However, we are not in a position to do one thing that the company has requested; namely, to ask the Chinese Government to shut down the Yong Heng thermostat factory in GuangDong, which is almost certainly the producer of many of these copy controls.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of these goods are freely available from street vendors and, indeed, from markets? Therefore, is he satisfied that trading standards departments throughout the country have sufficient force, funding and staff to deal with this kind of malpractice?

My Lords, I believe that I made it very clear that we have given a great deal of information on the matter to trading standards officers. In fact, it is only within the past four weeks that the first example has been found by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service in two kettles which fall within this category. Therefore, it is probably not true to say that these products are generally available. Indeed, I believe that there are sufficient resources available, given that trading standards departments have been alerted a number of times by the DTI.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the sooner the People's Republic of China becomes a full member of the World. Trade Organisation the sooner we shall have a dispute settlement procedure through which it can be held to account if it breaks the necessary standards for proper trading in the international community?

My Lords, it would be an advantage if the People's Republic of China were to become a member of the WTO. That would facilitate the enforcement of some of these agreements.

My Lords, contrary to what one might read endlessly in the Tory press and contrary to what one might hear occasionally from the Tory Benches, does the Minister agree that this is a classic example of a matter that would be best dealt with on a pan-European basis?

My Lords, we should bear in mind two facts as regards this matter. First, the main cases in this respect have been found outside the UK; and, secondly, we have more power on a European basis to deal with the situation. Therefore, it is true that the matter is best dealt with on a European basis. However, as the DTI is responsible for British industry and its interests, we are taking the matter most seriously.

My Lords contrary to the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the burden of this battle actually rests with very hard-pressed local trading standards authorities and their officers, who are constantly at risk in the boot sales and open markets where they have to enforce the law. Therefore, should not the emphasis be on exerting pressure on the country of origin, when it is known? Indeed, it is not only China that supplies such products. Can the Minister tell us how we can pursue the matter with suppliers of counterfeit patent documents when the country of origin is known?

My Lords, the trading standards authorities are, of course, the first point of call in terms of alerting people to these problems. However, as to the question of actually taking action, which, I believe, was the point behind the previous question, that is best pursued on a European level, especially in circumstances where the main offenders have been found to be in other European countries.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Rural White Paper.

moved the amendment:

Page 1, line 14, at end insert (", or

(e) be nominated as a chairman or deputy chairman of an ad hoc committee.")

My Lords, I raise what appears to me rather a substantial point. It seems that we are now discussing an amendment proposed to a clause which is not there or is part of a Bill which has been declared dead. Without Clause 1 the Bill no longer has any life or meaning. According to my understanding, Clause 1 was taken out on 20th November by your Lordships' House. Now the noble Lord, Lord Rogan—no blame attaches to him—has somehow, with considerable ingenuity, managed to persuade the Table Office to accept an amendment to a clause which has gone. He has properly expressed a wish that the Government in another place will not seek to replace Clause 1 in a Bill which is now effectively dead. He rightly fears—I certainly share his anxiety—that if the Government were to be so insensitive (that is the politest word I can think of) as to reintroduce the now dead Clause 1, they would revive the whole Bill and give it a fresh life in a quite indecent fashion which I do not think anyone could possibly welcome.

I do not wish to speak about the merits of the amendment at this stage. The noble and learned Lord has a disagreeable responsibility in regard to the Bill. He has a rather difficult time of it these days and I have the utmost sympathy for him. I say sincerely that I always respect the patience, intelligence and courtesy with which he handles tricky and difficult situations. However, on this particular occasion he will have a lot of explaining to do with regard to what in this thoroughly undesirable Bill is now living and capable of meaning anything and whether he and his colleagues in another place intend to do the dreadful thing of reviving the corpse by giving the Bill its Clause 1, or its head, back again so that once again the wretched creature will be capable of breathing and of living.

Before the merits of the noble Lord's reasonable and sensible amendment are gone into further, I do not think that it is too much to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will be kind enough to comment on the degree of animation which this ghastly corpse can expect to receive from his colleagues in the near future. I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that the Government have no such sinister intentions of restoring to life a Bill which never deserved anything other than total condemnation.

My Lords, I had better intervene at this stage as the Minister did riot intervene while my noble friend was speaking; otherwise he might bring the debate to a conclusion.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am advised that I am allowed to speak only once in this debate. Intervening in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I should make it clear that it is the Government's intention if the Bill do now pass to argue in another place that the former Clause 1 of the Bill should be reinstated. We stand by this Bill and intend to pursue this Bill. I speak by way of intervention rather than losing my right to speak.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I paid my very sincere tribute to him in the hope that he would be able to influence his honourable and right honourable friends elsewhere to emulate the virtues for which I have given him credit.

