Sitting of 14 December 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Oflot
    Mr. Christopher Chope: When he last met the Director General of Oflot to discuss the terms and conditions of the lottery operator's licence. [62126]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I have regular meetings with the director general at which we discuss a range of issues. The most recent such meeting was on 22 October.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he recall that one of the original justifications for having a United Kingdom national lottery was the fact that if we did not have one, foreign lottery operators would be allowed to operate in this country and we would not have any competition to put up against them? Now that Camelot has proved so successful and seen off competition in the home market, does he not think that it is time for the lottery operator to be allowed to sell lottery tickets overseas so that we can get even more remuneration for our favourite causes in this country?
    Mr. Smith: Camelot is considering that. The consent of the Director General of Oflot is required before the idea can proceed, and I am sure that he will consider it carefully. If the idea goes ahead, I hope that Camelot secures a better deal for the lottery players of this country than the hon. Gentleman did for the people of this country when he privatised the Property Services Agency.

    Tourism Strategy
    Shona McIsaac: What plans he has to ensure that the tourism strategy includes assistance to seaside towns in respect of their provision of affordable family holidays. [62128]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new tourism strategy will be
    588
    comprehensive. It will include proposals for action to increase access to tourism for all and practical suggestions on regeneration for seaside towns.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I have one specific question on the tourism strategy: will any money be available for seaside regeneration?
    Mr. Smith: Funds can be made available in various ways to assist with regeneration. It has been announced that more than £3.8 billion will be available from the single regeneration budget, which is in the care of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Some of that money will be available to tackle pockets of deprivation, particularly in coastal towns. I understand that 44 of the bids received so far have included proposals for regeneration in seaside towns. Support from the national lottery can also go to such towns for the restoration of piers and other projects. In addition, I was able to announce this morning that our proposals for a streamlined body to support and foster tourism in England will enable more money to go to the regions to support tourism.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Will the Secretary of State take cognisance of what was said at the British Resorts Association conference, which unfortunately he could not attend? Representatives of every resort said what difficult times they were facing. It looks as though they have a bleak future. Is there any help in the strategy for hoteliers who require grants or other help towards refurbishing their premises?
    Mr. Smith: I am well aware of the good work done by the British Resorts Association in supporting and fostering the work of all resort towns, not just seaside towns. We shall keep in regular contact on how the Government can best assist the association in ensuring that our resort towns have a flourishing future rather than a decaying one.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many opportunities for local authorities to encourage families to visit seaside resorts? I draw to his attention the initiatives of Blackpool and Wyre borough councils in staging arts events aimed specifically at children and families. In Fleetwood, children have been learning how to juggle and walk on stilts at a circus workshop. The programme is free, so it is affordable for families. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should be encouraged to adopt such a lively and imaginative way of encouraging and inviting families to come to seaside resorts?
    Mr. Smith: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. She has given a good example of how local authorities can take imaginative initiatives. She will also be aware from this morning's announcement that the additional funds that we have been able to make available to the Arts Council of England will ensure that much more money goes to the regional arts boards to enable more such work.
    Mr. Richard Spring: The Secretary of State will be aware of the anxiety in our traditional seaside resorts about the future of tourism, arising from the

    589
    current economic climate, which has led to the biggest deficit in tourism in this country's history. Will he assure the House that when the continually delayed tourism strategy is finally unveiled, it will address the needs of seaside resorts specifically?
    Mr. Smith: Yes.

    Museums and Galleries (Children's Access)
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What his plans are to improve access for children to museums and galleries. [62129]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): As my right hon. Friend announced this morning, funds will be made available to allow the trustees of the national museums and galleries that charge for entry to introduce free admission for children from April 1999. That will apply both to main sites and to branch museums.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome news, but can he clarify whether that means that children will have free access to museums and galleries when they are not in a school party? Can he also enlighten me a little more on what joined-up or grown-up thinking the Department has about sharing that key educational resource with other Departments?
    Mr. Howarth: I can encourage my hon. Friend on both points. For example, until now, children who visited the Science museum in a school party gained free admission, but did not if they visited it on their own—other than at certain times of the week—or with their families. The Science museum will now have the opportunity to offer them free admission on all occasions, and I am pleased to understand that it is its wish to take up that offer.
    My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the need for co-ordinated policy development on education. He will have noted, for example, that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), announced a £140,000 fund to support schools to work with museums and galleries to provide innovative learning opportunities out of school hours. We are developing an agenda with the Department for Education and Employment on a number of fronts, because our museums and galleries are a wonderful educational resource.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The announcement made today, which has been referred to, was described in the accompanying press release as the
    "biggest ever reform of cultural funding and organisation".
    Is not it absolutely typical that, instead of the announcement being made in the House, it was made at 10 o'clock this morning at the Tate gallery?
    Is not it a tragic misdirection of funds that nearly £100 million—which could have been of real value to museums throughout the country, including children's museums such as the Roald Dahl museum—will go to a handful of mainly metropolitan museums in an attempt to compensate for the cost of free admission? Surely that is a wasteful exercise in ideology, which will benefit few children, many of whom already get into museums for nothing.
    590
    Will the Minister confirm that the chief beneficiaries of that policy will be overseas tourists and, of course, Her Majesty's Treasury, which will benefit to the tune of tens of millions of pounds a year in VAT receipts that it did not previously get? When will the Government stop using arts policy as a tool of dogmatic Labour party policy?
    Mr. Howarth: It would appear, unfortunately, that the hon. Gentleman may have neglected to read parliamentary answers last week. I refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on Thursday 10 December, in which the relevant announcement was duly and properly made to the House. The briefing given this morning was supplementary to that.
    The principal beneficiaries of the policies that we have announced will be children, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is happy to contemplate the continuation of charging, which acts as a barrier to children experiencing great art and getting to know the great collections of our museums.
    Of course other policies and funds are designed to enable more and more people to enjoy the treasures of our museums; for example, a £15 million challenge fund supports the designated collections and a £7 million access fund from the heritage lottery fund supports museums and galleries. As we have already announced, the heritage lottery fund will enjoy an extra £50 million to use between now and 2001, and it has been confirmed that it will continue to receive 16⅔ per cent. of the proceeds of the national lottery. Thereafter, the regional cultural forums will engage local authorities much more closely in developing an integrated policy across the country. We have much in hand to improve access to and enhance the educational activities of museums and galleries across the country.

    Television Coverage (Sports)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What representations he has received from low-income groups regarding access to sporting events on television. [62130]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): My right hon. Friend received more than 700 representations on access to sporting events on television during his review of the list, and a significant number expressed concern about the availability of broadcasts of major events to people on low incomes. The Government believe that broadcasts of the most important sporting events should be available to all, and for that reason my right hon. Friend announced a revised list in June, which extends protection to more events than ever before.
    Mr. Pike: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer but I am sure that she will recognise that many low income families cannot afford to take children to a football match at Stamford Bridge or at even Turf Moor in her constituency. Those families depend on television to watch sport and regret that it is increasingly being shown on cable, satellite and pay per view. Will the Government ensure that people can continue to see not only the major national events but other sports throughout the year?
    Janet Anderson: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I am well aware of the price of tickets for

    591
    football matches these days. However, the five terrestrial channels continue to offer coverage of all major sports. In the past few weeks, they have shown domestic and European football, the climax of the Grand Prix motor racing championship and a number of rugby union internationals in addition to the listed events for which free-to-air coverage can be protected by the Independent Television Commission.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: One low income group that finds it extremely difficult to travel to sporting events is the pensioners. What are the Government's plans to enable pensioners to see more sport on television? As the licence fee goes up, the amount of sport on television dramatically goes down.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Lady will know that we have announced a review of the licence fee. As part of that review, detailed consideration will be given to the current concessionary scheme, which we have acknowledged to be unfair and unsatisfactory.

    Analogue Television Transmissions
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: What proposals he has for fixing a final date for broadcasting analogue television transmissions. [62131]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We are considering the responses that we received over the summer to our consultation paper "Television: the Digital Future", which sought views on a range of issues relating to the migration from analogue to digital broadcasting. Those responses covered a wide range of views and I shall announce the Government's intentions in taking the issue forward in due course.
    Mr. Mitchell: May I express my hope that my right hon. Friend will leave fixing a date for the end of analogue transmissions until as late as possible and make that date as far away as possible so that the less well off are not forced into what will still be the considerable expense of going digital?
    Mr. Smith: I entirely understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. We made it clear in our consultation paper that analogue television transmissions should not be switched off until digital television is as universally available as analogue currently is. We have only to look across the Atlantic to see the dangers of setting a date with great enthusiasm too early which then has to be reconsidered. We do not want to go that way.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State said that we should wait until digital television is universally available, but the point is whether digital is universally affordable. What assurances can he give the many people who are on fixed incomes and may not be able to afford the new equipment that they will not be disadvantaged by the disappearance of analogue?
    Mr. Smith: We certainly do not want to engineer a situation in which people who cannot afford to are forced to pay for new equipment to receive digital television. That is a crucial consideration, which we spelt out in the documents that we issued for consultation.

    Sports Council (Lottery Funds)
    Ms Oona King: What measures he has taken to ensure that children in inner-city areas benefit from Sports Council lottery funds. [62133]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Through measures introduced in the National Lottery Act 1998, we have taken steps to ensure that all people in inner cities will be able to benefit further from funding available from the lottery sports fund.
    Ms King: I have come from an excellent youth action scheme project in my constituency, which, among other things, aims to increase sporting facilities in Tower Hamlets. Will my hon. Friend explain how people in deprived areas who are not able to raise the 35 per cent. of the funds necessary for a project will be able to gain access to lottery sports funds?
    Mr. Banks: Independent studies have shown a threefold increase in the number of young people playing sport through initiatives funded by the national lottery. The new policy directions issued to the English Sports Council in June stressed the importance of lottery funds in opening up further opportunities for children and young people and in encouraging regeneration and combating social deprivation. We look forward to seeing how the ESC will tackle the matter in its lottery strategy, which will be published next spring. The ESC is aware that those parts of the country that are most in need of new or improved facilities tend to be the poorest, and its priority area initiative provides lottery funding of up to 90 per cent. instead of the usual 65 per cent.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The threefold increase announced by the Minister is good news and demonstrates the success of the lottery funds. However, what consolation can he give those sporting bodies which have applied for moneys, only to be told by the Sports Council that, suddenly, no moneys are available? The Minister for Arts has written to me to say that, in the next two years, the Sports Council could have access to as little as 5 per cent. of the amount now available to it because money has been diverted into the new opportunities fund. The figure of 16⅔ cent. is agreed only from 2001. Why has the money been siphoned away? What moneys will be available in the next two years?
    Mr. Banks: Money has not been siphoned away, and the 16⅔ per cent. is guaranteed to 2001 and beyond, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear to the House. As I have said on a number of occasions, it would be quite inconceivable for us to drop sport or arts from the list of good causes. It is nonsense to suggest that. The hon. Gentleman has referred to how much money has gone from the lottery to sport. So far, sports-related projects have benefited by up to £1 billion from the lottery, and such support will continue. I do not understand the fuss that the hon. Gentleman is making. He is just being alarmist because all the evidence shows that sport has benefited enormously from the lottery, and will continue to do so beyond 2001.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his encouraging response to the original question.

    593
    Does he accept many urban areas—particularly the former coal mining areas—suffer from deprivation following the loss of highly paid jobs? Many such areas are now losing their swimming pools because their maintenance cannot be upheld. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Sports Council will pay serious regard to applications to rebuild swimming pools in deprived areas, particularly in mining areas?
    Mr. Banks: We pay close attention to facilities in former mining areas through the coalfields initiative, and we have had a series of successful conferences recently to discuss the specific point that my hon. Friend has raised. It is important to make sure that we can fund people as well as projects, and we will do that following our revisions in the National Lottery Act 1998. All projects that come before the sports lottery board must show that they are viable in the long run; otherwise, we will have facilities around the country for which there is insufficient revenue funding. We are acutely aware of the need to make sure that particularly deprived areas—I specify the coalfield areas—receive the maximum support through the national lottery.

    Royal Opera House
    Mr. Michael Jack: How much the current closure of the Royal Opera house is costing public funds. [62134]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Arts Council of England awarded a grant of £20 million to the Royal Opera house from the national lottery towards the costs of closure while the theatre is being redeveloped.
    Mr. Jack: This morning the Secretary of State said on "Today"—yet another media briefing before any statement to this House—that he wanted every pound of his budget to be spent efficiently and effectively. I am sure that he and the Minister will have read the December edition of the magazine Equity Journal, which recounted a tale of financial incompetence in the running of the Royal Opera house. The possibility of more public funding for that sorry institution is being discussed. Before that is paid over, will the Secretary of State assure me that he will follow the example of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and subject the way in which the Royal Opera house project has been run to date, and will be run in the future, to the scrutiny of the National Audit Office, so that we may be assured that it is using public money effectively and efficiently? If he will not do that, will he tell the House why not?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister in the previous Administration when the finances of the Royal Opera house were allowed to get out of hand. Under the previous Government, the arts had the worst of all worlds, as they not only cut the funding but failed properly to invigilate the use of publicly provided money at the Royal Opera house. We have put in a new board, which has negotiated new agreements on working practices, and we have secured renewed commitment from the donors and the Arts Council. As a condition of any addition in funding that the Arts Council will announce, we are insisting that there must be proper administration and management standards
    594
    at the Royal Opera house. That is in stark contrast to the standards over which the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, presided.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a culture of elitism in the Royal Opera house that has excluded many opera lovers, but that the principles of access and excellence are entirely compatible? What guarantee can he give that, when the Royal Opera house reopens, there will be a fair proportion of affordable seats?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will agree that we must make a distinction between artistic elitism, which we whole-heartedly support—we are fully committed to ensuring that world-class opera and ballet continue to be performed in Britain, and I think that we all share that objective—and social exclusivity, which has characterised the Royal Opera house far too much. It will be a condition of any increase in Arts Council funding that there must be, for example, a revised ticket pricing structure, to ensure that people of average and modest means have the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful experiences that will be available in the newly reopened opera house next year.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Before the Minister gets carried away by his vision of the people's opera, will he confirm that all future arrangements for the Royal Opera house lie with the Arts Council, however much it has been damaged in recent months, and not with interfering Ministers? Would not he consider it bizarre if, at the end of the redevelopment programme, there were more subsidy and fewer performances?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has just castigated us for—in his view—having insufficient regard to ensuring that there was proper management at the Royal Opera house, while the hon. Gentleman seems to think that we should take an entirely hands-off approach. I hope that he will accept that the Government have a responsibility for stewardship of public money, albeit that decisions on public funding are taken in particular instances by the Arts Council. I am satisfied that arrangements will be announced and policies pursued at the opera house that will enable its finances to be stabilised and excellence to flourish. In future, lyric theatre at the opera house will be available to more and more people, and that is surely something for which we should all aim.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is the Minister aware that Labour Members who are opera lovers do not really care whether Covent Garden is open or shut, because we cannot afford to go there unless we have a second job, as the Tories do, or we are an arts Minister and get freebies? If he is taking a policy line on opera, could he have a word with English National Opera and suggest that it changes its name to European National Opera and starts staging operas in the language in which they were written? Whenever I go to the ENO, where I have seen some marvellous productions over the years, I cannot understand a word that is sung in English in Mozart and Puccini operas. If the fat ladies and thin gentlemen were to start singing in German and Italian, we would all enjoy it a lot more.
    Mr. Howarth: The whole House always enjoys my hon. Friend's arias.