My Lords, with temerity, I remind noble Lords that it is Third Reading. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, that speaking once and intervening in the intervention of another speaker is stretching the point.

My Lords, perhaps I may resume my remarks. First, I deeply deplore the announcement that the noble and learned Lord made, although it came as no surprise. However, I shall return to that a little later.

I hope that the Bill will remain dead and will not be revived. But if it were to be revived, then this amendment would be a valuable small addition to the Bill. Without the amendment, the incredible difficulties of dual loyalties—they are the reasons that the Bill is so potentially damaging—could be much worse. I therefore support the amendment.

My Lords, I deal with the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I have indicated the Government's intentions with regard to the former Clause 1 of the Bill.

On the proposed amendment, I confirm that the presiding officer is a member of the Assembly Commission by virtue of Section 40(2)(a) of the 1998 Act. Clause 2(2) of this Bill prevents persons appointed as members of the commission from also holding the offices listed in that clause. This clause does not cover the presiding officer since he is not appointed but is a member of the commission by virtue of the 1998 Act.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to answer my question, which concerns me greatly. How is it possible for us now to debate an amendment to a clause which is no longer in the Bill?

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the clause which is being amended is new Clause 1 of the present Bill. Therefore, there is a clause which can be amended. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, comes to my aid by nodding vigorously. Procedurally, there is no question but that the debate on the amendment can go forward. I believe that that view is confirmed by the Table Office and the learned Clerk. In terms of procedure it is perfectly possible to debate the amendment. As a matter of substance, it is right that the issue should be debated, it having been made clear by me on behalf of the Government that we shall argue in another place for the reintroduction of Clause 1.

The amendment of the noble Lord seeks to prevent holders of disqualifying offices—those are the various offices mentioned in the present Clause 1—from being able to take up positions as chairmen or deputy chairmen of the Assembly ad hoc committee, as he said, to avoid conflicts of interest. We do not believe that those safeguards will be necessary in the selection of those offices. First, unlike statutory committees, ad hoc committees do not have the same role in the development of policy and legislation. Secondly, and more importantly, unlike the restricted offices included in the present Clause 1 of the Bill, ad hoc committee chairmen and deputy chairmen are not selected by the d'Hondt procedure and so are not automatically appointed. There is, therefore, room for discretion in making appointments. Candidates with existing offices in the Irish Parliament could be passed over if it were thought that they were unsuitable to be a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of the ad hoc

committee. Consequently, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and await the Government's more considered response at a later date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

My Lords, typically for this Bill, this is the last Third Reading of this Session. The Bill has been at the bottom of the legislative pile throughout its passage in this place. It was introduced into another place just before Christmas last year. Its Second Reading here was as late in July as it was possible to be. Committee and Report stages were both delayed; and Third Reading now comes at the end of the Session. That is amazing for a Bill which was presented to the Commons as so urgent that it had to be passed in two days—and that was in January.

The Bill as it stands is meaningless. I doubt whether this House has ever sent such complete rubbish to another place. It is the sweepings of a Bill. It contains only consequential clauses but no operative clause. As it stands, its only effect would be to prevent Irish senators from sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which no one wishes to do.

The Government's cover story about bringing Ireland into line with the Commonwealth, which it left voluntarily 50 years ago, was completely blown away in the course of our debates, revealing in stark clarity the central proposal of the Bill. That was itself demolished in this House, leaving these sweepings.

No Member of Parliament from a Commonwealth country has ever sat in Westminster at the same time and no one is going to do so. No Member of Parliament from any other European Union country can sit in Westminster at the same time as being a member of his own parliament; and no one proposes that he should be able to do so. Sinn Fein/IRA want this Bill. It is not that they want to sit in two parliaments at once. We know that they do not accept the validity of the Westminster Parliament with respect to Northern Ireland. It is expressed sometimes as not wishing to take the Oath but it goes much deeper. It is a hostility to all our proceedings here. They do not want to sit in the Westminster Parliament and the Dail at the same time. They want to be able to claim to represent Northern Ireland constituencies in the Dail. That reason for wanting this Bill is not simply a contention from this side of the House. It is fully stated and documented Sinn Fein policy, as has been made clear in our debates.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on Report that such a claim to represent part of the United Kingdom in the Dail would be constitutionally wrong. I agree. That is what makes it extraordinary that the Government should want to make that possible. The noble and learned Lord speaks as though it were all a gesture of good will with no effective consequences. But, if passed in its original form, the Bill would provide heavy and sustained propaganda opportunities for Sinn Fein/IRA for the foreseeable future. It is not part of the Good Friday agreement. It has nothing to do with the new joint institutions for British-Irish co-operation which we have always supported and which followed on from that agreement. Worse than that, it is a one-way concession: it applies only to Irish citizens but not to British citizens.

On Report, the noble and learned Lord gave us at some length details of the changes to the Irish constitution about which we all know. But he could not tell us that the Irish constitution would be changed to allow British citizens to sit in the Dail.

In any event, the Bill as it originally stood was wrong in principle. No one can legally represent two United Kingdom constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons and, more to the point, they should not be able to represent two constituencies in different sovereign Parliaments at the same time.

There have been suggestions that the Bill is part of a secret deal between the Government and Sinn Fein. Perhaps that is what the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms meant when he referred to it as part of the "choreography" of Northern Ireland. Further, it has been suggested that it resulted from the deal when the Prime Minister wrote his hand-written appeal to Northern Ireland electors to support the agreement at the time of the referendum. If that was so, in my view the Government need feel no compunction about it. The promises made at that time have been dishonoured root and branch by Sinn Fein, particularly in respect of decommissioning.

In the course of our debates in this House we have shown the true nature of this Bill and its consequences. The House decided clearly that the Bill's central proposition was highly objectionable. Therefore, we are sending a husk of the original Bill to another place. They must confront the issues, which they were not able to do in January.

My Lords, we have consistently maintained that this Bill is worth while, that it is positive and that it is symbolic of a new era in the history of the United Kingdom and Ireland. We are seeking to allow Members of the Irish Parliament the opportunity to campaign and to take up seats in the United Kingdom legislatures in recognition of the extremely close and positive ties which exist between Britain and Ireland. Nevertheless, as the vote to drop the former Clause 1 demonstrated, it appears that many here do not agree that this new relationship is sufficiently important to warrant this Bill.

The simple rationale for introducing the Bill nearly a year ago was, and still is, to recognise the advances made since the advent of the Good Friday agreement in the constitutional and political future of Northern Ireland and, in particular, the effect that that has had on our relationship with one other nation—Ireland.

That relationship was proved in the negotiations which resulted in the Belfast agreement. It was the British and Irish Governments working together with the parties that made it possible to reach agreement. Throughout the crucial and difficult process which led to the Belfast agreement, and again subsequently when we experienced setbacks in the full implementation of the agreement, the Irish Government were key players in bringing the political process back on track, sometimes at potential cost and in the face of personal tragedy.

The historic agreement is a pact not only between the Northern Ireland parties and the British Government, but also between the Irish and British Governments and with the people of Northern Ireland. Quite simply, it would not have been possible to get this far without the contribution of the Irish Government or, indeed, the support of the Irish people, as shown in the referendum on the Belfast agreement.

Our relationship with Ireland has been strengthened not only by the Good Friday agreement, but by the British-Irish agreement, which replaced the Anglo-Irish agreement. Under this new agreement, the Irish Government fulfilled their commitment to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. With the endorsement of over 94 per cent of the Irish voting public, the Irish Government removed the territorial claim over Northern Ireland which had existed as a central principle of the Irish constitution for 80 years.

The Irish Government and the Irish people showed that they accepted and supported the principle of consent that Northern Ireland would remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority within Northern Ireland wished it to be so; and, crucially, they recognised the separateness of Northern Ireland from Ireland.

We must not forget that these developments have accompanied huge progress in Northern Ireland. For the first time in 30 years the main paramilitary groups are on ceasefire. Violence, death and destruction are no longer a part of everyday life for the majority of people living in Northern Ireland. The strong economic growth there is higher than in most other regions of the United Kingdom, and there is rising employment, inward investment and an increase in living standards across the community.

We have returned power to a devolved Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, placing responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of local representatives. They are rising to the challenge with enthusiasm, imagination and energy.

All that has happened and is happening. The achievements are a matter of fact, not of interpretation. They came about only because the United Kingdom and Ireland were prepared to work together to bring peace and to lay a solid foundation for Northern Ireland's future. Of course, I am not saying that the current situation is perfect; we still have a long way to go. But we have travelled a long way already and at every step we have been supported by the Irish Government. I believe that this Bill gives modest recognition of that fact.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In the middle of his rather misplaced triumphal song, I ask him what evidence or expectation he has that any Irish citizen other than a member of Sinn Fein will make use of the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill.