    Sport (Young People)
    Mr. John Bercow: What steps he is taking to encourage greater levels of participation in sport among young people. [62135]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): We are working with the English Sports Council on a number of schemes for young people through the national junior sport programme, such as Top Play and BT Top Sport, on which the English Sports Council works closely with the Youth Sport Trust. There is also the sporting ambassadors scheme, a new scheme to provide opportunities for successful sportsmen and sportswomen of all ages to visit schools to enthuse young people about the benefits of physical activity and a healthy life style.
    The national junior sport programme actively encourages all governing bodies of sport to have programmes in place to promote our sport for all policy and increase participation in all sports, from the grass roots through to elite competitors.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister recall telling the House on 5 June 1998 that primary school children should undertake a minimum of three hours of sport a week in school? In the 192 days that have elapsed since that confident statement, what progress has the Minister made?
    Mr. Banks: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his compendious memory. What a sad person he must be to store such great detail. At the time, I was expressing what I saw as a desirable objective. I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows that neither the Secretary of State for Education and Employment nor I, in my humble position in another Department, can specify the number of hours spent on each subject of the national curriculum. I mentioned what I saw as a desirable objective and I am doing my best to encourage others to see my point of view, not always successfully.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: May I thank the Minister for welcoming the work of the Youth Sport Trust which, as he knows, is based in my constituency in Loughborough? It has had an enormous impact in bringing sport back into schools, especially primary schools, through the BT Top Sport programme. What representations has my hon. Friend made to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to increase the levels of participation in schools? Education is a key area in which we can make a difference. What impact has the sale of school playing fields over the past 15 years had on the amount of sport played in schools?
    Mr. Banks: I associate myself entirely with my hon. Friend's views on the Youth Sport Trust, which is a wonderful organisation. My congratulations go to Sue Campbell and her staff on their achievements in giving equipment to primary schools to enable young children to get used to sport. That is a wonderful thing to do.
    The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is considering revisions to the curriculum, and formal and informal consultations will take place next year. I hope that everybody who feels as strongly as I do about the role of physical education in schools will make representations. My hon. Friend can rest assured that I will do so, and I hope that my views will be listened to.
    596
    One of the first decisions this Government took was to stop the sale of school playing fields, which was an appalling act inflicted on schools by the Conservative Government. It clearly had an impact on the level of recreational facilities in schools. As one of my hon. Friends has said, it has affected our ability to perform well at cricket. The Conservatives, therefore, are entirely responsible for what is going on in Australia at the moment.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is it not true that the Minister does not have a clue how to arrest the decline of sport in our schools? While I understand his desire to get away from it all on exotic foreign trips, which is presumably where he picks up all his banana skins, does he accept that for the time being—although it may not be for long—he has responsibility for the future of sport and it cannot be met by keeping his fingers crossed and shooting his mouth off into his own goal?
    Mr. Banks: I must say that on one of my state visits to Parliament it is a bit much to be insulted at the Dispatch Box by a Kevin Keegan lookalike. My work abroad is in pursuit of affecting the decision on 2006 and it is hard graft. The hon. Gentleman does not know how hard I have to work when I am abroad on behalf of the country and our great national game of football.
    I shall continue to make representations to the Department for Education and Employment, but the decisions are for Ministers in that Department. All I can do is use the best offices I can muster to try to encourage the continued playing of sport in schools. The Government recognise that physical education is an important part of the national curriculum, and it will remain so.
    Mr. John Maxton: While it is important that leading sports personalities should visit schools to encourage youngsters to take part in sport, is not it equally essential that that should be followed up by the closest possible liaison between sports bodies and clubs and local schools so that the clubs can provide the coaching and organisation that the schools are now often incapable of providing?
    Mr. Banks: There is obviously a role for greater co-ordination between schools and sports clubs. There is also concern that while sporting facilities and opportunities are available in schools, there is a gap immediately after that. The English Sports Council is particularly keen on closer liaison, which is absolutely essential.
    I hope that my hon. Friend is encouraged by the after school clubs that are linking, for example, football clubs with local schools. I attended a wonderful launch at West Ham football club recently along with kids from local schools. Every school in Newham wants to get involved in the scheme, because there is a magic in getting into a local football club. The kids are receptive, and they want to learn. They are putting in more hours than they are asked for because sport can inspire children as well as putting them in a mood that makes them more receptive to learning. I consider getting such things right as an essential part of my job.
    Mr. Graham Brady: I welcome the importance that the Minister attaches to retaining school playing fields, but is he aware that a great many other playing fields are under threat? In my area, the borough of Trafford has two proposals to build houses on playing fields belonging to Bowdon cricket and hockey club and to the local authority. Will the Minister turn his attention to retaining that type of sporting facility?
    Mr. Banks: I understand that Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions planning guidelines will take that point into consideration. There are many under-utilised recreational facilities around the country, and I have tried to link up with some clearly under-utilised company sports grounds. Banks and commercial institutions used to provide wonderful facilities for their staff, but as technology has advanced and staff numbers have shrunk, those facilities have become under-used. At the Kodak company fun day recently, I found that Kodak is working with the community and a private sector provider to utilise recreational facilities, and several such initiatives are happening. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) for what we are doing.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that one thing lost in schools over the past 30 years is ground staff? Will he compare that fact with the position in our parks, where our cricket fields have been dug up and our football fields have gone? Will he think again about the science of ground staff work, and its place at the National Institute of Sport?
    Mr. Banks: I am considering asking my agent to seek a transfer for me to the Department for Education and Employment, as many questions to me could equally be directed to my right hon. and hon. Friends there. Yes, of course there is a science involved in ground staff work. Clearly, for example, we need the ability to prepare cricket tables in a way that might offer us more opportunity of winning, a science in which, perhaps, we lag at present.

    Channel 3 Licences
    Mr. Steve Webb: What will be the aggregate payment to Government from Channel 3 licences in 1999; and what is the corresponding figure for 1998. [62136]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Those broadcasters making payments to the Exchequer under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990 paid £423 million in 1997, the last year for which figures are available. Payments for 1998 will be of the same order, subject to the companies' performance in securing advertising and sponsorship income, on which part of the payments are based. It is not possible accurately to forecast the 1999 payment levels, which will be lower because of the renewal of eight of the 16 Channel 3 licences on different terms.
    Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister. Newspaper reports suggest that the ITV companies will receive a
    598
    windfall of £75 million, and it occurs to me that that is a third of the cost of free television licences for the over-75s. The money that BSkyB is bidding for Manchester United would pay for free licences for that group for three years. However, the Government's review of the cost of concessionary television licences is restricted to BBC funding. Will the Minister extend that remit to see whether money can be found from commercial, satellite and cable television to provide free licences for old people?
    Janet Anderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The review is about to commence and the concessionary licence scheme will be given detailed consideration but, in this review, will be restricted to BBC funding. As the Government have said on many occasions, we accept that the present system is unfair and unsatisfactory.

    Cinemas
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What recent discussions he has had about preserving examples of 1930s cinemas. [62138]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I have regular meetings with English Heritage and other bodies on the subject. Last week, I met the Twentieth Century Society, which started its life as the Thirties Society.
    Mr. Bennett: May I commend the Plaza cinema in Stockport, which is a listed building and a good example of a 1930s cinema? For the past 20 years, it has been hidden to most of my constituents behind the trappings of a bingo hall. Now that that business has ceased and the building is again available as a cinema and theatre, will my hon. Friend give the Stockport local authority and, perhaps, the National Trust every encouragement to consider buying the building and returning it to its original use?
    Mr. Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friend and also my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on their campaign to preserve that important building. Indeed, the campaign has all-party support. I understand that it is an exceptionally fine art deco building, with an impressive exterior and an even more impressive interior, which has successfully survived its incarnation as a bingo hall. English Heritage has advised me that it has a Compton organ with jelly-mould glass surround and large plaster friezes of dancing maidens. It is a listed building and I am pleased that Stockport borough council's development brief fully recognises the importance of the cinema's external appearance and unaltered art deco interior, and supports future use of the building as a cinema or arts performance centre. I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend suggests about the National Trust.

    Millennium Projects (Public Transport)
    Mr. Jim Cousins: What study he has made of public transport access to millennium projects in Newcastle upon Tyne. [62140]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): All Millennium Commission projects are subject to a detailed appraisal process, undertaken by independent consultants, who consider the access and transport links involved. The Millennium Commission is supporting two projects in Newcastle: the International Centre for Life, adjacent to Newcastle Central station and close to bus and metro links; and the Baltic millennium bridge which spans the river between Gateshead and Newcastle and will increase accessibility to the area for pedestrians and cyclists.
    Mr. Cousins: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the fact that, although public transport links for those projects are excellent, they depend on two things? First, that the quayside transit system to link the Baltic project with the city centre is in place and, secondly, on reasonably cheap fares to enable young people to come into Newcastle to enjoy not only the nightlife of the city, but the benefits of the two projects he outlined.
    Mr. Smith: The specifics of my hon. Friend's question are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but as a Government we bear in mind, of course, the need for people to travel affordably and accessibly to such major attractions when putting forward our vision of an integrated transport policy.

    Television Coverage (Sports)
    Mr. Iain Coleman: If he will make a statement on the current arrangements to protect the public's rights to watch major sporting events on free-to-air television. [62141]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I have consulted widely on criteria to inform the listing process and reviewed the list earlier this year with the help of an independent advisory committee. I revised the list in June and it now gives the Independent Television Commission power to protect coverage of more events than ever before for the general viewer.
    Mr. Coleman: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, bearing in mind the fact that in recent years the BBC has lost the right to cover, among other sports, rugby union internationals, motor racing Grand Prix and, most recently and most worryingly for some of us, test match cricket, what duties do public broadcasters have to ensure proper sports coverage on television?
    Mr. Smith: It is part of the public service remit, in particular of the BBC but also of the other public service broadcasters, to ensure that sport plays a proper and major part in overall coverage and that the people of this country have a chance to see our best athletes, footballers and cricketers in operation. With that in mind, I take this opportunity to congratulate Michael Owen on becoming BBC "Sports Personality of the Year" and to wish him a happy 19th birthday today.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Hereditary Peers
    Dr. Ian Gibson: When she expects to introduce legislation ending the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote. [62161]
    Dr. George Turner: When she expects to introduce legislation to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. [62166]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government intend to introduce a Bill, and publish a White Paper, on Lords reform in the near future.
    Dr. Gibson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tumbrels are ready for the viscounts and barons, and that people everywhere want both stages of this legislation to go through as fast as possible so that we can deliver our manifesto pledges? Does she have a little sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is in such disarray over the matter?
    Mrs. Beckett: I find it hard to have sympathy with the Opposition on this matter. They have created huge problems for themselves simply because they were not prepared to recognise that the hereditary principle has long since had its day.
    Dr. Turner: It is 87 years since the Conservative party—or at least its predecessor—recognised that there was no case for retaining the hereditary principle. It is wriggling like mad to delay yet further. Can I have an assurance that the Bill will provide for an upper time limit, preferably not beyond the life of this Parliament, on any interim agreement under which hereditary peers continue to vote?
    Mrs. Beckett: The Government are anxious to make progress on this legislation, as on our other manifesto commitments. That is why we hope to introduce the Bill in the near future. My hon. Friend asked me to speculate on its content and precise detail but I fear that I cannot do that before publication. No doubt he will have the chance to make his points in due course.
    Mr. David Prior: Does the President of the Council believe in a strong and independent second Chamber?
    Mrs. Beckett: I certainly believe in an independent second Chamber with its proper role to carry out vis-a-vis this body. The notion that the House of Lords, whatever its strengths, is independent exists only in the fevered brains of the Conservatives.
    Sir George Young: We have often asked for an assurance that all stages of the Bill will be taken on the Floor. We have not received it. This is a constitutional measure. Is there any reason why all stages

    601
    should not be taken on the Floor? Do the Government seriously believe that they can deal with stages 1 and 2 in the life of this Parliament?
    Mrs. Beckett: I told the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on Thursday that we are happy to discuss through the usual channels whether the Bill should be discussed on the Floor.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me to speculate on whether it would be possible to complete the entire process in this Parliament. That requires me to speculate on the time that it will take to handle the legislation, on how it goes through another place, on the speed with which the royal commission completes its work—I hope that it will indeed be speedy—and, not least, on the date of the next general election. All I can tell him is that the Government intend to make as much progress as possible, as fast as possible.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do the Government intend that the 91 hereditary peers should become life peers as part of the second stage so that some of the bovver boys in ermine will remain?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure whether I entirely follow my hon. Friend's question but let me say how I understand the position. People sometimes mean different things when they talk about stage 2. The transition House is the outcome of stage 1. If the agreement holds, it may be that some people will remain in that. What happens beyond stage 2 is a matter for the royal commission, a Joint Committee and, ultimately, this House.

    Private Members' Bills
    Mr. Bob Russell: If she will provide more time during the Session to enable private Members' Bills to be proceeded with. [62162]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Standing Orders now provide for private Members' Bills to be taken on 13 Fridays each Session. The Modernisation Committee may consider that issue and make other recommendations.
    Mr. Russell: Does the right hon. Lady agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House are angered and disappointed by the lack of time provided for private Members' Bills—serious Bills which often have all-party support, but which do not have the opportunity to become law? Does she agree that the system should be simplified, so that more private Members' Bills can become law?
    Mrs. Beckett: With respect, I do not agree that there is widespread anger at the amount of time available. However, I strongly agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House are angry about the way in which the procedures available to Back Benchers were handled in the last Session, and about what many hon. Members regard as entirely unjustified and deliberate obstruction of perfectly reasonable legislation by people who seem to think that they are here to play games.
    Mr. John Maxton: One way to ensure more time for private Members' Bills would be to give Wednesday morning sittings to that purpose, so that, instead of Adjournment debates, there could be Second Readings and further proceedings on private Members' Bills on Wednesday mornings. That would allow all hon. Members to play an active part in proceedings on such Bills, which often is not the case when the Bills are considered on Fridays.
    Mrs. Beckett: All I can say is that there is always a question of what should be the balance between time for private Members' Bills and time for other business of the House, including scrutiny. The balance is a delicate one. In the last Parliament an average of about 17 private Members' Bills were passed in each Session—a not insignificant amount of legislation. However, if we are not able to deliver that amount, people ask questions about our existing procedures.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the long-established private Members' Bill procedure—working admirably as it does—provides protection for the public from a plethora of private Members' Bills, which are often promoted by narrow single-interest groups?
    Mrs. Beckett: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has a valid point: there are those who are concerned about the impact of a great mass of legislation. However, many people outside the House and many hon. Members on both sides within the House, do not believe that the protection of the public was secured by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and one of his hon. Friends objected to almost every private Members' Bill that was introduced, including the Fireworks Bill, which was on the brink of passing into law. Their actions then did not protect the public or enhance public safety and many hon. Members regard what they did as a frivolous misuse of our procedures.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, now that there are so many non-sitting Fridays, it is nonsense to pretend that those few Fridays on which the House sits are not proper parliamentary days? Does she also accept that Wednesday morning would not be a good time to take private Members' Bills, not least because many hon. Members value their present format?
    Mrs. Beckett: I accept that many hon. Members value the present format of Wednesday mornings. However, if right hon. and hon. Members continue, on what appear to be frivolous grounds, to oppose private Members' Bills that command wide support in the House, that will lead to all sorts of questions being raised, which could impede the smooth working of the House. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What progress is being made in preparation for the millennium bug in (a) Government Departments and(b) the wider public sector. [62163]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The results of the latest review, which I announced in the House on 2 December, show that central Government continue to make steady progress in tackling the millennium bug, particularly in respect of business-critical systems. Three quarters of Departments and agencies have now completed 50 per cent. or more of the necessary correction work on such critical information technology systems, which is an increase from a figure of half of Departments and agencies in the previous quarter. Two fifths have completed 90 per cent. or more of the work, which is double the number from the previous quarter.
    The returns also show that, on the whole, satisfactory progress is being made across the wider public sector. Although there is some concern that a number of individual organisations still lag behind, the Government are actively pursuing progress in those instances.
    Mr. Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for that frank and detailed response and for the publication of the last quarterly report. Does she agree that press speculation about people hoarding food, for example, in readiness for the millennium is ill founded? Perhaps the only thing that people should hoard is champagne, as it might be legitimately in short supply. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those who promote such scare stories, including Opposition Members?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I will not be drawn into commenting on his suggestion about stockpiling champagne. I agree that it is unfortunate that there are those—including some Opposition Members—who are handling this matter frivolously and have no regard for providing sound advice to the public. My hon. Friend gave a very good example of that approach. Action 2000 was asked to comment on a report from the United States Red Cross, which was turned into an entirely unjustified scare story in this country.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If the right hon. Lady thinks that Opposition Members are acting frivolously, perhaps she should consider whether Government Members are acting complacently. Is she aware of recent press stories that suggest that a significant proportion of Ministry of Defence systems will fail the test when the millennium bug comes into operation? Will she contrast those reports with complacent statement after complacent statement made in this House in past months about MOD systems? How many more Government Department estimates will be shown to be grossly over-optimistic in that way?
    Mrs. Beckett: There is no complacency on the Government side, as we have made plain repeatedly—although we can afford to be slightly complacent about the fact that we are publishing this information on a more sustained and thorough basis than any other Government.
    I thought that the hon. Gentleman had been around long enough, both in this House and outside it, to know better than to base his views on recent press stories. The
    604
    Ministry of Defence continues to work on the very important systems that it supervises. It has made plain that all RAF aircraft will be compliant by January next—next month—and it is planned that all Royal Navy ships and Army mission critical systems will be compliant by the summer. No one is complacent: everyone is anxious to see as much work completed as possible. Unfortunately, openness does not always lead to people reflecting accurately the reports in the public domain.

    Human Rights Committee
    Fiona Mactaggart: What progress the Government have made in establishing a Committee of both Houses on human rights. [62164]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): My hon. Friend will probably be aware that the Government have announced that, from the start of the Session, a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights will be made in relation to each Government Bill. In addition, I am pleased to announce today that both Houses will be asked to appoint a Joint Committee on human rights. It is intended to set up that Committee before the Human Rights Act 1998 comes fully into force so that it will have time to prepare its work.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer regarding the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses. Will she tell us something about the Committee's proposed terms of reference?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a great and sustained interest in these matters. We envisage that the Joint Committee's terms of reference will include the conduct of inquiries into general human rights issues in the United Kingdom, the scrutiny of remedial orders, the examination of draft legislation where there is doubt about compatibility with the ECHR, and the issue of whether there is a need for a human rights commission to monitor the operation of the Human Rights Act.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the right hon. Lady realise that both sides of the House will welcome that announcement? Will the Joint Committee have any purview in the field of foreign affairs as well as Britain's human rights policy? Will the annual report on human rights, which is always welcome—whatever criticisms we may make of its contents—be discussed in this House in future?
    Mrs. Beckett: It is not intended that the Joint Committee will have a role in commenting on the handling of human rights overseas. It is specifically geared to scrutiny within the United Kingdom. As for debating such matters in the context of various reports, the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently assiduous in attending business questions to recognise that I am not in a position to give him an assurance on that point.