My Lords, I have no idea who will use the Bill. By way of argument, I am saying that the Bill recognises the strengthening relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Government. It does not give automatic rights to representation to Members; it simply makes it possible for the electorate to have a wider choice of candidates. In doing so, it extends the democratic principle.

I finish by answering a question which has been asked throughout the debates in this House: who wants this Bill? The Government want it because they recognise all that the partnership with Ireland has brought in recent years. By the same token, the Irish Government support and welcome the Bill. For the reason that I gave earlier—the extension of the democratic principle—it is also generally supported by the nationalist population. The Bill is also welcomed by a number of the political parties in Northern Ireland, such as the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition.

There is support for the Bill and there are good reasons to support it. I urge all those who want cooperation with the Irish Government and progress in Northern Ireland to support it.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is attending a family funeral in Northern Ireland, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.

With the leave of the House, perhaps I may explain that due to unusual circumstances, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has only just received a copy of the Statement. Therefore, through the usual channels, we have agreed that my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton will first deal with the Commons amendments.

Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the rural White Paper, I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords. There is a maximum of 20 minutes for contributions from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Minister's reply, followed by 20 minutes for Back-Bench Peers to speak and ask questions.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the rural policy White Paper. The Statement is as follows:

"The Government have today published a White Paper on the future of rural England, produced jointly by my department and MAFF. I am also publishing the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the rural White Paper. Copies have been placed in the Library.

"A common message runs through both this White Paper and the urban White Paper. They are about tackling the real issues that matter to people—jobs, housing, services, transport and having a real say in what happens locally. We want communities in which economic prosperity, social justice and a healthy environment go hand in hand.

"Much of rural Britain is thriving, but there are real problems and many of them have got worse over the last 20 years. For example, farm incomes have fallen by 60 per cent in five years; many families cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up; and seven out of 10 of our poorest counties are rural.

"Our consultation with rural communities showed that person after person in rural areas complained that their basic services had disappeared. Over the last two decades, thousands of rural bus services have shut down, leaving only one in four parishes with a daily service; 450 village schools were closed—that is more than one every two weeks; more than 100 rural post offices closed each year; and, while the last administration permitted an explosion of out-of-town superstores, more than 4,000 village shops went out of business.

"The countryside is no stranger to change and our task is to give people the tools to respond to that challenge. This White Paper represents a new commitment to rural communities and gives them the powers and resources to manage change. It brings together a new, comprehensive approach incorporating legislation we have already agreed. It provides a framework for our rural policies for the future. It presents a more comprehensive approach to the needs of the countryside. Increasingly, rural areas will benefit from our main programmes on health, education, housing and employment. In addition, we have doubled specific rural spending from £600 million in 1997–98 to £1.2 billion this year; and we are committing an extra £1 billion to farming and rural programmes over the next three years.

"There are five main elements to our White Paper: improving services; tackling poverty; the rural economy; protecting the countryside and wildlife; and giving more choice to local people. Access to basic services for people in rural areas is what they really want and is the most important element of the White Paper.

"People in rural areas should know what services they are entitled to. So, for the first time, we are publishing a Rural Service Standard. It will set out minimum service standards and targets for the full range of public services, from education to health and childcare to emergency services.

"To improve healthcare in rural areas we are providing £100 million for one-stop primary healthcare centres or mobile units in 100 rural communities. To reverse the decline of rural post offices we are investing £270 million to turn post offices into one-stop shops with access to banking, prescriptions, local authority and other services. I can announce that the pilot scheme will be in Leicestershire, involving 280 post offices and starting next spring. Thousands of villages have lost their local shops. We propose to offer mandatory rate relief to more village shops, pubs and garages. And we are launching a new £15 million rural community service fund to support local enterprise and help local groups re-establish lost services

"To improve education in rural areas we have introduced stronger safeguards to protect rural schools from closure. We are providing rural police forces with an extra £45 million over the next two years. And, as the Chancellor announced, we are helping local communities which use their local church to provide community services by reducing the rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent.

"The House will be aware of the importance of transport to rural areas. The Chancellor in his Pre Budget Report froze fuel duty and reduced VED on smaller cars. But public transport is absolutely vital. We have already increased funding for rural buses by £170 million, with 1,800 new services. We are now investing another £192 million over the next three years in rural transport.

"People have told us that in some places they need much more flexible transport solutions. So we are setting up a new £15 million special transport fund. The fund will give to those parishes that want it up to £10,000 each to provide their own small-scale solutions to local transport problems such as support for car clubs, taxi services and community transport. As announced in our Ten-Year Plan, we will extend the existing fuel duty rebate for buses to community transport schemes. For a typical minibus this could be worth up to £3,000 a year.

"There is growing concern about controlling speeding traffic in villages and on country roads. We will allow local communities to make villages and rural roads safer by reducing speed limits and investing more in traffic calming. We will also invest more than £1 billion over 10 years in rural bypasses.

"Like rural areas, urban areas require affordable housing. We are doubling the Housing Corporation programme by 2003–04. This, together with local authority investment and planning reforms, will provide a total of 3,000 affordable homes a year in small rural settlements and a total of around 9,000 homes a year across all rural districts. In some areas better use of planning rules could provide one affordable home for every new home built. Our new starter home initiative will also help key workers on modest incomes to buy their homes in areas of high prices and high demand.

"There are strong feelings of resentment in some areas that second home owners benefit from a 50 per cent council tax discount while local people cannot find enough affordable housing. We propose to give local authorities in England the same discretion as in Wales to end the 50 per cent discount. As a new departure we propose to use the proceeds for extra affordable housing. This will be discretionary but it could be worth up to £150 million a year. We are required to consult on this and will do so as soon as possible.

"Like urban areas, rural areas benefit from a strong local economy. Market towns are the heart of economic growth in rural areas. We are investing an extra £37 million over the next three years to help create new opportunities, new work spaces, restored high streets, better amenities and good transport links to surrounding areas. With partnership funds this will create a £100 million package for 100 market towns. We are giving the regional development agencies greater flexibility and a more specific rural remit within the additional £500 million in their budgets. There will also be special business support and training tailored for small businesses in rural areas.

"The House has often expressed the view that agriculture plays a crucial role in the countryside and rural economy. The Action Plan for Farming sets out our policies for the future of farming. Farming will continue to produce the bulk of the nation's food and contribute to exports. It contributes to a good quality environment and the wider local economy; but many farmers need to diversify in order to stay in business.

"The House will recall that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently announced a £1.6 billion seven-year package for agriculture in the new England Rural Development Programme. This will increase environmental support for farmers and help them to start new business enterprises. And the Government are making available an additional £500 million to help the farming industry modernise and restructure, in addition to the £2.5 billion a year from the European Union. Recognising the real difficulties faced by agriculture, we will, in addition, reform our planning rules to help farmers diversify and we are today launching a consultation paper to give rate relief for rural diversification projects.

Our consultation has shown a great deal of concern for a small but important part of the rural economy—the maintenance of small rural abattoirs, which have faced increased inspection fees. We shall introduce additional targeted help to support local abattoirs without any detriment to food standards.

"Our beautiful countryside is valued by people who live in it and those who visit it. We all recognise the work that rural people have carried out over generations to protect the countryside. To relieve the pressure of development on the countryside, we shall be building on urban brownfields first and greenfields last. We shall build higher quality housing and make better use of land by building at more sustainable densities. Therefore, we now require local authorities to notify me of all major housing developments planned for greenfield sites.

"The House will be aware that we were reviewing our controls over roadside advertisements in the countryside. I can announce that we will not change our rules but will maintain our controls over advertisements in the countryside".

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but it seems to me that there is more to the Statement. I certainly have another two pages of it in front of me.

My Lords, I knew that it was too good to be true! Some of my noble friends wish to be off early tonight, but, nevertheless, I apologise. I fear that the last two pages of the Statement were not before me. I must express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for making that observation. However, I shall return to the Statement:

"Following this debate, the House will move on to the final stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. This major Bill will give additional protection to our countryside, conserve its wildlife and make it accessible to all—something we have waited a long time for.

"Our consultation showed that for too long local people have felt that they have not been able to take decisions for themselves. We want local communities to play a bigger part in shaping their own future because every community has its own priorities, strengths and distinctiveness.

"The performance of our parish councils varies. We shall promote new "quality" town or parish councils, which will be able to take on a bigger role in providing and managing local services in partnership with principal authorities. We shall provide £7 million to help parish and town councils to meet the quality standard and shape their own future and for the first time to help 1,000 communities develop town and village plans, which can then feed into the statutory planning process. In addition, the Countryside Agency will equip every town and parish with access to the Internet. Town and village plans will allow local people to set design standards and preserve the character of their villages.