European Council (Vienna)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the meeting of the European Council on 11 and 12 December which I attended in Vienna along with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin). The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library.
The Council concentrated on employment and economic issues, Agenda 2000, enlargement, the future development of Europe and a number of foreign policy questions.
At Vienna—the last Council before the introduction of the euro by 11 member states—we confirmed and strengthened the strategy on economic reform and employment agreed at Amsterdam and Luxembourg last year and reinforced at Cardiff earlier this year. Macro-economic stability provides the essential basis for long-term growth. Supply-side reform must go hand in hand with that.
Member states have now submitted national progress reports on the reform of product and capital markets. Those will be subject to rigorous peer review in the first part of next year.
There will be a parallel review of national employment action plans, the first set of which were submitted during the UK presidency. At Vienna, we agreed revised employment guidelines on which next year's national action plans will be based. The new guidelines fully reflect British priorities. They place particular emphasis on tackling long-term unemployment; promoting equal opportunities; making a reality of lifelong learning; exploiting fully the potential of the service sector; creating the right climate for entrepreneurship; and reviewing tax and benefit systems to provide incentives for the unemployed to take up work or training. They promote social inclusion and examine regulations to ensure that they reduce barriers to employment. That work will be carried forward under the German presidency to produce an employment pact within the framework of a wider process aimed at employment, growth, stability and economic reform.
Jobs remain Europe's top priority. The strategy developed over the last 18 months is beginning to bear fruit, with more than 1 million new jobs created in the EU in the past year, including more than 250,000 in the UK, and the overall rate of EU unemployment falling below 10 per cent. for the first time since 1992. However, member states need to step up their efforts to implement real reforms in their labour markets, learning from one another. It was noteworthy that at Vienna representatives of small business people were included for the first time in the dialogue between Heads of Government, employers and unions.
Also in the economic field, we agreed new measures to complete the internal market, not least in financial services; to improve innovation; to increase the availability of risk capital; and to strengthen investment in infrastructure. We agreed on the gravity of the challenge posed by the millennium bug and the particular need to protect national and international infrastructure.
606
We also discussed the desirability of better economic policy co-ordination. A small part of that discussion concerned tax policy. The Council agreed that co-operation in that area is not aimed at achieving uniform tax rates or preventing fair tax competition; rather its aim is to reduce harmful distortions in the single market, prevent excessive losses of tax revenue and encourage employment-friendly tax structures. Work will continue on long-standing proposals on energy taxation and on taxation of savings, with a view to reaching agreement by next December. The UK Government will ensure that British interests—including those of the City of London—are fully protected and promoted in those discussions.
On a separate tax matter, I and others called for a review of the 1991 decision to end duty-free sales in Europe from next year, not least since the proposed successor arrangements risked ridicule. The Council asked the Commission and Finance Ministers to examine by next March possible means of addressing the problem, including a limited extension of the transition arrangements. Unanimity is required to secure such a change, but a door that seemed firmly closed is now at least half open.
The Council endorsed the Finance Ministers' report on external representation of the euro area. The UK's essential interests are protected—our membership of the G7 and other international forums will continue as before. We also confirmed an agenda for reform of the international monetary and financial system very much in line with the ideas for which my right hon Friend the Chancellor and I have been arguing: more transparency in international and national financial markets, better co-operation between the International Monetary Fund and other actors, and strengthened prudential and regulatory standards.
Much of the discussion in Vienna was about Agenda 2000. This is a wide-ranging and important negotiation embracing the reform of the common agricultural policy to help the consumer, to create a more efficient and competitive agriculture sector and to reduce the burden to the taxpayer; and reforms to the structural and cohesion funds to ensure that they are fair and affordable, including after enlargement. On future financing, the UK is among a large group of member states arguing for stabilisation of expenditure at current levels by 2006. Vienna confirmed the political objective of reaching overall agreement at a special meeting of the European Council on 24 and 25 March.
As for the British budget rebate, I repeat what I said in Vienna. The rebate is still fully justified and will remain. Even with it, the UK is the fifth largest net contributor in per capita terms, while we are ninth or 10th in terms of gross national product. We still pay far more than countries such as France, for example, with the equivalent population and slightly higher national income.
On enlargement, the European Council welcomed the fact that the first practical results have been reached in negotiations with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. It also welcomed progress made by Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria. It welcomed the reactivation of Malta's application, and recognised the importance of implementing the European Union's strategy to prepare Turkey for membership. Work in all these areas will intensify next year.

607
During the UK presidency, my right hon Friend the Deputy Prime Minister led work in the European Union on integrating environmental policy into other community policies. The Austrian presidency carried forward this work in transport, energy and agriculture. At Vienna, we agreed that it should be developed further into the spheres of international development, the internal market and industry.
At Cardiff, I launched a debate on the future development of the European Union which was carried forward at the informal summit in Pörtschach in October. We agreed in Vienna further steps to make a reality of subsidiarity and improve the effectiveness of EU institutions. We will issue a millennium declaration setting out the Union's priorities for the period ahead at the end of next year, to coincide with a new Commission taking office.
At Pörtschach, I urged the strengthening of the EU's foreign policy, not least by backing it with a credible capability for military action in regional crises where the US or NATO as a whole does not wish to be engaged. The joint declaration agreed with the French at St. Malo on 4 December gave us a sound basis on which to build this initiative. It was widely welcomed by partners at Vienna. We agreed that work should be taken forward under the German presidency. There is, of course, no question of undermining NATO in any way. Strengthening European defence capability will, I believe, strengthen NATO.
On current foreign policy issues, we underlined the urgency of bringing the parties in Kosovo to a political agreement and the importance of the European Union continuing its political and economic support for the middle east peace process. We repeated our readiness to help Russia overcome its present severe difficulties, and agreed that Russia should be the subject of one of the first common foreign and security policy common strategies when the Amsterdam treaty enters into force.
The Vienna Council also made useful progress on the economic and employment points, and above all laid a solid foundation for the difficult Agenda 2000 negotiations in the next three months. Britain's interests were safeguarded and promoted without difficulty. We defended our positions in a constructive way, just as others defended theirs.
In the days before Vienna, we issued joint statements with Spain on structural reform, with Sweden on social policy, with France on defence and with Germany on tax. All of those were welcomed in the discussion and reflected in the conclusions. At Vienna itself, we helped shape the debate on economic and employment issues, on Agenda 2000, on enlargement and on other issues, in sensible directions fully consistent with our own national interests.
This Government, I believe, have transformed Britain's relations with the rest of the European Union since they took office. It is in the fundamental interests of this country that we remain fully engaged in the debate on the development of the European Union. On the Government Benches, we have the confidence in our arguments, and in our ability to build support for them, to believe that we can win the debates in Europe in favour of economic reform and an open and decentralised Europe.
Those who would end up by taking us out of Europe, or so far to its margins as to eclipse any serious influence in Europe, would profoundly damage this country. This
608
Government will not be swayed from their positive and constructive European policy because I have no doubt at all that this is the right course for Britain's future.
Mr. William Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, may I support some of the conclusions reached at Vienna, including the strong commitment to the universal declaration of human rights, statements on the importance of the middle east peace process, work on Kosovo and the desire to assist Russia, Ukraine and the western Balkans? May I welcome the Government's efforts to retain duty free? Does the Prime Minister agree that none of the steps set out in the original agreement is in place, so there is an overwhelming case for duty free to continue? Will he tell the Secretary of State for Health that, as he seems to have a different policy from the rest of the Government at the moment?
Is not the Prime Minister's habit of saying one thing to one audience in one place and another to an audience in another place finally catching up with him? He referred to the British rebate. Will he confirm that, while he was telling the British media that the rebate was not up for negotiation, he was busily telling the Austrian media that there would be wide-ranging negotiations in which the rebate would come up for discussion? If he did say that, did he mean it? If he did not mean it, why did he say it? If he did mean it, why not say the same thing in Britain? Will he cease his habit of saying one thing at home and something completely different abroad? Would not that be a much more effective way in which to ensure that his thoughts are reported accurately than simply whining about the British press?
Nothing causes the Prime Minister to complain louder than the British public being told about plans for tax harmonisation. He made great play of the fact that the communiqué rules out the possibility of "uniform tax rates". Apparently, that phrase was inserted at the Government's insistence. Why did we insist on that, when uniform tax rates are not the threat? Why did not the Prime Minister insist instead on an end to tax harmonisation? Why did he not call for the removal of references to "a tax policy package", "reinforced tax policy co-operation", or the far-reaching Commission "study on company taxation"? Why does not he guarantee to veto moves on the withholding tax or the so-called exchange of information—both and either of which would hit the City hard? Would not arguing against those real threats have demonstrated more backbone than arguing against imaginary threats?
Why did the French and Germans point out that the wording of the communiqué did not rule out harmonisation of specific taxes? Is that what the Prime Minister agreed? Why did the Luxembourg Economic Minister report:
"Everybody said there would be more tax harmonisation"?
How on earth did he get that impression? Presumably, the Prime Minister was there, standing up for Britain's interests. If so, why did nobody notice? Why did not the Luxembourg Economics Minister notice? If the Prime Minister was prepared to say in Vienna that there would be more tax harmonisation, why will he not say that in Britain? Why will he not tell this House and the British public what he tells other Heads of Government?

609
What are the Prime Minister's guiding principles on Europe? What has happened to his defence policy? The Labour party manifesto states:
"Our security will continue to be based on Nato",
and contains a commitment to the Western European Union, which is clearly under threat. Following the Amsterdam summit, the Prime Minister described proposals along precisely the lines now being suggested as,
"an ill-judged Franco-German transplant operation".
Why has he changed his mind so dramatically? Do not the proposals in fact endanger our commitment to NATO?
The Prime Minister says that he wants to be fully engaged in Europe, but would it not be more accurate to say that, whatever the circumstances, he will go with the flow? Earlier this year, the Government promised to make EU enlargement a priority. Why is the Prime Minister now content for the timetable for the entry of countries such as Poland and Hungary to slip further? Will he confirm that they may not be able to join the European Union until 2005 or later—15 years after they threw off communism and first expressed an interest in joining?
In their original Foreign Office mission statement, the Government promised to work for a Europe of independent nation states. How does that promise fit with this agreement at Vienna—an agreement that can be summarised in the first sentence of the communiqué:
"European integration has gained new momentum"?
The Prime Minister obviously agrees that that is a true statement of the facts, as he signed up to the communiqué. What has happened to the Foreign Secretary's assertion in August that
"Maastricht was the high-water mark of European integration"?
"European integration has gained new momentum"
is the first phrase of the communiqué that the Prime Minister has signed—and it has done so while he has been Prime Minister, saying one thing in one place and something else in another.
So let us have some straight answers. Is that greater integration something that the Prime Minister welcomes? If it is, why does he not say so, instead of running around Europe giving more false impressions than Rory Bremner? If that is not something that he welcomes, why does he not do something about it? And if he does not know whether it is something that he welcomes, he does not deserve to be Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: First, let me deal with some of the issues of fact. The right hon. Gentleman took me to task on duty free. Might I remind him that the people that agreed to abolish duty free were the previous Conservative Government, in 1991? Of course, the difficulty that we have had in the duty free argument is that unanimity is required to change the plans precisely because of the agreement that the Conservative Government made. As for the right hon. Gentleman's claim that I said one thing to the Austrian newspapers and another to the British press, that is apparently based on an interview that I gave to an
610
Austrian newspaper, a transcript of which we provided to the British press; so I hardly think that that is consistent with saying a different thing to them.
Finally on the points of detail, the right hon. Gentleman said that we had agreed to shove the enlargement timetable back. We agreed no such thing. He said that our agreement on defence somehow undermined NATO. I suggest that he reads the recent words of Madeleine Albright, who has agreed that it is very sensible that Europe, in circumstances where the US does not want to become engaged, is able to do more of the cleaning up of problems in its own back yard. Only the Conservative party could see that as a negative move.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's strictures on tax, on unfair tax competition, he asks why I did not come out against the whole notion of greater tax co-operation. It could have been for the following reasons. First, before the general election, it was agreed by the previous Government that they endorsed
"the concern expressed … about the effects of special tax arrangements … and unfair competition, and"
believed
"that consideration is urgently needed of possible remedies to this problem".
They then agreed, at the Dublin summit in 1996, to set up the taxation policy group, and the first meeting of the group took place under the previous Conservative Government. I feel that that would have somewhat inhibited me in saying that it was all wrong. Of course, the then Government were quite right in doing that, because some of the tax practices across Europe are harmful to this country, so it is perfectly sensible to have a discussion about them. I may say that the code of conduct on tax says in terms, right at the beginning, that it is a political commitment, not a legal one.
As for tax harmonisation, yes, we did agree words that made it very clear that uniform tax rates were ruled out, and made it very clear that no one was opposed to proper and fair tax competition. In the House of Commons on 9 December, I read the right hon. Gentleman a list of all those other Heads of Government who had made the same thing clear on behalf of their Governments—the French Prime Minister, the Spanish Prime Minister, the Irish Deputy Prime Minister and the Italian Finance Minister. I also read a quote from the Euro CBI, expressing a similar view.
I can add to that list now. The Austrian Prime Minister said:
"We are not against competition, and I am not against tax competition."
Let us see what the Greek Prime Minister said.
"Any effort to create a common tax policy would be pointless."
I could quote to the right hon. Gentleman virtually any newspaper anywhere in Europe, ruling out tax harmonisation in the terms that he has described it.
There is only one discordant note on tax harmonisation—the person who said this:
"We always accepted there was a case for minimal tax harmonisation … It was perfectly well known there was a case for minimal tax harmonisation for the development of the single market."—[Official Report, 9 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 382.]

611
Who was that? The shadow Chancellor last week. What did the Leader of the Opposition say this morning? He described the communiqué as the greatest threat to British independence for decades. More important than the Maastricht treaty, or the Single European Act?
That statement shows how extreme the Conservative party has become. If the Conservative party was in power today, we would not have an ally anywhere. We would have no influence, no authority and no ability to get our own way—nothing. The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants to build alliances in Europe: for heaven's sake, he cannot even build alliances in his own party.
I think it was the previous Prime Minister who said that the small group of Euro-sceptics was trying to give his leadership the run-around. He said that that group needed the men in white coats to come to rescue him. Under the present leader of the Conservative party, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. That is the position into which the right hon. Gentleman has put his party. He is not in charge of it. He is not running his party. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman's party is determined by the headbangers with whom he has surrounded himself in his shadow Cabinet. That is the truth, and the right hon. Gentleman is driven before them.
However extreme the right hon. Gentleman's position and that of his party, the country's national interest lies in being part of Europe. That is the way to win in Europe and that is what this Government shall do.
Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend is justified in saying that the Opposition have form on key matters such as taxation and duty free and, therefore, are not credible in what they are now saying in their isolationist stance. However, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the future, and particularly about subsidiarity? He will recall that he initiated the debate on the future of the European Union in Cardiff. That was followed through at the special summit in October in Austria. Can my right hon. Friend say what specifically was decided at Vienna on subsidiarity?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of subsidiarity. We agreed at Vienna on specific measures to imbed subsidiarity more firmly in the way in which the European Union works. In particular, we have agreed that the subsidiarity protocol—the Amsterdam treaty—should be applied immediately. We intend to examine existing laws when significant new legislation is proposed to ascertain whether they should be modified or repealed. That agenda on subsidiarity is making progress, but we must not let up on it at all. We must be eternally vigilant in pushing this agenda forward. I believe that most people in Europe can see that there are certain areas in which Europe should work more closely together and integrate more closely. There are other areas where it is important that we push power downwards.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome the Prime Minister's statement, and particularly those parts of it which deal with the common foreign and security policy and the need for
612
better defence co-ordination in Europe? May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his apparent recent conversion to the view that Government policy on Europe will be determined by what is best for Britain, not by what is least offensive to certain newspaper proprietors? Does he accept that there is no point in attempting to placate the implacable?
So long as the reasons for the rebate remain, so too must the rebate. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that if there is wholesale reform of the common agricultural policy resulting in a substantial reduction in the European Union budget, inevitably different considerations would apply?
Is it not now abundantly clear that the United Kingdom will best maximise its influence in Europe with membership of the single European currency? Why today does the right hon. Gentleman not declare the intention in principle to join and to prepare for a referendum to obtain the British people's endorsement?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's final point is: precisely because I believe the British national economic interest should determine our membership. For the reasons that we have given, we do not believe that that is satisfied by entry into the single currency. We have set out the very test that would be applied to a decision whether to join the single currency.
I welcome some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's other remarks, but I pick him up on the common agricultural policy and the rebate. On any basis of CAP reform now being proposed, the British rebate will remain justified. I agree that we need fundamental reform of the CAP, and we are certainly prepared to examine mechanisms such as co-financing to try to get that reform through. On any basis, Britain will still be a big net contributor to the EU. We are at present the second largest cash contributor after Germany.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the best way to gain concessions in Europe, such as those on duty free or the beef ban, is not by the tantrums and boycotts in which the Conservatives indulged when they were in government, but by co-operation and winning friends? Will he also confirm that Britain's national interest, of which he and the Government are guardians, is best served by sane and sensible discussion with our European partners? In expounding and assessing Government policy, will my right hon. Friend compare the hostility of the Leader of the Opposition to democracies in Europe with his support for a south American dictator accused of murder and torture?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that the best way to get results in Europe is to build alliances and to be constructive. All other countries in Europe find no difficulty in standing up for their national interests and still being constructive about Europe. For the life of me, I cannot see why we are incapable of doing the same in our country. If there are issues, such as the beef ban or the rebate, on which we have to remain firm, we do so. We argue our case on the basis of reason. That is the best way to get results. As we showed with the lifting of the beef ban, when we approach issues in that way, people respond.

613
What is the point of being in Europe if we always treat the rest of Europe as something that is done to Britain rather than something from which we can get an advantage? That is the worst thing that we can do.
Sir Peter Tapsell: What exactly is meant by the words in the Vienna communiqué about closer British association with European defence and security policy? Bearing in mind the momentum that apparently innocuous European suggestions often develop on their own, can the Prime Minister give us an absolute guarantee that we shall not in due course be asked to put a European or a German finger on the British nuclear trigger?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly can say that. No one is even suggesting such a thing. There are situations in which closer co-operation between European countries makes sense. We are already setting up an individual to be Mr. or Ms CFSP, and a deputy. A whole apparatus already exists to develop closer common foreign and security policy links. The most intelligent thing for this country to do is not to pretend that that debate is not happening, but to get in there and shape it so that we act in a way that is consistent with NATO and do not allow the agenda to be set by those—I do not think that there are many—who want to undermine NATO. That is the right way to get results for this country.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does not the Vienna summit show that it is not a question of Britain standing alone, but of discussions and agreements that are of mutual benefit to the United Kingdom and to the European Union? Let us forget for a moment about the Conservative party and consider the Euro-sceptic press. Is it not time that they stopped trying to whip up anti-European hysteria and started reporting the facts about European affairs?
The Prime Minister: People are entitled to their views on Europe, but it is best that we should judge everything according to the facts as much as we can. From a reading of the press in the rest of Europe on the Vienna summit and the British contribution, if there are criticisms of the summit they are not that it was the greatest step towards integration for decades, but that not as much was decided there as some would have liked, although I personally think that it was a successful summit. But the important fact is that the British contribution was welcomed. That is in our country's interests. We can satisfy the British national interest and be constructive in Europe because they are one and the same thing.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Prime Minister accept that after the publicity of the past few weeks, he has to do even more to persuade the British public and one or two people closer to home that positive engagement in the European Union is in the British national interest? When making that case, will he explain that reforms, such as that of the common agricultural policy, and enlargement will probably cost more money? Will he also explain that of course there
614
needs to be a discussion about taxation in a single market as well as a single monetary zone? Those matters are on the agenda. When there are differences of opinion, the British view must be put across clearly. That view would be more emphatic if there was a clearer statement from the Prime Minister about the timetable towards euro entry and the fact that his economic policy is designed to secure the prospect of that entry.
The Prime Minister: I have set out our position on the euro. On the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised, it is important not to disengage from the argument on tax competition or unfair tax competition in the European Union because there is much to be gained by co-operating on these issues and much to be lost if we disengage. I hope that we have tried to explain that in the context of the Vienna summit. It would help—not to intrude too much on other disagreements—if people such as the hon. Gentleman were given a bit more support from their Front Benchers, as having a legitimate view about Europe in the Conservative party.
Mr. Denzil Davies: I believe that my right hon. Friend mentioned that there is to be a Commission study into the taxation of savings. Will it involve looking at the different ways that income tax is imposed on savings, and the different rates of income tax on savings, in the different countries?
The Prime Minister: The issue of savings tax has been raised specifically by countries that are worried about what they consider to be unfair tax advantages given in certain European countries. The withholding tax idea is something about which we have difficulties, because of the Eurobond market in the City of London. We have other difficulties with it, too. We are not the only country with problems there, and we have no intention of agreeing to anything that would sacrifice essential British interests.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Having listened to optimistic and positive statements from European Council meetings for 23 years, one tends to look at the small print, where proper guidance is given. What exactly does the Prime Minister mean by saying that the Government, along with the others, are committed to long-standing proposals on energy taxation and the taxing of savings, with a view to reaching agreement by December of next year? Will he say clearly and precisely what ideas he and the others have for taxing energy, to be agreed by next December? What proposals does he have in mind for taxing savings by next December—and is that the basis for the reported flight of a great deal of money from Britain, and, indeed, from Jersey and Guernsey, to Switzerland over the past few days?
The Prime Minister: In relation to energy, that work has been going on for a long time, through the Deputy Prime Minister and others. Domestic energy is specifically excluded from that, but we are all trying to make sure that we meet our obligations under the agreement concluded, for example, at the Kyoto climate conference which has just taken place.

615
As I have already said, as a country, we have great difficulties with doing anything in respect of the savings tax. The question is, what do we do when we are faced with proposals—
Sir Teddy Taylor: You agreed to it.
The Prime Minister: We are not saying that we agree with the proposals on savings taxes. The document and the communiqué actually say that there is an attempt to conclude an agreement by Helsinki next year. That does not mean that we will agree to it. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, if we disengage from that debate, all it would mean is that the debate would happen without a British voice. There is nothing that is being proposed there that we need fear in the least, which is why we will carry on arguing the British case constructively. If we do that, we are more likely to win.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend voiced his criticism of the Euro-sceptic press, quite justifiably. Will he explain more fully to our country the advantages of joining the euro and—even more important—the disadvantages of not joining?
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statements that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have already made on that issue, but people are perfectly entitled to their views, for or against. It is important that the debate takes place on the basis of facts. The truth is that the debate about tax harmonisation for the past two or three weeks has had, in certain quarters, precious little at all to do with facts.
Mr. John Gummer: Does the Prime Minister accept that those of us who are in favour of as much engagement in Europe as is suitable for the United Kingdom are also concerned about his statement about Agenda 2000? After all, he managed to speak about the reform of the common agricultural policy without mentioning the environment once.
The one area where the environment is most important is making sure that we reform the CAP in a way that pays farmers for looking after the land, instead of producing too much and dumping it on third-world countries. The Prime Minister need not look at his notes, because he did not mention the environment then, but later, in respect of other things. None of those other things matter anything like as much as putting over our point of view on the environment in the agricultural debate.
The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that it is extremely important to take the environment into account in common agricultural policy reform. We are ahead of the other countries in arguing for reform—the more fundamental it is, the better. As I think I pointed out in my statement, our arguments on the environment have been strengthened by the work of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has insisted that the environment be taken into account across a range of issues where currently it is not.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The House may have overlooked the earlier comments of my right hon.
616
Friend the Prime Minister that 1 million new jobs have been created in the European Union in the past year and that the unemployment rate has fallen to less than 10 per cent. Does not that suggest that jobs can be created by following a vigorous micro-economic policy within the framework of low inflation, low interest rates and a fixed element to the currency? My right hon. Friend mentioned influence and authority; does he recall the words of a former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who said:
"To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war"?
Is not persuasive diplomacy better than the clanging cymbals of the Conservative party?
The Prime Minister: If we do not try to persuade people, we are not listened to at all. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning that he wanted to build alliances with other centre-right parties in Europe, but I do not know who would build an alliance with him. I do not think that the Belgian Prime Minister or the Spanish Prime Minister would; to be honest, I do not think that any of them would.
May I correct something that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said? I said in my statement—I apologise for not finding this when I replied to his question—that, under the United Kingdom presidency, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister led work in the European Union on integrating environmental policy into other community policies and that the Austrian presidency carried forward that work in transport, energy and agriculture.
Sir David Madel: The German Government are paying a huge bill towards the modernisation of east Germany and they are now insisting on paying less towards the European Union budget. If Germany, as the biggest contributor, pays less, there will be consequences for the time scale of enlargement. What is the Government's attitude to Chancellor Schröder's insistence that Germany should pay less?
The Prime Minister: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that. The answer is stabilisation of the finances and then reform of expenditure. The best thing that we can do to put our national case forward most sensibly is to argue for limits on expenditure, about which the Germans and others are naturally concerned. That is the way forward; it is, in fact, the central argument in European Union financing. If we agreed stabilisation and fundamental reform of the CAP, that would go a long way towards meeting German concerns.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that the decisions made on taxation at the summit were totally at odds with what, in the run-up to the summit, the Euro-sceptic press led us to believe would happen? Is it not a cause for concern that our people are so ill informed by our national newspapers on this issue? Is it not time for the Government to go on the offensive to rebut the distortions, half-truths and downright untruths of the Euro-sceptics? During 18 years in

617
opposition, the Labour party learned to put straight the record straight away when our political opponents misled—that is more important on Europe than on many other issues.
The Prime Minister: I think that many members of the public understand exactly what is going on. They want us to present the facts calmly, which is what we try to do—it is the best antidote to scare stories of any kind.
Sir Michael Spicer: Did not the Prime Minister miss the real point on tax in his statement? The single currency is bound to lead to a massive increase in the tax burden, as resources have to be shifted from the north of Europe to the otherwise impoverished south.
The Prime Minister: I do not agree. There is no reason why the single currency should mean a higher tax burden in Europe. The northern countries in particular want their tax burdens reduced, which is one reason why it was so false to say that the rest of Europe wanted tax harmonisation to bump up taxes all over Europe. Many countries are trying to reduce their tax burdens and we should be working with them to achieve that.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that the talks on the admission of Cyprus to the European Union are proceeding and are on track. What progress has been achieved between the Commission and Turkey on making it clearer to the Turkish authorities what they have to do, and over what time scale, to enhance their prospects of entry?
The Prime Minister: In respect of Cyprus, we made it clear that the accession negotiations should continue. Obviously, it would help the negotiations to proceed faster and better if we got a resolution of the essential problem of Cyprus. On Turkey, we specifically and in terms endorsed the European strategy vis-a-vis Turkey which was agreed at the Cardiff summit, and we will continue to pursue that. As I have made clear on many occasions, we want relations between the EU and Turkey to be developed and strengthened. I believe that they can be strengthened.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Prime Minister accept that in a single market with a single currency, there will be a trend to strengthen advantaged regions and to weaken disadvantaged regions unless there are strong mechanisms for financial transfers—which, in Europe, means structural funds? Does the Prime Minister understand that, as we move into a single currency, his opposition to the strengthening of structural funds is diametrically opposed to the interests of the economies of Wales, Scotland and some of the English regions—especially when that is compounded by the Government's support for the Fontainebleau agreement, which provides a disincentive to using European structural funds? If he cares about Wales and Scotland, will he reconsider his position on that matter?
The Prime Minister: We have done our very best to secure the position of Wales in particular during the negotiations. It was as a result of the Government's
618
intervention during the United Kingdom presidency that we underpinned objective 2 financing. We have managed to secure significant advances in relation to objective 1 funding, precisely because of the way in which we have approached the negotiations. Within the context of enlargement, we are doing as well as we possibly can.
Ms Gisela Stuart: Does the Prime Minister agree with the former Chancellor who said yesterday that there is no question of majority voting on matters of tax, either now or in the future?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. That point has been made, to my certain knowledge, by at least three or four Heads of Government over the weekend. That matter is simply not on the agenda, and most people understand why—because it is right that Parliaments set national taxes in the way that they wish.
Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that the House welcomes the initiative instigated by the Irish Government to carry out a review of the effects of the abolition of duty free trade before that is done. It is a pity that the Prime Minister has sought to claim credit for that. The review should have been carried out as a prerequisite before any implementation of the 1991 agreement. The Prime Minister made his view clear in three parliamentary answers in May, and his Government did nothing about the matter during the entire United Kingdom presidency of the EU. Will he flesh out his triumph a little, and indicate who will carry out the review, how long it will take, whether it will report to the Commission or the Council of Ministers and what weight it will be given?
The Prime Minister: To be honest, it really does not matter who takes credit for the initiative, but we have worked closely with the Irish Government on this matter. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation would be regarded as a trifle bizarre by most of those who were at the Vienna summit. The only inhibition that we have about this matter is the fact that the Conservative Government agreed to the abolition—that is our problem. Not only did they agree to abolition, they agreed that the matter could not be reopened, except by unanimity. We have worked on the matter recently because, first, it has become clear that the successor regime will not work properly—that is the reason for the review—and secondly, we have been able to build the type of alliances that he and the rest of his party would not wish us to have with anyone in Europe.
The review will be conducted by the Commission and the Finance Ministers, and we will make our views known very clearly indeed. For the first time, we have managed to get the door a little bit open, thanks to this Government and no thanks to the previous Government.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware how heartened my constituents are that he has managed to prise open that door to duty free in Europe, which the Tories wanted to slam shut? May I remind him of the 20,000 jobs that duty free supports in Dover, in east Kent and throughout the United Kingdom? The Government's approach to duty free along with our more positive engagement in Europe shows that we are on line to look after our own interests while becoming more closely involved in European affairs.
The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right. I do not believe that we would ever have succeeded in getting

619
other countries behind us in trying to reopen the issue if we had not had a different attitude. There is a long way to go. The door is open, where it was previously shut. I do not pretend that all the difficulties are over with—they are not at all—but at least we have the chance to argue the case. I am quite sure that, as with the beef ban, we do better in the end by being constructive.
Mr. William Cash: What percentage of gross domestic product does the Prime Minister think should go to Europe? Does he understand that factors including the enlargement process, the costs of the common agricultural policy, high unemployment, the structural and cohesion funds, the intention to increase taxation to a level that is more satisfactory to Germany and pension liabilities are all bound to put more and more pressure on the budget? What should be the level of our European budget, and how will he be able to contain it while at the same time preventing tax harmonisation?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a 1.27 per cent. ceiling. We will argue for stabilisation of expenditure. I simply do not know what he means by saying that the Germans want to set our tax rate.
Mr. John Bercow: He did not say that.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman did effectively say that. He was effectively saying that Germany wants to ensure that everyone's tax rates go up to its level. If we carry on conducting his type of argument in the way that he wants to conduct it, this country might as well leave Europe. That is what he wants. The tragedy for his party is the fact that his views now dominate the Conservative Front Bench. In a sense, he should be rejoicing: he was once a small minority in the Conservative party, and now he runs the party's policy. That is its tragedy.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Despite my right hon. Friend's commendable commitment to enlargement, might I suggest that it is in fact a far distant prospect? We need to conclude the reform of the common agricultural policy, the budget and other institutional matters. Given those near intractable problems, have the applicant countries been told that they are engaged in a long, long game?
The Prime Minister: Yes, there will obviously be long negotiations, but we will conclude them as quickly as possible. It is worth restating why enlargement is important for the European Union: it allows us to bring in the former communist countries of eastern Europe, which will not only bring them greater security and prosperity for their future but be good for the whole of Europe. I was just reading what the previous Prime Minister said about enlargement. He was absolutely right when he said that it would require "imagination, flexibility and generosity." We will have to ensure that
620
we bring those countries in as quickly as possible. It was under our presidency, at Cardiff, that we started the pre-accession process properly.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the net contribution by the British taxpayer to the European Union budget will not increase, and is he prepared to be judged on that criterion?
The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we will fight for the stabilisation of European Union expenditure. On any basis, even if we keep the rebate, British net contributions will be the second largest in the European Union. That is why we will carry on fighting for British national interests.
Dr. George Turner: Before we go much further towards restoring duty free, will my right hon. Friend consult the Secretary of State for Health to see whether it is in British interest for duty free to continue for cigarettes and tobacco products coming into this country? If there is a case for tax co-operation in Europe, might not that mean that taxes should be raised in Europe to this country's levels on such products?
The Prime Minister: The reason for extending the existence of duty free is to establish a sensible successor regime. We do not have that at the moment. We are not arguing that we should reverse the 1991 decision: that would be impossible to achieve even if we sought it. However, there is a growing view that a successor regime is not properly in place and, to safeguard our interests and those of many people who work in companies connected with the trade, it is important to get an extension. We seek an extension, not an overall reversal of the decision.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Prime Minister said that the door is now half open on duty free, so by definition it must be still half closed. I understand that Denmark is one of the countries that are still against any extension of duty free. What measures are the Government pursuing to bring other countries on board? I welcome the fact that small businesses were represented at the Vienna summit for the first time at that level, and small firms in the vale of York will welcome it also. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need less, not more, employment policy and a more flexible social policy from Brussels?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, the employment chapter that was agreed at the Amsterdam summit specifically focused on measures that Governments could take on training, skills and apprenticeships and direct measures to help the unemployed, rather than on regulation. We have tried to move the argument away from that and the best way to do so is to make the argument within the European Union.
I agree with the hon. Lady's point on duty free: the door is still half closed. That is an improvement, but I cannot mislead people by saying that the deal has been done. We have a chance to do it, and probably only two or three countries now stand in the way. We will make what attempts we can to persuade them, but we now have a large and impressive majority in favour of an extension.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I can accept a lot—the euro, tax harmonisation and even

621
European armed forces—but only if we first tackle the most serious problem in the European Union, which is its massive democratic deficit. It is said that if the European Union applied for membership of itself, it would be refused on the grounds that it does not have democratic institutions. Is anything being done to change that situation?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I can completely satisfy my hon. Friend on that point. The dilemma is that most of us want to see as much democracy in the European Union as possible, but that it must be consistent with national Governments having a strong role to play. We have discussed the issue of tax and tax harmonisation and most people would wish to proceed cautiously on that issue. When we talk about the democratic deficit in the European Union, we should not forget that the Governments of the European Union are democratically elected. When they come together to negotiate, they do so on a democratic basis. Most people would be concerned if we took too much power away from national Governments in the negotiation of European issues.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why did not the Prime Minister raise—at least, he did not report that he raised—the issue of European Union subsidies for tobacco growing? Does he recall his words in the article he wrote for The Times today:
"if Europe proposes something foolish, I will work to stop it. If necessary, I will do it alone."?
Why has he had so little success? I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health regards it as foolish that British taxpayers' money should be devoted to the subsidy of tobacco growing. Is it because the Prime Minister finds stability sexy, or does he have a soft spot for tobacco sponsorship in Europe?
The Prime Minister: No, it is probably for the same reason that the Conservative Government did not get very far on the issue in 18 years. Some very big interests are at stake, and they push their case firmly. Let me repeat that the negotiations to reform financing in the European Union for the purposes of enlargement give us the best chance to try to make progress on tobacco and other issues. The big negotiation will take place on future financing, and that is where we can make much of the case for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. To the hon. Gentleman, I must say that we are better able to make that case if we engage in it constructively rather than being isolated and negative.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the main business of the day.