"As our consultation revealed, all too often in the past, and at all levels of government, rural needs and priorities have been overlooked. We shall ensure that the commitments in this White Paper are followed through. To achieve that, the Countryside Agency will produce an annual report on how major policies have been assessed for their rural impact, we shall establish new rural advisory boards at national and regional level and a new rural advocate—Ewen Cameron, chairman of the Countryside Agency—will argue the case on countryside issues at the highest levels in government and outside.

"We are clear that it is impossible to tackle the problems of the countryside in isolation. We need to look at them as a whole across government. The White Paper will promote: a living countryside, with thriving rural communities and access to high quality services; a working countryside, with a strong economy giving high and stable levels of employment; a protected countryside, which we can all enjoy; and a vibrant countryside, which can shape its own future and have its voice heard by government at all levels.

"Some people want us to divide town and country. We are governing for the whole country. Our aim is a living, working countryside with better access for all people to enjoy. I commend the White Paper to the House".

My Lords, I believe that that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier this afternoon. As noble Lords will have realised, it is a very full White Paper. The noble Lord's introduction took over 11 minutes to deliver. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I give a rather full response to a most important Statement.

We welcome much that is in the Statement. It is good to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is sitting next to the Minister. Obviously, the White Paper deals with both rural areas and farming matters. That is why the Statement is so welcome. We also welcome the greater flexibility that has been announced, especially the fact that this will bring greater responsibility to local parishes; in other words, it will bring such matters right down to the lowest level—something for which we have been pressing for some time.

The White Paper deals with the relationship between the working countryside—the farming side of it—and the rural aspects involved. We welcome, too, the money that the Minister said will he available to enforce some of the proposals in the White Paper. However, we are somewhat concerned that some of that money may be recycled money. We shall need several days to work out the total commitment in the Statement and the rural White Paper.

The White Paper also refers to the need for "multiple consultation". The Government came into office in 1997. Since that time, we seem to have consultation after consultation on rural matters. The one thing that we are looking forward to—and what we hope will come out of this process—is seeing some action. Just recently we had an extremely good report from the Better Regulation Task Force, Environmental Regulations and Farmers. This is an ideal consultation booklet. However, having consulted, we now need to move forward. With all the thrusts and the wide range of issues that are covered in the White Paper, I just hope that we shall quickly see some action and forward movement, rather than having to wait for it to take place in a little while.

I listened to the comments made this morning by the CBI and was slightly worried by the statements made about the responsibilities and extra burdens that small businesses in particular have to carry. I raise this issue because of taxation and regulation and because local small businesses are to be found predominantly in rural areas. I am very hopeful that the Government will take this matter on board and consider the issues raised by the CBI this morning. For example, do the Government intend to reduce the burdens on both large and small businesses, but especially on the smaller ones that were referred to this morning? Moreover, will the Government compensate the agricultural community for the extra costs that it has had to bear as a result of European directives, and the gold-plating that we have enforced on animal welfare rules? We are hopeful that this will be resolved by way of the White Paper's proposals.

Further, will the Government continue to follow our lead and not introduce EC directives in advance of the time set for them to be introduced? The noble Baroness and I have had discussions on that issue, which is a real worry to the farming community. Farmers are also concerned about the amount of regulations to which they have to adhere.

The Minister referred to the White Paper as "practical". Many of the examples given in the document are practical and most welcome. However, perhaps I may address one of the big issues therein; namely, the matter of housing. As has emerged from our many debates on the subject, housing in rural areas is crucially important. The White Paper proposes enforcing guidelines in respect of "affordable homes". Can the Minister give us a clearer classification on "affordable homes"? For example, how will those houses be protected if they are for local occupancy in the immediate future? How will they be protected in the future? Will people who are able to take advantage of affordable homes then become owners, or will they be only, say, life tenants? Will they stay in their local community for affordable homes within that area? I do not believe that the White Paper deals with that aspect of the matter.

We welcome the changes in some of the planning guidance indicated in the booklet, but I wonder whether some of the proposals are strong enough. For example, both the Statement and the booklet say that for every new house built, one affordable new home should be built. However, that may be impractical in many of our villages. Some villages may need only 10 or 12 new homes and other types of housing may be required. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify that.

We welcome the U-turn on the Government's proposed controls on advertising in rural areas. During debate on the countryside Bill we said that we did not wish to see the countryside covered in hoardings. With regard to housing, I understand that a reduced rate of VAT will be levied for the conversion of buildings to residential use. Does that apply just to the conversion of barns to houses or does it include the conversion of bigger houses into smaller units? The document does not make that clear. Will the VAT burden in this regard be removed altogether from houses built more than 10 years ago or will it be reduced only down to the 5 per cent which I believe is recommended in the case of the conversion of other buildings?