Points of Order
4.25 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. During questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Minister for Arts said in response to one of my hon. Friends that, when the Government announced their culture strategy last weekend, they did not simply hold a press conference, but arranged for a written parliamentary answer to be given. I understand that no such answer has been provided. Have you had any notification from the Minister that he intends to come before the House to apologise for and to explain that misinformation?
Madam Speaker: I doubt whether it was misinformation. I have had no communication from any Minister at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but I shall read Hansard when it is printed.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that, on Wednesday, the House will debate the extremely important so-called modernisation—some may regard it as the destruction—of the procedures of the House. You will also know, better than most, that that debate will coincide with a very important event in the annual parliamentary calendar, namely the parliamentary carol service at St. Margaret's Church. Have you considered—if not, would you accept the suggestion—that given the importance of the debate and the importance of the event across the road, it would be appropriate to suspend the sitting of the House at that point? I am sure that you would agree that that would provide an opportunity not only for sober reflection, but to ponder the value of tradition.
Madam Speaker: It is not in my thinking to suspend sittings of the House at that period. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, perhaps he would do so through the usual channels. I hope that a great many hon. Members will wish to speak on Wednesday, and I shall follow the debate with a great deal of interest.

Orders of the Day

  Greater London Authority Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The instruction in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has not been selected, but its contents may be raised during the Second Reading debate.
  4.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government were elected on a promise to modernise the way in which Britain is governed. We promised to make our politics more open, more accountable and more inclusive, and relevant to the 21st century. We are delivering on that promise. We have devolved power to Scotland and to Wales. We are putting in place new agencies to deliver real economic development in our regions. We have started on putting local government back in touch with the people whom it serves. Later in the Session, we shall at long last start to remove the hereditary principle from our system of governance.
  The Bill before us is an integral part of that programme of reform. It is about modernising the government of the capital, and about giving power to the people of London, stripping away the shadowy committees, burgeoning bureaucracies and quangos created by our predecessor. London has world-beating financial and business services sectors, innovative and exciting arts, culture and entertainment industries, and a business climate that makes it the natural place for foreign investors. The capital has an ethnic diversity and tolerance that is the envy of other major cities, and a commitment to stamping out racism and promoting real equality. In short, it is a world-class city.
  However, behind that success lie deep-rooted problems. As well as all the wealth, there is grinding poverty and social exclusion. Two thirds of the most deprived housing estates in England are in London.
  Across the capital, London's creaking transport infrastructure bears witness to a decade or more of neglect. London's streets are increasingly congested, its air polluted. There is a gap between the experience of racially motivated crimes and their recording by the police. Those problems need to be tackled.
  It is fundamentally wrong, and frankly inefficient, to provide no coherent form of government for a city of 7 million people. That is why we made a manifesto commitment to create a new mayor and assembly for London, directly elected by and accountable to the people of London. That is why, in every borough, people voted overwhelmingly in favour of our proposals. That is what this Bill delivers.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way at that point. Since this subject may come up again and again in the debate, may we get straight at this point the degree of
  624
  support that the people of London gave the proposal? The right hon. Gentleman used the term "overwhelming". Will he confirm that one in three Londoners bothered to vote in the referendum and, of those, not even three quarters voted yes? Please will he withdraw the term "overwhelming", and ask his hon. Friends not to use it in the debate?
  Mr. Prescott: Well, more than 30 per cent. of Londoners participated in the vote, and more than 70 per cent. of them agreed with our proposal. That appears to be a rather overwhelming majority in favour of the proposal. The previous Government survived for 18 years, and were certainly in power, with less than a majority of the votes, which did not seem to trouble them then. Frankly, it is a bit much for the party that abolished the Greater London council without any consultation to lecture us today about the principle of democratic accountability.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the Secretary of State, we agree that the overwhelming view of Londoners is that there should be democratic government for London. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one simple question? Will the proposal in the Bill be the first of England's regional governments, or merely another form of local government?
  Mr. Prescott: It is in between, in a way—[Laughter] Perhaps I can justify my point. The proposed authority is not similar to any local government authority as we know it. It will be a new type of city government, with a city executive and an elected mayor. There are no other examples of that in this country. Therefore, it is fair to say that it not the normal local government structure. Nor is it the regional structure, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am an advocate of regional government.
  A body that governs 7 million inhabitants will clearly have strategic and regional features, but we are discussing a city government with an elected mayor, which one would not normally expect a regional authority to have—not according to my concept of regional government. There are clear distinctions. This will be a new type of city government.
  Mr. Hughes: That answer is helpful. Having created that form of government for London, would it need to be changed to make it the sort of regional government to which the Labour party and the right hon. Gentleman have been committed? Will it be the first of a series of similar types of regional governments, or would there need to be further changes to enable London to have a regional government, which was a commitment in the Labour manifesto?
  Mr. Prescott: I have no doubt that reform will continue. As the Prime Minister reminds us constantly, change, change, change is always on the agenda. This is the part of the process that deals with an important capital city. London is the only capital city that does not have a government or an elected chief executive or mayor. We are attempting to correct that. The people of London showed in the referendum that that is precisely what they want.

  625
  Hopefully, the next stage of devolution might be regional government, which I certainly want. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, embarking on that course of action would involve much consultation with many local authorities, which have different views on what the next stage of local or regional government should be. That will not be happening this side of a general election, although I declare my interest in the process.
  There will be a new type of city government—indeed, a new style of politics for London. There will be a directly elected mayor, to provide leadership, and a 25-member assembly to scrutinise the mayor's work, approve his budget and ensure full accountability to the people of London, working with all of London—business, the boroughs and the voluntary sector—and delivering integrated solutions.
  The structures that we are about to put in place will create the climate for a truly inclusive form of city governance: fair electoral systems, a duty to consult, a more democratic police authority, obligations to work in partnership with other public bodies, and a regular dialogue with interest groups.
  We will create two new bodies dedicated to tackling transport and economic development in the capital, appointed by, and accountable to, the mayor. The London development agency will advise the mayor, and implement the mayor's economic development strategy. The mayor will have a general duty to consult business and other interests. Secondly, the transport for London body will be responsible for implementing the mayor's integrated transport policy for the capital.
  As part of a radical, ground-breaking financial agreement, local authorities that introduce pilot road-user and workplace charging schemes will retain 100 per cent. of the net revenue for at least 10 years. The money can be spent only on transport projects in the London transport strategy. There will be a review of this after 10 years.
  We will create a new, accountable police authority, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say more about tomorrow. We will create a new publicly owned and accountable underground system, through a public-private partnership.
  I turn now to the Bill's more detailed provisions. Part I deals with the creation of the authority, and the elections. The mayor will be elected by the supplementary vote system, which will provide a clear mandate from the people of London. The 25-member assembly will be elected by the additional member system, so the views of Londoners will be closely reflected in its political make-up.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: For the benefit of hon. Members, and of Londoners as a whole, can the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how, under the formula, votes will be apportioned between candidates on the list—not the directly elected members? How does the formula work?
  Mr. Prescott: Fourteen members will be directly elected for the 14 areas concerned, the boundaries of which will be considered.
  Mr. Wilkinson: What about the list?
  Mr. Prescott: I am trying to put the matter in context. Eleven members will be elected on the basis of people's
  626
  votes for a party. A party that gets 50 per cent. of the votes in that section will get 50 per cent. of the 11 members on the additional list.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Half a member?
  Mr. Prescott: I should have chosen my percentages better, but my secondary modern education did not go quite that far. The same principles will apply in Scotland and Wales, which will give us some understanding of what is likely to happen when we debate the Bill in Committee. The mayor will be elected by the supplementary vote.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: On the method chosen for electing the mayor, it would be possible to elect one who did not have majority support. With voting in two separate columns, the only votes that will be counted on the second count will be those of people who have voted for one of the two main candidates. Would it not be simpler to use a system that my right hon. Friend and I are both used to in the Labour party? An eliminating ballot would guarantee that the mayor would be elected with the majority of votes.
  Mr. Prescott: I well understand my hon. Friend's point, particularly with reference to the Labour party. It usually meant that the person who started with the fewest votes, and who was the most unpopular candidate, eventually came through; it was sometimes my hon. Friend. We have made a judgment, and chosen this system. That means that the mayor will get an overwhelming vote. It is important to have a mayor with a majority of support in London. That is why we have used the supplementary vote in this way.
  The method also means that only two counts will take place—the main count and the additional one for distributing the supplementary votes between the top two candidates. I think that that is the fairest way. No doubt points will be made about that, but that is the formula we put in the referendum, and the Bill implements what we agreed in that.
  I take this opportunity to confirm the date of the first elections to the authority: subject to passage of the Bill, the elections will take place on 4 May 2000. As hon. Members will know, that is the normal date for local elections, so we think it right to hold them on that day. In less than 18 months, the mayor and the assembly will be elected to give London the strong leadership and democratic accountability it so desperately needs.
  The assembly will represent the views of all Londoners. However, we are aware that that very openness and accessibility carry risks. Therefore, we are including in the Bill a provision enabling an electoral threshold to be set, so as to avoid the assembly giving a platform to extremist parties. However, a balance needs to be struck, because of the need to ensure that legitimate parties are not unfairly excluded from the political process. For that reason, we have set a maximum threshold of 5 per cent., and any threshold can be set only after debate in both Houses of Parliament.
  Part II of the Bill covers general functions and procedures, and discharges an important manifesto commitment. We are creating a general purpose for the authority, which is to promote economic and social

  627
  development in Greater London and the improvement of its environment. The mayor will not be able to use that power to extend the GLA's role into borough activities; nor will it extend the authority's remit into the management of health services or further education, as suggested by the Liberal Democrats.
  The GLA will be a lean and strategic authority—one whose powers and responsibilities were clearly set out and approved in the referendum in May. The Government will maintain a reserve power to set financial limits on the use of the power, to ensure that the new responsibility is not abused. We are giving the mayor real powers and real responsibilities. We do not intend to give the GLA the ability to extend its own powers by referendum. That is properly a matter for this House.
  The new assembly will question the mayor monthly, in public; and ordinary Londoners will be able to question the mayor and assembly directly in open question times. The assembly's scrutiny role underlies all its work: it will be consulted on all strategies, and have the power to propose amendments; it will have the power to amend the mayor's budget; it will investigate issues of importance to all of London; and it will have the power to summon certain categories of witness, giving its scrutiny role real teeth.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The assembly, in its scrutiny role, can question the mayor, if he turns up to at least one of the six meetings to which he is called for questioning. It can send the mayor reports and make suggestions. However, is it not true that, at that level, the mayor is sufficiently powerful to be able to say, "Thank you and good night," and to go his own way, unless the power of the Secretary of State—the right hon. Gentleman and his successors—is so strong that the mayor could, if the Government of the day wanted, be totally strapped on any action, on financial grounds and on orders that the Secretary of State can impose?
  Mr. Prescott: When he has looked through the Bill and listened to the debates, the hon. Gentleman will see that the mayor has been given real powers, but that the assembly has an important checking power in respect of the budget, which will be the most important instrument of decision making for London. If two thirds of the members of the assembly agree that they disagree with the mayor's budget, they can change it. That is a fundamental role that even the Public Accounts Committee here in the House lacks.
  We believe that a proper balance has been struck between the powers of the assembly and those of the elected mayor; however, the authority is new and entirely different from what has gone before, so we shall be grateful to hear the views of hon. Members as the Bill progresses.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) has a point. The Secretary of State is mentioned more than 250 times in the Bill, and he will retain a fair degree of power. The mayor is to hold public debates with the people of London, but will the Secretary of State attend those debates?
  Mr. Prescott: We are referring substantial powers to the mayor and the assembly—powers that people have
  628
  wanted for a long time. The Secretary of State's role in respect of new city government will be as it is in respect of local authorities: it will extend to the balance of powers and resources and to determining whether overall policy is achieved, which are matters proper to the balance between central and local government. The same is true of the relationship between central and regional government: central Government cannot afford to opt out of strategic decisions, so we reserve our rights in respect of such decisions. As the Bill shows, tremendous powers and resources are being given to the mayor and the assembly—billions of pounds will be under their immediate control.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Where does my right hon. Friend think the Greater London authority will meet? Newspapers carried the picture of the giant car light on its side near Tower bridge, which seemed pretty average to me. What does my right hon. Friend think about this matter?
  Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friends who have been dealing with the issue say that they have shortlisted two sites, and I must inform my hon. Friend that one of them is not Leyton.
  Mr. Cohen: That is fine.
  Mr. Prescott: Good. I am delighted to please another hon. Member.
  The assembly's scrutiny role underlies most of the work to which we have referred, and it will be consulted about the strategies and powers of Bills.
  The third part of the Bill involves finance—a crucial area in any relationship between central Government and local government. The GLA budget will be placed firmly within the existing financial framework for local authorities, as I have just said. The GLA will set budgets for itself, for the Transport for London body, the Metropolitan police authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, and the London development agency.
  Two new Government grants will be established. The first is a new general grant to cover most of the annual costs of the mayor and assembly, estimated at about £20 million. London council tax payers will contribute approximately 20 per cent. of that sum—about 3p a week on a Band D council tax bill, raising approximately £4 million. That is a very small price to pay for giving London the strong directly elected Government it needs.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody rose—
  Mr. Paul Burstow rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on that point. He said that the new authority will have the same financial control regime as local government generally. Does he accept that the Bill goes further in controlling the authority's ability to decide what it can and cannot do with its finances, by imposing not only spending ceilings but spending floors?
  Mr. Prescott: It is true that, in giving grants to this new type of city governance or to local authorities, the