As regards grants for brownfield sites which we have discussed in this House on many occasions, I understand that the EC has to give approval for grants to develop brownfield sites. I understand that that approval has been challenged. What progress has been made on that front?

I turn to agri-environment schemes and rural development. The Government stated in their response on page 11:

"We urge the Treasury to explore the potential for greater use of pooled budgets. The comprehensive spending review provides a timely opportunity to improve the effectiveness of spending in rural areas".

Will the Government consider simplifying the multiplicity of agri-environment schemes and rural development initiatives that exist? At the moment there are so many that it is confusing for those who wish to apply. Again I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.

The document is full of useful points. We are particularly delighted with the implications of the proposals for strengthening parishes. With regard to the restrictions on speed and—this is not mentioned—the whole issue of parking in parish areas, will the parishes decide these matters for themselves or will local authorities at a more senior level decide which parishes will be able, and will be allowed, to develop in the way the document suggests? I should be grateful for clarification on that point.

I have just touched on a few of the many points in the document. However, I am aware of the time constraints that apply to the debate. I hope that we shall be able to debate the document at greater length in the New Year. The document deserves a full debate. I am concerned about whether the funding will be adequate for what the Government are trying to do. Will it improve the life of those who live and work in the countryside? The document seeks to allow greater diversity to farmers and others to adapt their businesses. However, I am concerned as to how we ensure that some of the new jobs that are to be created will be taken up by people who currently live and work in the countryside. Will they not result in many people who live in urban areas being attracted to rural areas and thus not solve the problems that the Government seek to solve?

There is much to recommend in the document. I am sorry that I have spoken for rather a long time. I have not addressed many of the areas which I hope others will cover. Again I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the Statement and the publication of the rural White Paper. However, if it was in my fridge, I would suspect that it was rather past its sell by date. Having looking beyond the packaging, on the other hand, it seems to offer some good reading and some good thoughts.

The fact that the document is a joint publication of the DETR and MAFF suggests a new way of working between them. That is to be greatly welcomed. The document offers a new start in reversing the trends of decline of the past two decades when, as the Statement made clear, the countryside suffered badly from such developments as out of town shopping, the decline in services and, not least, the pressure on local authorities' budgets which forced them to cut back many of their important rural services.

However, the rural White Paper contains no definition of why we value the countryside and the unique qualities of its economy. That is regrettable if the document is to be a vision for the future. A little more attention could have been devoted to the land based nature of the economy and the extent to which people want to move away from that. However, we welcome the development of a rural services standard. We have pressed for such a standard on several occasions in this House and in the other place. We are absolutely delighted that the Government will introduce it.

We are concerned about the introduction of a strangely named "regional rural sounding board" and a "national rural sounding board". I say with all due respect to the chairman of the Countryside Agency, whom I admire and respect tremendously—I believe that he is a rural advocate or a czar for rural areas—that he is not really accountable to anyone. I believe that the Countryside Agency is accountable to the DETR. Therefore he is almost judge and jury in his own cause. Having said that, I hope that such an appointment will in the future prevent government departments from inflicting on rural areas disasters such as that which has occurred with post offices. The Government will have to have to try to rectify that situation. We welcome the pilot scheme that is mentioned in the White Paper with regard to post offices and hope that it will be successful.

The rural White Paper acknowledges the dramatic fall in farm incomes of 60 per cent in five years. When I said that the document was rather past its sell by date I had in mind, for example, the Government's lack of response to the Maclean report on small abattoirs. I hope that the fine words in the rural White Paper will produce some rapid action in that area and will not just be fine words.

There are some good points in the White Paper with regard to the "local food, local people" issue and developing local markets for farmers' produce. However, those points need to be followed up with firm action. The Government need to consider further their attitude to suppliers' relationships with supermarkets.

The White Paper mentions funding that can be bid for. The figures appear large, but if one divides them into the number of rural communities and small towns, many of them will gain nothing more than a new bus shelter and a notice board. I do not believe that that kind of funding should be the bottom line. We on these Benches believe that local authorities should be given a fair deal.

I draw the Minister's attention to the neighbourhood renewal fund. The DETR proposes to allocate less than 8 per cent of that renewal fund to address deprivation in communities served by two-tier local government structures; that is, rural communities. The inequity of that can be readily demonstrated as two-tier areas contain 46 per cent of the population and just under a third of the top 10 per cent of deprived wards. However, around half of the most deprived wards in two-tier areas will receive no funding because their needs are not apparent in data which are averaged out at council level. This is in stark contrast to modestly deprived wards falling within unitary authority areas. They will receive only 4 per cent; and then will not receive that funding. It may seem a complicated point but I hope that there is no disguise, with rural areas appearing to receive better funding which is, however, taken away in other ways. The Government need to bear in mind that rural areas are typified by pockets of localised deprivation.