  629
  Government will want to see that money spent in particular areas. The situation in the London area is no different from that in any other local authority. As to the expenditure of resources over and above the limit, and capping, the authority will be required to meet the Government's financial rules governing public expenditure. The requirement is the same for local authorities. The institution may be different—
  Mr. Edward Davey: What about the floors?
  Mr. Prescott: There are floors regarding what we expect the authority to spend in certain areas. That is a matter for negotiation with the London authority, as it is with local authorities. We may explore the details of differing levels of expenditure a little more in Committee. The essential relationship between central Government and the London authority is clear: it does not differ greatly from that between central Government and local government as far as the powers defined in the Bill and the raising of resources are concerned.
  The second grant is a new GLA transport grant, which consolidates existing transport grants. There will be three key safeguards. First, the mayor must comply with statutory duties imposed upon him or her. Secondly, the mayor will be required to spend earmarked funds on the services for which they are given—which confirms that point that I made earlier to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Thirdly, the Home Secretary will have a reserve power to set a minimum budget for the Metropolitan police, and powers to ensure that national standards of fire services are maintained. When moneys are given, we will make expenditure levels absolutely clear—particularly with regard to the Metropolitan police and fire services.
  Part IV deals with transport, one of the key issues for London and Londoners. The mayor will provide integration of London's transport, ensuring that transport, environment and planning policies fit together. Borough councils manage much of the transport people use today, and they will continue to play a key role. However, they will do so within the context of an integrated transport strategy, and they will be required to draw up local plans to implement that strategy.
  Transport for London is a new body that will be directly responsible to the mayor. It will help to implement the integrated transport strategy and deliver many key services. The mayor will appoint the members of its board—and perhaps its chair—and will have wide powers of direction over all its activities. Transport for London will take over London Transport's responsibilities for buses and the underground. It will take on responsibility for the Croydon tramlink, new piers and riverbus services, Victoria coach station and the docklands light railway. It will also regulate taxis and minicabs.
  Transport for London will take on the management of traffic and road maintenance on London's strategic roads, which is currently the responsibility of the Highways Agency and London boroughs. It will take on the work of the traffic director for London, the traffic control systems unit and the Public Carriage Office.
  I shall say a few words about the public-private partnership for the London Underground, which I announced to the House in March. London Transport has
  630
  now consulted a cross-section of potential bidders, lenders and other transport interests. There was a very positive response, although the trade unions raised a number of concerns that London Transport will be addressing with them.
  Further work has also been done to develop the details of the public-private partnership structure. As a result, London Transport will take the following step towards establishing a publicly owned and publicly accountable underground system: London Underground will be restructured during the first half of next year into an operating division, which will remain in the public sector, and three infrastructure divisions based on groupings of lines.
  The aim will be to invite expressions of interest from potential infrastructure bidders early next year. I want the public-private partnership to be implemented as quickly as possible, so that passengers can begin to enjoy the real benefits that a modernised underground can bring, but I shall not rush that timetable.
  In particular, I do not want to commit London Transport to a date by which the PPP must be completed. Negotiating against a self-imposed deadline would clearly compromise value for money. The Public Accounts Committee has warned against such an approach, to ensure that the taxpayer is protected. The previous Administration ignored such advice in their rush to privatise the railways and their assets, and we now know the full price for not taking due consideration of taxpayers' interests. We do not intend to repeat that mistake, or to have to go before the Public Accounts Committee to justify it.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: If the Deputy Prime Minister is paying attention to Select Committees' views, will he pay attention to the Transport Sub-Committee, which described his proposals as a convoluted compromise?
  Mr. Prescott: It is difficult for me to know how the Committee came to that conclusion until I am aware of the results of its work. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is here, and I am sorry that I did not give way to her earlier.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way to me now?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that that is all the Sub-Committee called his proposals, and I can assure him that its comment was based on precisely the sort of arguments that he is making now. Will he make it clear that any incoming local government will face the enormous problem of capital costs for the underground system? I hope that the authority will have sufficient flexibility to consider all sorts of partnerships, because, as he said, the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out that, as a result of the sale of the railways, he and I and the rest of the taxpayers ended up with the worst deal and the largest bill.
  Mr. Prescott: I should have said that another reason why we do not intend to repeat the mistakes of the

  631
  previous Government is that we would have to appear before the Transport Sub-Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, to explain why we had made such a mess of things. Her Committee has pointed out the mistakes of the previous Government, as has the Public Accounts Committee.
  The previous Administration made fundamental mistakes on capital and revenue support, because they rushed the bridges. They wanted to keep to a political timetable, and all the evidence clearly shows that the public interest paid a heavy price. That is not to say that we disagree with the involvement of public-private partnerships in our proposals, but we shall not get involved in a privatisation process such as that undertaken by the previous Government. If we do not handle assets carefully, we will be properly indicted by bodies such as the Transport Sub-Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. I do not intend to allow that to happen.
  Any agreement that is made with regard to assets must be scrutinised by the Committees, which will judge whether the final arrangements are convoluted or unjustified. I hope that I will not be condemned in such a way or have to face the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich in the Transport Sub-Committee, which spurs us on to ensure that we get things right. That is another reason why our solution will be determined not by a timetable but by the best value for the public.
  Mr. Tom Brake: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm how the on-going costs of the public-private partnership will be paid? Do the Government expect that the on-going costs of the contract will be paid for out of congestion charges or parking levies that the mayor will impose?
  Mr. Prescott: That is not a judgment for me. It will be for the mayor to decide how he or she—[HON. MEMBERS: "She."] He or she will decide. The important issue is how the resources will be raised and then spent on transport. If there is a delay, the project will pass to the Transport for London body, make no mistake about that. However, the judgment as to how the finances are raised and then distributed among the various forms of transport in London will be for the mayor to make, in discussion with the Secretary of State, who has to consider transport plans for London as for every local authority. That provides the necessary checks and balances. As I said, I will not go ahead unless I am convinced that the bid represents the best value for money.
  On the timetable, let me make it clear that, once the final bidding process is under way, the Government need to see it through. If, as now seems likely, the bidding process runs beyond the GLA elections in May 2000, we will put in place suitable arrangements to involve the mayor during that transitional period, following which London Underground would become the full responsibility of the mayor of London. We shall table appropriate amendments in due course to replace the regulation-making powers, so Parliament will have the proper opportunity to scrutinise as the Bill passes through the House.
  A world-class city depends on a world-class transport system. We intend to deliver that.
  The Bill has eight other parts. In view of the time necessary for today's debate, I shall not go into every detail of them, but shall refer to them briefly. We will
  632
  create a new Metropolitan police authority, bringing democratic accountability to policing in London, and a new authority responsible for fire and emergency planning in the capital, inheriting staff, functions and powers from the current London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal with these provisions when he opens the debate tomorrow.
  I shall briefly touch on parts V and VIII of the Bill, which deal with the London development agency and planning respectively. The London development agency will be in the regional development agency for London, mirroring the RDAs in other parts of the country, and bringing new opportunities where they are needed most, thereby increasing the possibility of jobs and prosperity in London. Business-led, it will advise the mayor, carry out the development functions delegated to it by central Government, and implement the mayor's economic development strategy. It will also tackle social and economic problems across the capital.
  Under part VIII, the mayor's new strategic planning role will give the opportunity to provide a real vision for London. Boroughs will remain the planning authorities in their areas, but their development plans will have to conform to the mayor's strategy.
  Mr. Burstow: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those two parts of the Bill appear to involve a potential conflict of interest in terms of the mayor exercising his responsibilities? The mayor appoints the London development agency board and approves its strategy, but he also develops and approves a strategy for the spatial development of London. He can then require conformity with that, and also insist that local authorities refuse planning permission in accordance with it. Does that not lead to a conflict of interest? How is it to be resolved?
  Mr. Prescott: I do not think that there is a conflict of interest, but I look forward to the debates in which we can examine the matter in more detail. The mayor decides on the strategic plan—the plan for spatial development, as the hon. Gentleman says—which is agreed with the assembly. That carries with it democratic accountability, and the force and powers in the Bill to make sure that the boroughs comply with it.
  If there is a dispute, as the hon. Gentleman suggests there may be, it will be referred back to me as Secretary of State. That is what happens in local authorities—there has to be a reserve appeal. If there is a conflict between the boroughs and the London authority, it is perhaps wise to have a reserve power residing with the Secretary of State, especially in planning matters.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Would not it help to remove the fear of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and others, including myself, if the mayor did not have the power to direct a borough to refuse a planning application? Presumably the applicant will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State can call in any significant planning application for public inquiry or his determination, why cannot the mayor's additional and unnecessary power be removed?
  Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees, but our planning procedures are not

  633
  the most modern. In fact, many people are calling for changes to them. We are changing a great deal of the planning regulations. The new citywide body, which will have a planning function, will be very closely involved with development.
  Is the hon. Member suggesting that we keep the old system, which was for ever bogged down in conflict between the boroughs? If we want a strategic approach, we must give the mayor and the assembly the responsibility to devise a strategic plan. That may create conflict, but we presume that the mayor will have the overriding right to impose a decision—although there will of course be a right to appeal to the Secretary of State.
  I do not want to be involved in disputes at the first showing. I want to be able to measure the borough's decision against the strategic plan that has been agreed by the mayor and the assembly. That is the judgment, on balance, that I am making, although I will listen to arguments in Committee to find out how hon. Members feel.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I remain a touch confused. I thought that the most modern idea of planning was that it worked best if it was devised from the bottom up and was owned by the people to whom it related. That suggests that boroughs should feed to the mayor their views of the development they want in their areas. The mayor would then have to negotiate with the boroughs from the bottom up, rather than imposing decisions from the top down. Could the right hon. Gentleman enlighten me?
  Mr. Prescott: The strategic plan will be based on the boroughs' views, but somebody must make a strategic decision. It is very difficult to get all boroughs to agree, so a strategic plan will be drawn up. I have given the example of the Secretary of State's involvement where there is conflict. The GLA is a new citywide authority with an elected mayor. We will try to strike a balance. I am prepared, as I have said, to listen to arguments in Committee as they are developed. I am describing the balance that we have struck. The approach is modern and streamlined, which will meet the needs of London.
  Parts IX and X, on culture and the environment, will deal with Londoners' quality of life. Culture contributes more to London's economy than any other sector, apart from finance. The Bill provides that, for the first time, a strategic approach will be taken to the development of one of the capital's most important assets. As important as Londoners' quality of life is that of the environment. The mayor will be required to prepare a periodic report on the environment of the capital, draw up an action plan to safeguard London's wildlife, and limit noise. The mayor will have powers to tackle waste, air quality and congestion.
  In 1986, the Conservative party abolished the Greater London council, against the will of the people and without consultation or so much as a "by your leave". Since then, London has struggled on without leadership or accountability. It is governed by cliques and cabals, shadowy committees, background deals and quangos. Its infrastructure is decaying, traffic problems are worsening, and poverty and social exclusion are deepening. That is
  634
  why our manifesto commitment was overwhelmingly endorsed both in the general election and the May referendum. This Bill will give Londoners back their voice.
  In May, the people of London gave a resounding yes in the referendum. I hope that the House will say yes to Londoners. Londoners want world-class government for a world-class city. I hope that the House will overwhelmingly endorse the people's expressed will.
  5.4 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'this House, while welcoming the proposal for a directly elected mayor for Greater London, declines to give a second reading to the Greater London Authority Bill because, instead of creating an Assembly consisting of representatives nominated by each London borough and the Corporation of London, which would best serve London's interests, it provides for the establishment of a directly elected assembly which would diminish the status of the London boroughs and would be likely to lead to conflict between the boroughs and the Greater London Authority; and because, in failing to provide for the transfer of London Underground to the private sector so as to boost investment and in proposing the imposition of new taxes on motorists in London to pay for cuts in central government spending, the Bill offers an inadequate response to the problems of transport in London.'
  May I begin by apologising to the House for the fact that, owing to a very long-standing engagement, I shall be unable to be present for the winding-up speeches? I have written to the Deputy Prime Minister and regret any discourtesy to him, his hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and the House. Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will deal with the aspects of the Bill that concern the policing of London, and its constitutional aspects.
  The Bill is a very substantial piece of legislation—twice the size of the Bills that became the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 combined—and in effect, as the Secretary of State admitted this afternoon, it will set up a new form of government. It is essentially an experiment, and we have deep concerns about it. Those concerns are expressed in our reasoned amendment, and this evening I intend to outline other areas of concern, which we shall seek to explore and expose in Committee.
  The Secretary of State has been very open in his admission that there will need to be quite a lot of clarification in Committee. We are grateful for the fact that he said several times that he would seek to take careful notice of the issues of concern that turned up there.
  Our stance will be constructive, because we feel that, if London is to be treated as an experiment for a new type of government, that experiment and that type of government must work. It must work because London's national and international significance cannot be overstated. London is a cosmopolitan community, which reflects all aspects of the human race and human activity, and it is indeed the greatest city on earth. It has a dominant position among the capital cities of the world. Last year, London was voted best city in which to locate a business, best city for external transport links, best city for internal transport and best city for telecommunications. The position of the City of London as the world's leading centre for financial institutions is undisputed.

  635
  All that was achieved under 18 years of Conservative Government. In the teeth of the then Labour Opposition, the previous Government freed up London's economy and enabled it to flourish, targeted areas for regeneration, and focused efforts and resources to do so.
  I cannot agree with the Secretary of State's remarks about the role of the Greater London council. If anything stood in London's way, it was the Greater London council. It was bloated; it was over-bureaucratic; it spent £2 billion a year to no tangible benefit. It spent a lot of time on gimmick politics. It subsidised underground fares instead of committing to a full programme of investment. Its management of the roads was so bad—
  Mr. Livingstone: Although I have clarified the matter several times, Opposition Members keep repeating the allegation that the wicked old GLC subsidised fares instead of putting money into the capital investment programme. Is the right hon. Lady not aware that the entire capital programme for London Transport was controlled by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment? They had to give prior approval for any item of capital expenditure. Every year, the Greater London council proposed a major capital works programme to the then Tory Government, and every year it was rejected. We never had the choice of choosing.
  Mrs. Shephard: I think the figures speak for themselves.
  The Greater London council managed the roads so badly that the Government had to take them out of its incompetent hands. Above all, the Greater London council was used as a platform—rather like this debate—to call for such things as abolition of the monarchy and more taxes on business. I believe that this debate is being used as a platform by hopeful mayoral candidates.
  We were right to abolish the Greater London council; we make no apology for doing so.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Given the right hon. Lady's remarks about the roads, can she confirm that, since the Greater London council was abolished, average traffic speeds in London have drastically declined? Is that not an indictment of the policies pursued by Conservative Governments since 1986?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman should know that the economy of London has boomed since that time. I hope that he does not regret that fact.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I absolutely agree that London has boomed. Strikingly, the improvement in the London economy just happens to have coincided with the disappearance of the Greater London council. My right hon. Friend has not mentioned the dead hand of the GLC on planning; I am sure that she will do so later. Subsequently, some major London sites were freed up, once the Greater London council—whatever its political complexion—was no longer there to kill the plans dead.
  Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend's points. It is curious that before the general election the Labour party told Londoners that it would bring back the Greater London council. It is strange, but there again perhaps it is
  636
  not, that since the Labour party has come to power it has said time and time again that the Government will not bring it back.
  The Bill contains 277 clauses that set powers, bureaucracy, rules, orders, functions, standards, regulations, plans, audits and services, establish committees, set charges and levies and provide for a rash of new agencies of dubious accountability—and much, much more. Against that background, we should perhaps pause to wonder.
  We recognise that there is a case for a voice for London. That voice will be the mayor's. Her or his voice will speak up for Londoners to national government and for London on the international stage. It was because we recognised the need for a voice for London that we recommended a yes vote in the referendum. The veterans of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, which was enacted in July, will be well aware that we believed that there should have been two questions in the referendum.
  That view, that Londoners should have been allowed by the Government a choice on what the new arrangements for governance would be, was backed—of course, for different reasons—by many in the London Labour party, by London trade unions and by Liberal Democrats. Perhaps if Londoners had been granted that opportunity rather than the somewhat take-it-or-leave-it deal offered by the Government, more than 34 per cent. of Londoners would have been persuaded of the importance of voting. London could then have had a citywide system of government that enjoyed real legitimacy.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady was good enough to mention that my party was strongly of the view, as was hers, when we considered the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, that there should have been two questions put before the people of London. Is she now saying that it is the Conservative party's policy that democratic accountability for London government is better exercised by one person—only one person to be elected to represent London and make decisions for London, as opposed to the boroughs—than by even the modest 26 people, 25 in an assembly and one in the form of the mayor, proposed by the Government? Surely the more people, within limits, that we have to represent London, the more democratic will be the voice that Londoners have.
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall explain exactly what our view is on the role of the London boroughs. I rather think that the hon. Gentleman knows what that view is because it remains as it was at the time of the referendum. It will be the task of the House to ensure that as the Bill passes through its stages the concerns that remain are exposed and responded to by the Government.
  We are the first to recognise that a mayor cannot exist in isolation. Clearly there must be checks and balances. There must be a body to scrutinise the mayor's activities. The principles on which we shall judge the Bill and scrutinise the Government's proposals in Committee will be those on which we base our approach to all local government. For example, will the proposals set out in the Bill enhance accountability and transparency? Will they add to or diminish the democratic process? Will they

  637
  encourage people to engage in that process? A few gimmicks such as the people's question time will not be enough and will be seen for what they are.
  Is the Bill really a devolution of power or is it a transfer of power to the Secretary of State? We shall be examining carefully any proposals that transfer responsibility currently exercised by local government to the Secretary of State. We need to do so because, as we have seen, the Government like to talk about the devolution of power but are not so enthusiastic when it happens, as Scottish and Welsh Members are finding to their cost. Who knows?—we may even have an intervention on that matter from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) during the debate.
  Sadly, the prospects for the enhancement of transparency, accountability and the involvement of the electorate of London as a result of the Bill are not bright. The Secretary of State spoke of quangos. However, if the Bill is passed in its present form, London will have no fewer than four intermediate layers of government between local authorities and central Government. There will be a mayor, the assembly, the London development agency and the government office for London. There will also be a transport body for London, the Metropolitan police authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the cultural strategy group. They will all have something to say on issues affecting Londoners, who will need a lexicon to know who is saying what and on who's behalf.
  Mr. Prescott: Is the right hon. Lady saying that the bodies will not be accountable to anyone? They will be accountable to the mayor and the assembly. That is the difference between a quango and a democratically elected body.
  Mrs. Shephard: I am saying that the proliferation of organisations and the criss-cross of responsibilities between the various groups of people who will be elected in London will not contribute to the transparency and accountability of the system. It will be almost impossible without a guide for people to work out whom to approach with a query or a problem. The assembly constituencies will be so vast that there will be only the thinnest of constituency links. More than 40 per cent. of assembly members will have no constituency links. There will also be overlapping responsibilities, with an accompanying confusion of accountability. In Committee we shall be seeking to expose how that will work and whether the claimed devolution to the people of London will help them to understand the system.
  The voting systems involved do not present the best of starts. Londoners will be asked to vote for their borough councillors on the first-past-the-post system every four years. They will also be asked to vote for the mayor and assembly every four years, but for that they will use the supplementary vote and additional member systems—a curious hybrid of first-past-the-post and a party list system. In the other three years they may be asked to vote for one third of their councillors annually, possibly under first-past-the-post, perhaps eventually under an alternative system yet to be announced and subject to the result of a referendum that may take place before the next election—or after it—on the system proposed by the Jenkins commission. I rest my case on transparency.
  638
  I said that one of the key criteria that we would apply was local accountability. That is why our support for a yes vote in the referendum was qualified. We believe that insufficient regard is being paid to the London boroughs and that they should have a greater input to the decision-making process. The boroughs are an effective way of delivering local services. Of course some are better managed than others and all have their good and bad points. There are areas of deprivation and poor standards and there are areas of well managed excellence. There is certainly a sense of civic and local pride and a sense of identity.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am encouraged by the right hon. Lady's conversion to transparency and accountability, because that has not been apparent so far in Westminster. Will she bear it in mind that what is happening in Westminster sits uncomfortably with what we are proposing for local government and for London? Our proposals might make abuse of power, including the lack of local accountability that we have seen in Westminster, a lot less likely.
  Mrs. Shephard: I knew that someone would mention Westminster, because Labour Members always do. It is perfectly possible for us to raise counter points, such as Hackney, or, if we are going outside London, Doncaster, where there is a police inquiry room in the council headquarters. There is nothing to be gained from such an exchange. We are trying to examine the proposals in the Bill and decide whether they will make things better for the people of London. The question is whether the system will be clearer, more transparent and more accountable as a result of the Bill.
  Mr. Soley: That is the point. We are saying that we can learn from experiences such as Westminster's. We are putting forward proposals that work. The right hon. Lady is saying that the current system provides local accountability; we are saying that we need different systems.
  Mrs. Shephard: Of course Labour Members require different systems. That is why they are introducing the Bill. The Opposition's task is to decide whether that will provide an improvement for the people of London. We have already said that we are in favour of a voice for London—that will be the mayor's voice—but the responsibility of the House and its procedures is to see whether this great Bill, with its 277 clauses, will provide a better answer for Londoners than the status quo.
  Our view at the time of the referendum was that the assembly would be better comprised of 33 assembly members—nominated representatives from each of the 32 London boroughs and from the Corporation of London. Those women and men, through their own councillors, know what is happening on the ground. They speak with authority on London matters and reflect the diverse voice of London. That view was not extreme; it was widely supported during the referendum campaign. Whatever the Government's reaction to the proposal, it might at least have been worth putting to the people of London in the referendum. We thought that Londoners should have had the choice.
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Has the right hon. Lady discussed that particular idea with the representatives of the London boroughs? If she does so, she might discover the clear statement from the Association of London Government, confirmed in writing to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister today, that the proposal that the assembly should be made up simply of representatives nominated by the London boroughs
  "is not a view shared by the majority of Boroughs in the Association of London Government."
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman will find that the Evening Standard survey provided the answer to his question, which is that there was a great deal of support for our proposal. If he was so confident, he might at least have put the choice to Londoners. There should have been two questions in the referendum. There was wide support for that, which is why tomorrow we shall urge hon. Members to support our reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: To pursue the intervention by the Minister for London and Construction, does not the right hon. Lady accept that her party's proposal for the leaders of the 33 local authorities to make up the assembly is flawed, first, because they can meet anyway—and do so, through the Association of London Government—and secondly, because they would, by definition, come to argue the case for their local authority? People could not have a strategic view of the concerns of London if they were there to defend their corner. That would be a bit like going to Vienna to argue for Britain, as opposed to having the view of the European Parliament or the Commission, which is a slightly wider view of Europe.
  Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the newly elected members of the GLA will have no constituency concerns, he is much more optimistic than I am. Indeed, I can hardly believe that that is what the Government have in mind; otherwise they would have had them all elected on a Londonwide basis and none of them representing any parts of London. No doubt the Government will deal with the hon. Gentleman's question later.
  Our concerns do not stop there. The Bill sets out the mayor's core responsibilities. As the White Paper made clear, she or he is to oversee transport for London, the major part of which was to be responsibility for London Underground. This afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have revealed that his plans for restructuring London Underground will not be ready by May 2000, or possibly not for some years after that. That seems to be an admission that his plans for London Underground are in disarray, and a vindication of our warnings to him that they would be.
  Mr. Prescott: I have been at the job only 18 months. I announced in March that we would go for the public-private partnership. It is a complex deal that has to put together three infrastructure companies and separate a public operating company. That takes time. Even in proposals where the last Government were involved in such areas, it took a considerable time—a year, two years, three years. I do not envisage that happening in this case.
  We have made an assessment, and I believe that it is possible to proceed with it. We will share out these assets between the publicly operating company and the
  640
  infrastructure companies. I hope that their bids will come in, and believe that they will, but I am not prepared to set a time that will help people to negotiate to put me against the wall, which is precisely what happened with the previous Government. It cost hundreds of millions of pounds last time, and I will not make that mistake.
  Mrs. Shephard: Whether it is a public-private partnership or a convoluted compromise depends on how one looks at it. The right hon. Gentleman has been forced to admit that he is having great difficulties delivering his plan. The Treasury forced him to give up the annual £500 million to London Underground by 2000, so he asked the private sector to give him that sum to invest in the underground. However, because he has left in place the management who are making a hash of the job, there are complications in putting together a deal.
  Mr. Prescott: I do not follow the right hon. Lady's argument. The underground has a new managing director and a new chairman has to be appointed because I got rid of the previous one—that is by any definition a change of management.
  I have had to deal with the £365 million cut in the underground investment programme that was made in the Tories' last Budget. We restored that money and sustainable investment. She is right to say that it was assumed that, if we made progress, the money would come from the public-private partnership by 2000. It is not clear whether we will achieve that target, but if we do not, we will deal with the problem and review matters properly. Having restored the resources that the Tories cut, we will not undermine the underground.
  Mrs. Shephard: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the cuts, it is extraordinary that should continue to take £500 million from London Underground.
  Mr. Prescott: Will the right hon. Lady say where the £500 million is being taken from? Our commitment was for three years; we hoped that, in 2000, the money would come from a public-private partnership. We will wait to see whether that happens.
  Mrs. Shephard: It has not happened.
  Mr. Prescott: It has not happened yet, as we are still waiting for the bids. The proposals do not apply until 2000, which, as the right hon. Lady may have noticed, has not arrived. Unlike the previous Administration, we will not sacrifice the investment in the underground.
  Mrs. Shephard: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he is in a mess. In the transport White Paper, he announced the withdrawal of the subsidy. He now says that the plans to replace that subsidy will not be in place by 2000, but he cannot say when they will be. I hope that, in winding up, the Minister for Transport in London will explain what will happen if those plans are not in place, as the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to know.
  The White Paper contained a lot of high-flown talk about an integrated transport policy for London, but if, as the right hon. Gentleman wants, the mayor has responsibility for London Underground, that will be a ball and chain. The right hon. Gentleman is not clear whether

  641
  the public-private partnership will work or when it will work. He is not bringing in private sector management expertise, so the responsibility will be a ball and chain for the mayor. The sooner he accepts that, the better, although we can, of course, examine the matter in Committee.
  The withdrawal of funding from London Underground affects the Bill's proposals for congestion charging—another matter of concern for the Conservative party—about which the right hon. Gentleman did not say much in his opening speech. Obviously, we share the concern about the effects of traffic congestion on health and on the economy. Pollution is also a problem, even though emissions from cars are infinitely cleaner than they were 20 years ago. To use the motorist as an income stream, however, is not the answer.
  Ms Karen Buck: Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to distance herself from her friends on Westminster city council, who last week wrote to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asking for powers on traffic congestion as soon as possible, including the power to examine the feasibility of congestion charging?
  Mrs. Shephard: I expect the hon. Lady will find an opportunity to read the Bill and reply to Westminster city council herself. Are not congestion charges only a means to clobber the motorist yet again? The right hon. Gentleman has not delivered on his promises, as he admitted this afternoon.
  Mr. Prescott rose
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours rose
  Mrs. Shephard: The right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, so I give way to him.
  Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Lady has said that she is not in favour of introducing a new income stream. Is she distancing herself from the previous Government's Green Paper which made it clear, after analysis, that there would be a presumption in favour of introducing legislation in due course to enable congestion charging? That conclusion was right, and we included it in our White Paper. We also discussed whether the money should be related directly to transport expenditure. We have made it clear in our document on congestion that the 100 per cent. stated in the Bill will be applied, and that we will review the matter after 10 years. That is a fair assessment, and there is an admitted principle in terms of hypothecation. Has the right hon. Lady got the Opposition Treasury team to agree to hypothecation during that 10-year period—or, if the Conservatives were ever to be elected, would they scrap it?
  Mrs. Shephard: The right hon. Gentleman's position on hypothecation is a bit vague—even in terms of the Bill. We are not against the principle of road charging on the basis that people thereby pay for what they are using.
  The Secretary of State is taking £0.5 billion from London Underground. The public-private partnership which was to provide the investment to repay the subsidy
  642
  for London Underground is in disarray, as he has said this afternoon. He is imposing more taxes on the motorist, but whether that money from the motorist will go into public transport improvements is a moot point. His own document, "Breaking the Logjam", cast doubt on whether the money would be hypothecated, and schedule 13 of the Bill contains the stated intention that the proceeds of those charges should go into the Consolidated Fund.
  For the Secretary of State to claim, on the one hand, that he will hypothecate congestion charges to invest in public transport while, with his other hand, he is taking £0.5 billion out of London Underground is frankly so incredible that, tomorrow night, we shall have to urge the House to accept our reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Prescott: It may be a reasoned amendment, but it is not a reasoned argument. I have not said, and it is not true, that we have taken £0.5 billion out of London Underground—it is exactly the opposite. We put that amount in, following the comprehensive spending review. I have conceded that, in the last year, we hope to receive funding from the public-private partnership, but we must wait and see.
  Bidding means that we do not know what people will offer—it is called negotiation. If the right hon. Lady thinks that she should know the amount of a bid before it is offered, that shows why the previous Administration got into such a mess, and cost the privatisation process billions of pounds. [Interruption.] Let us not contest that point—the Select Committees have made it clear. She has now admitted that the Opposition agree that a new income stream can come from charging. That is not what she was saying five minutes ago. That new income stream was in the Green Paper. Let us agree that she agrees with that, anyway—whatever she was saying five minutes ago. That much is clear. What we are saying—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is responding to points made in the debate, but interventions are getting longer and longer. A great number of hon. Members wish to speak today, and of course there will be an opportunity for Government and Opposition Front Benchers to wind up at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Prescott: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The money will be used for those transport purposes for 10 years—as we have made clear in the document on congestion. The period of time beyond that is for the House to judge in a review. We are agreed on hypothecation—does the right hon. Lady agree on hypothecation?
  Mrs. Shephard: If the Secretary of State refers to the comprehensive spending review, he will see that funding for London Underground is to be phased out by 2000. That is what I mean when I say that he is taking £0.5 billion a year from London Underground. He has admitted this afternoon that he is not at all sure when the public-private partnership will come into place to get that sorted. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding the Secretary of State that he has had his say.
  I wish to ask a few questions of principle to which the Minister might like to respond when she winds up later this evening. Who can remove the mayor, and by what

  643
  mechanisms? Under what circumstances will the mayor be able to intervene in local planning decisions? How was the pledge in the White Paper that the new arrangements will cost Londoners 3p a week calculated, and why has the London School of Economics computed the cost at a great deal higher? How will consistency be achieved between the planning strategy of the London development agency and the spatial development strategy? Will the mayor set environmental targets? Should London, the least typical of all our cities, be the guinea pig in this experiment?
  We agree that London should have a voice. We support the concept of a mayor for London, but the Bill as drafted will do little for transparency, accountability or the people's involvement in London's governance. It is a recipe for conflict at every one of the layers of government that it will insert into the way London is run. It makes the capital and the people who live and work there guinea pigs.
  The Deputy Prime Minister failed to explain how the Bill and his funding plans will deliver improved transport systems for Londoners or, even more important, how the experiment will fit into the piecemeal and ill thought out constitutional reform on which the Government have embarked. London is worth more than the Bill. We will urge the House tomorrow to support our amendment.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: Personally, I look forward to the voice for London having a distinctly nasal quality.
  If the speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) is an indication of what the passage of the Bill holds in store, it is clear that the Opposition will have to accept, as they did with the Scottish Parliament, that once people have voted in a referendum, the major issues are settled and it is now important to get the details right.
  The most important detail, which did not come out in the right hon. Lady's speech, is that it would be a great mistake to confuse this proposal with the talk about mayors being elected in other parts of the country. Those mayors would be within the existing structure of local government, which delivers personal services such as housing and social security, but the Bill contains a package of powers that is the first stage towards regional government for England.
  There might be some confusion. When the Government, in their second term, set up regional authorities for the rest of England, as I hope they will, perhaps they will not call the leaders of those authorities mayors. The Bill adds up to something much closer to the German Länder than the city authorities that are the subject of another Bill. I welcome that, because throughout my political career I have never doubted that the centralisation of power in Britain—the idea that everything can be run from Whitehall—is completely and fundamentally wrong.
  To give but one simple example, when I was elected to the Greater London council in 1973, within a year or two—it was nothing to do with me—the council proposed to the then Labour Government the extension of the Jubilee line to docklands. That Government, on Treasury advice, turned it down on the ground of cost. The following Conservative administration of the late Sir
  644
  Horace Cutler went to the outgoing Labour Government and then to the incoming Government of Baroness Thatcher with a proposal that the council should build the Jubilee line extension to docklands, and the Thatcher Government rejected it.
  My administration at the GLC in 1981 made exactly the same proposal. The people representing London were consistently right about the need for the line, and we would not now be biting our nails wondering whether it will be finished in time if London's representatives had been allowed to go ahead and get it built; it would have been running for the past 10 years, and we would no doubt have been able to go on to develop the Chelsea-Hackney link or other projects. In the same way, it was pressure from the old London county council that advanced the issue of a barrier across the Thames to protect London from flooding. Therefore, I am delighted to see the restoration of some form of democracy to Londoners.
  I had grave reservations about the idea of separately elected mayors and authorities, but my concerns were mostly resolved by the decision to pay members of the assembly. Under the original proposals in the consultation document, it would have been impossible for the members of the assembly to operate any effective check on the mayor if they had not held full-time, salaried posts. Those tasks will occupy them fully.
  I take up a point raised by the Opposition: how can a mayor be removed? It is not enough to say, "At the next election, via the voters." Our system of democracy is such that if leaders in national or local politics lose their grip or the situation becomes dubious, members of their party can remove them. When I was the leader of the GLC, the other 91 members watched me like a hawk, or like 91 hawks and I always had the impression that the Labour members were even more rigorous in their scrutiny than the Conservative members. I cannot see a way to remove the mayor in the Bill.
  Let us imagine a nightmare scenario. Imagine that Lady Porter had not been forced to become an international fugitive from justice and move abroad the £27 million that she owes the Westminster residents, and suppose that by some horrible chance she had been elected mayor and then all the scandal of her misuse of council funds had come to light. The Bill contains nothing that would allow her removal. Rich people, as we have seen, use all the mechanisms and expensive barristers to delay and delay. I hope that, in Committee, we can—on a tripartisan basis—find a mechanism to insert in the Bill that would allow the removal of the mayor, in exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point with which the House and most Londoners will have total sympathy, because they want the mayor to be accountable and replaceable, if he performs badly. The assembly will be able to modify the budget with a two thirds majority vote. Should that be sufficient to remove the mayor, or should a 51 per cent. majority of the assembly constitute a vote of no confidence and a sufficient justification for disqualification of the mayor?
  Mr. Livingstone: There are two obvious methods. We could have the American system of a recall, in which a petition from Londoners, perhaps requiring 500,000 or