While we welcome the strengthening of the role of parish councils, we are worried about the development of a two-tier system—quality parish councils, and the remainder. I hope that the Government will consider removing the Section 137 restriction upon what even small and excellent parish councils can do. There is no mention of creating parish councils throughout the country. That is surely something we should press for.

We welcome the doubling of the rural housing programme from almost nothing. As regards key workers, will the same criteria apply to them in rural and urban areas? Village halls are the key meeting point for rural communities. It is a shame that the Chancellor has reduced VAT only on church repairs but not village hall repairs. Perhaps the Government will reconsider the issue now that they concede that rural churches are important, as indeed are village halls.

Finally, the White Paper demonstrates what good practice can produce. The funding is still ring-fenced. The RDAs are being given more money. The money is being targeted through quangos but without a great deal of accountability. It is tiring for rural communities to have to bid again and again, without always receiving such funding.

Although we welcome much that is in the Statement and the good practice put forward, we believe that the services that local authorities can offer have been underplayed. I echo the wish for a fuller debate on the White Paper. However, I believe that we should have a debate on the urban and rural White Papers. There is a lack of reference between the two in the White Paper. The House would benefit from a further debate on the two issues together.

My Lords, this will be a brief Minister's response in view of the time. I am grateful for the welcome given by both Front Benches to many aspects of the White Paper.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the burden on small businesses. The action plan for farming already has a number of commitments to review and remove regulatory burdens and planning requirements in relation to farming, all of which are being acted upon. We shall have further consultation with regard to the environmental burdens identified recently.

As regards affordable housing, the options in the White Paper are available to local authorities and existing planning powers can achieve quite a lot. Whether the one-for-one approach were adopted would be a matter for the local market and local authority. But it would be useful in certain circumstances depending on the local housing market. Substantial additional powers and additional resources for affordable housing run through the White Paper.

The noble Baroness asked whether one could convert a larger building into a smaller building with VAT benefit. The answer is yes. Brownfield sites, previously developed land, must be discussed with the planners. Applications will need to take account of a range of considerations. But the intention is that the sequence of the planning hierarchy would mean that brownfield sites as defined locally would be the first to be built upon. We would restrict greenfield development, therefore, in the countryside.

The noble Baroness also referred to the possible influx from urban areas. The answer is that we have to get the urban policy right at the same time as we are getting the rural policy right. Therefore, the urban and rural White Papers fit together. The House authorities may well deem it sensible for us to have a debate on those issues.

My allocated time is up. I shall write to the noble Baronesses on other points.

My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and the commitment of the Labour Party to govern on behalf of rural and urban communities. For too long the Labour Party has been regarded as a representative party only of city and urban communities.

I welcome the commitment to a vibrant and working countryside. There is no point in talking about improving the post office facilities here and there unless one gives people the opportunity of employment in the countryside. I have a special interest in forestry matters. I contacted the Forestry Commission on the continuing decline in opportunities for workers in the forestry industry. In 1993–94 the Forestry Commission lost 1,100 employees in countryside towns. The figures for private estates dropped from 15,000 to 10,000, and so it goes on. One will not have continuing employment opportunities in the countryside unless one continues to plant trees. At present there is a dramatic drop in planting trees. In this country, we are now planting more hardwoods than softwoods. Hardwoods have a rotation of 100 years. Even on a diminished planting programme, one is providing employment for 100 years' time.

My Lords, perhaps I may beg my noble friend to be brief.

My Lords, I would have welcomed some reference to the opportunities for a developing forestry policy and the sustaining of this natural resource.

My Lords, I note the points my noble friend makes about forestry. Clearly, the decline in forestry employment has helped the shift away from primary production in rural areas. There are opportunities for planting new forests; and for reviving forestry. Under the REDP there are woodland grants; and we give support to both private and corporate forestry proposals.

When we refer to the decline in some of the traditional industries in rural areas, it is important that we also paint the other side of the picture. Many small businesses have been built up in rural areas over recent years. Until the relatively recent decline in agricultural incomes, there were booming parts of the rural area with new industries and new enterprises which employed many people. To gain a full picture of the rural economy we need also to take that into account, important though agriculture and forestry are.