  645
  1 million signatures, could remove the mayor, but that might be difficult to organise. However, if we give the assembly a two thirds majority veto over the mayor's budget, it may be more effective to have the power of removal of the mayor resting with the assembly. It must be possible to draft legislation to ensure that that is not done on a partisan basis. As we have seen on the three occasions that the question of removal of an American president has been considered, it is unlikely that the mayor would be removed simply on a partisan basis. If so, there would be a backlash among Londoners. We must consider the question of removal of the mayor in Committee, because it would be a nightmare if someone recently elected were exposed as being at the centre of a network of dubious manoeuvres, as Lady Porter was, but was able to delay and drag the matter out from court to court and to remain in office for the full term.
  The 5 per cent. threshold for the selection of an assembly member off the list is another point that worries me slightly. It may seem a small point, but it could cause festering ill will. Given that there will be 25 assembly members, someone would need 4 per cent. of the vote to get in fairly, but the Bill would add a further 1 per cent. barrier. Suppose a Green candidate got 4.9 per cent. of the vote, but was told that the seat would go to the Labour, Conservative or Liberal party. A 5 per cent. barrier would seem to discriminate against the Green party, and that party should have its voice heard in the new assembly.
  The date of the election also concerns me. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that it will be 4 May 2000. I am confused by that. Shortly after the general election, the Prime Minister said that when he stood at the millennium dome a minute before midnight with his finger poised over the button that will set it rotating—or whatever it will do—he would want the newly elected mayor of London to be standing by his side as a symbol of a new Britain in a new millennium. Ever since I moved into first place in the polls, that item seems to have slipped back on the agenda.
  There is no case for putting off the election until May 2000. With a bit of luck, the Bill could become law by the summer, and we could easily have an election in the autumn. Londoners have waited so long for a democratic voice. I hope that we can return to the election date in Committee.
  Once the Bill has become law, the electoral mechanism should be put in place immediately. If it is not, the mayor will be elected along with the assembly in May 2000, and he or she will inherit budgets drafted by the Government and will have to appoint staff and so on. Effectively, the mayor will not take real control of the authority until the start of the following financial year. If the assembly and the mayor could be elected in autumn 1999, they would be in a position to impose their will on the budgets being drawn up, to get the key staff into place and to become a fully functioning authority for the start of the financial year in 2000. I see no reason for further delay. Londoners have waited too long. The Bill must clear the House of Lords by the summer, and we expect it to clear the House of Commons by the end of March, with a bit of luck.
  No one could disagree with most of the items in the Bill. I am sure that the Tories will find some matters on which to disagree, but the powers being given to the mayor are obvious and commonsense powers. However,
  646
  we should also consider what powers are not being given to the mayor. Perhaps appeals against borough planning decisions should go to the mayor rather than to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. If we are to give serious power to the mayor and the assembly, we must re-examine the powers that will remain with the Secretary of State to see whether we can devolve planning powers further. The mayor might be able to call in the Secretary of State as the final authority on the major planning issues.
  One big weakness lies in waste disposal. When the GLC was abolished, there was one waste disposal authority for London. It was on the verge of making major strides towards bringing environmental principles to waste disposal. The Tory Government of the day took the view that that authority should be broken into four or five nice privatised chunks so that they could make a bob or two on the side. There has never been any justification for that action, and the subsequent years have brought the lunacy of Westminster council stopping the removal of waste by barge, and putting it back on the roads. There is a crying case for a single waste disposal authority for London, organised and operated by the mayor and the assembly.
  The mayor's limited involvement in health is a good step forward, but the mayor and the assembly would clearly be ideal to become the health authority for London. If people had been able to influence a mayor who had had control over that area during the past 20 years, we would not have seen the systematic destruction of so many of our hospitals and the loss of so many bed spaces.
  Logically, the development agency that will be established for London will need a close link with further and higher education in the capital. Since the abolition of the Inner London education authority, further education institutions have been forced to compete for students who bring in the quickest return for the least expenditure. We do not have one central Londonwide body to ensure that the widest spread of courses are available for Londoners and are dispersed properly throughout London, as happened under the ILEA.
  I must also raise again the question of some tax-raising authority. In my response to the White Paper, which I circulated to all hon. Members, I called for the new mayor to have congestion charging and car parking tax-raising powers and I welcome the response that the Prime Minister made to those proposals in his speech to the Labour party conference. That was a good first step, but we should be prepared to trust the people Londoners elect to take such decisions further. I still see no reason why the mayor and assembly of London should not have similar powers to the Scottish Parliament to vary tax for Londoners. That proposal could be a part of the great democratic debate.
  I would add those extra provisions because they logically fit into the mayor's powers and would form the pattern of regional government for England that will have become the norm within a generation, I suspect. In many instances, it might be the most important legacy of this Government to the long-term governance of Britain.
  I accept that the Government are cautious. London has always been slightly frightening to national Governments. That is why Londoners had to wait 50 years after the rest of the country to get the original London county council. It is always feared that Londoners might be too radical and might elect unsavoury elements to office or some

  647
  such thing. They might elect radical socialists, for example. Those fears caused Lord Salisbury to argue for the abolition of the LCC before it was even 10 years old. He said that there was no practice too socialistic or revolutionary that it was not being undertaken by the London county council—nothing seems to change.
  As I plough through the Bill, I suspect that an element of that doubt remains. Central Government are worried about giving too much power to Londoners. We can live with that in this Bill, because the task of establishing from scratch the embryonic regional government for London and tackling the transport problem, which is the most appalling and immediate concern, will engage the first assembly and mayor. However, I give notice that it is the duty of the new mayor and assembly, once in office, to study in detail what further powers should be devolved to them. During the second term of this Government, I hope that we will provide regional authorities for the rest of England, which will be strengthened. I hope that we will be able to build with confidence on a successful first attempt at regional government in London.
  I welcome the Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister has taken on board some of the concerns raised when the first consultation document was published. I have not the slightest doubt that we can make the proposal work. I certainly intend to do everything that I can to ensure that the Bill is strengthened in Committee. I shall apply to be a member of the Standing Committee and I very much hope that, with the luck of the draw, I may have some role in ensuring that the mayor carries out the will of the Government and creates a good and effective authority for London, which is a matter of pride and which will no doubt lead to Londoners at the next general election saying, "The promise was honoured. We've had a good mayor and a good Administration. They are beginning to tackle the transport problems." I also hope that I can look forward to seeing the Deputy Prime Minister campaign at my side in my struggle to become the Labour party candidate.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I must first put on record the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister said from a sedentary position that he would campaign for the Labour party candidate. As long as the right hon. Gentleman has few powers to intervene in the selection, the Labour party will be pleased.
  We welcome the Government's commitment to returning democratic government to London. That was always our position. We shared the Labour party's opposition to the abolition of the Greater London council and the Inner London education authority. The present commitment was in the Labour party manifesto and was the subject of discussions between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. We disagreed about the detail and the structure, but we were committed to the principle. Therefore, we are grateful for the introduction of a Bill and, unlike the Conservatives, we will vote for Second Reading tomorrow, just as we voted on Second Reading for the other constitutional legislation to establish a Parliament for Scotland, an Assembly for Wales and regional development agencies for England; to enact human rights legislation and enable human rights to be taken up in our courts; and for elections to the European Parliament to be by a fairer system.
  648
  As I told the Minister for London and Construction, we will also co-operate with a timetable which would enable work in this House to be completed by Easter, and in the other place by the summer. We may be left with some supplementary legislation in the spill-over period—orders that might follow from such a large Bill—but the objective should be to hold the election in May 2000, as the Deputy Prime Minister announced to the House. In that matter, I dissent from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
  The Deputy Prime Minister did not say what the Government propose to do about the start date of the authority. Perhaps the Minister for Transport in London will give us the answer in her reply. The latest proposal rumoured is that the Government will hold the elections in May 2000, but the authority will come into existence in April. I do not know what people will think of politics if the elections are held after the body is created. It sounds topsy-turvy to us—like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
  I have a sensible proposal for the Deputy Prime Minister and I would ask him to be strong—as he sometimes is—with his civil servants. The elections should be held on the first Thursday of May 2000 as he suggests, but the new mayor and members of the assembly should take up their positions on 1 July, which would allow a few weeks for the mayor to choose his or her back-up team and for assembly members to decide who is to lead the assembly. That would bring two benefits for London and, perhaps, even some peripheral advantage to the Government. London would have its new authority halfway through the millennium year. Also, as it cannot be beyond the wit of civil servants and everyone else to realise that the financial year will be divided into one quarter and three quarters: the first quarter would be run under the old order, without a Londonwide government, and the remaining three quarters would be run by the new order.
  In the months ahead in Committee, we hope the Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers will seriously consider that option, as it would be a far more logical way to bring London government into existence. It follows the pattern of many other Governments abroad. The American example is the most obvious. The President and Members of Congress are elected in November and they take office in January, having had time to prepare what they want to do.
  We will co-operate to get the Bill on to the statute book so that Londoners can vote for a mayor and assembly in 2000, but we will vigorously put forward our constructive criticisms and amendments. We want the body to be Londonwide, democratic and accountable to Londoners, but much less accountable to Ministers in Whitehall. That is why in the instruction on the Order Paper, to which Madam Speaker said we could refer, we listed our five principal objections; and for each we have constructive alternatives.
  The objections are, first, that there is far too much central Government power. Secondly—we share this view with the hon. Member for Brent, East—the Bill contains no power to vary the amount of money that is collected from Londoners. Thirdly, the mayor is too powerful relative to the assembly. We think the latter should be more powerful. Fourthly, further education and health should be included—not all education, but further education co-ordination and regional strategic health

  649
  planning. We are happy to have a lean and mean authority, as the Deputy Prime Minister put it, but we want a healthy and well-educated one too.
  Mr. Prescott: They go together.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that concession. I will pocket it and put it back on the table in an agreed form later.
  Fifthly, there should be a different electoral system. I concede that the Deputy Prime Minister and others have listened to views expressed and moved from their original position. I am not being churlish—and I am being only slightly mischievous—when I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I think I am right in saying that the system for electing the mayor, apart from being conceived in the Cumberland cottage of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is used only for the Sri Lankan presidential elections. I have nothing at all against Sri Lankan presidents or their elections, but the system does not appear to have a huge international pedigree. It is also more logical to have a system where people—Londoners are quite competent to do this—can list candidates in order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That does not always, or normally, mean that the person who starts bottom ends up top.
  Mr. Prescott: It can.
  Mr. Hughes: It can, but the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the problem with his supplementary vote system is that it effectively means a two-horse race.
  There is no perfect electoral system, and I have never pretended otherwise. I am not one of those nutters for electoral reform: I have always believed that some systems are relative improvements, and I here suggest a relative improvement which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept in the new year.
  We also propose to the Government that if there is to be a deputy mayor, that person should be chosen by and from the assembly, not appointed by the mayor. I hope that that at least will be conceded.
  We propose, as might have been expected from the pedigree of such good ideas, the single transferable vote for the assembly. It is a fairer system, and it is not only us but people who know much more about these things who say so. If we are not to have that, I expect that we will have a bit of an up-and-downer about open or closed lists. The issue is still to be further debated up the road in the Lords in respect of Europe and will be debated in this House and in the Lords in respect of London. We believe that, if we are to have a list system, people should be able to vote for candidates too. That was our view in respect of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, and we withdrew from it only to get the Bill through. For London, we start from our preferred position: we want open lists so that Londoners can vote for candidates in their preferred order on the list and do not have to have the list as it is given to them.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman propose a region for London and a regionwide list system? STV operates best on a fairly wide regional basis. Is it not the case therefore that there would no guarantee of local
  650
  representation? The vagaries of selection for the regional list might militate against the very particular interests of various parts of London ever being voiced on the assembly.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is always serious in asking his questions. We will return to the matter in Committee. We did not propose that. I thought that I had sent him a copy of our proposals when we went round this course last year. I shall send him and other colleagues another free copy of "Home Rule for London". We proposed STV in a few multi-member constituencies across London. People would not vote in respect of London as a whole. He would vote in north-west London while people in my area would vote in south-east London. As a fall-back from that—life moves on—Lord Jenkins has proposed an alternative that does some of the things that he wants. It has a first-past-the-post variant so that people can express preferences for constituency seats and a top-up element. We must consider such alternatives. I want to get the best system. I agree that a Londonwide list which might include no one who knows anything about north-east London and the outer boroughs would be inappropriate. We have not supported that.
  There were some Government defeats on such issues in the other place. I do not know how brave peers will be in the new year; it depends on whether they get instructions from the Conservative Front-Bench team and, if they get them, whether they follow them. On the assumption that the Opposition might get their act together, we will try to secure amendments in the other place, and for several more months, the numbers in the Lords will still allow us to do that.
  We have two other issues, on which we differ fundamentally from the Government, to flag up. The first is small in the context of this great new sort of regional, sort of citywide government, but I have raised it with Ministers before. I hope that in this Bill we can correct an unfairness that affects only London, which is the only part of the United Kingdom where people cannot have parish or community councils if they want them. It would take no more than a clause, and people would not have to have parish or community councils. There is no reason why at local level in London boroughs such as mine with 215,000 people, the people should not be able also to have small parish councils to deal with small parish or community council-type business.
  Our vision is of a federal United Kingdom, also with regional government in England, local authorities underneath and parish or community councils below that. That is partnership politics between the layers of government; not the consensus politics of which the White Paper talks, but co-operative politics. The Government missed the opportunity to seize the moment to give us regional government for London. [Interruption.] I understand what the Deputy Prime Minister says but I regret it, because we could have gone for regional government, for which he and I have always argued. That means that we will have to come back to this again. That is a pity.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is right to concede that this is not regional government. We have done our adding up. There are nearly 600 references in the Bill to local government but less than 100 to regional government. That seems to confirm that what is proposed is more a variant of local government than regional government. That is a pity.

  651
  The second matter of apparent difference is the start date, to which I alluded earlier.
  I hope that the Government and the people of London find our differences much more constructive than the position taken by the Tories; I am sure they will. The Tories want the mayor to be all powerful in London government. The mayor would be the only person elected by Londoners to do a Londonwide job. Beyond that, the borough leaders would come together to argue from their borough perspectives—nothing wrong with that—in a sort of assembly of 33. That can, and should, happen anyway. I think that there should be and will be meetings between the mayor, the assembly and borough leaders. It is nonsense to think that a meeting of borough leaders should replace a strategic authority. The Conservatives' only other point concerns privatisation of the tube. A manifesto that says only that we should have a mayor but no assembly and privatisation of the tube is thin gruel as an answer to the Government's proposals.
  I have worked out that I have three interests to declare. First, I represent a London constituency and, like other London Members, have a constituency interest to represent. Secondly, thanks to Ministers, one of the prospective sites for the Greater London authority is in my constituency. Thirdly, so that the House does not think that I am dissembling, I make it clear that I have a further interest in that I intend in the new year to put my name forward for selection, and possibly therefore election, to the Greater London authority. That is a matter for me, not my party, but I put it on record so that people do not think that I am trying to hide something from the House.
  Mr. Wilkinson: In what capacity?
  Mr. Hughes: That is not a matter for today. I am trying to make it clear that I have an additional interest in the outcome of the Bill. I hope that that suffices for the time being.
  Whatever our different interests in the outcome, we are dealing with a great transformation of government for a huge number of people. The figures are extraordinary. Some 7 million people—more people than in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—are involved. There are 5 million voters, a work force of more than 3.5 million, and 3 million households. Interestingly, more than one third of those households are people who live alone. That is an important London factor. There are 1 million visitors a day. Interestingly, too, four fifths of the people who come in use public transport. We should never forget that in a city where fewer people have private cars than in other regions of the country.
  London already has the best and most comprehensive bus network of any comparable city, and a greater length of tube lines. There is also its wonderful ethnic and linguistic diversity. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) noted that the city is a hugely successful financial centre, as well as being the third most popular tourist city in the world. That is the great city that we are seeking to give to the authority to deal with.
  What we must try to do is make London more than just a great city. We share the Government's objective of wanting London to be an environmentally sustainable city—and one which offers the highest quality of life to
  652
  those who work here, live here and visit. That is not a description that any of us would argue currently applies to much of Greater London. We want it to be a healthier, safer and more prosperous city, but we agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that better health, improved safety and greater prosperity must be shared more equally. London is a terribly unequal city, as my own constituency illustrates. The gap has widened: the rich are very rich and some of the poor are very poor indeed. If the new London government does one thing only, which is to bring Londoners closer together in their enjoyment of the city's benefits, that will be in everybody's interest. We shall all be judged by the outputs, not by our input into today's debate.
  Like the hon. Member for Brent, East, I hope that the Government will trust Londoners with as many decisions as possible. At the end of the day, that is far more democratically safe: it is much safer for the Deputy Prime Minister to give Londoners the power to throw out their government if they do not like them, than it is for him to retain powers to himself and so have to shoulder some of the blame if things go wrong.
  My hon. Friends and I share the view of the hon. Member for Brent, East that we have to do something to reduce the relatively unrestricted power of the mayor as proposed. We intend to table an amendment, on which we shall be happy to negotiate, that would provide a power of recall. If, say, 90 per cent. of assembly members passed a motion, they could force the mayor to resign; or if 10 per cent. of Londoners signed a petition, they could trigger a referendum that might force the mayor to resign. I gather that it has been proposed in Japan that, if a mayor's proposal on budgetary matters is not passed, the assembly members can force the mayoral resignation; but that, if they do that, they too have to go back to the polls, which ensures that they do not use their power inappropriately.
  I hope that we can have a debate on that subject, because the problem of having an all but all-powerful mayor but no power of recall is not sufficiently answered by being able to vote the mayor out of office every four years. As the citizens of Washington will remember, when a particular mayor is in office, four years can be far too long.
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): They re-elected him.
  Mr. Hughes: They did indeed, but for a mayor to conduct his city's affairs from prison is hardly satisfactory.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, the Bill contains a huge number of references to the powers of the Secretary of State—there are more than 250 such references and the Bill has only 270-odd clauses, so there is almost one power per clause.
  Mr. Prescott: I must have missed a few.
  Mr. Hughes: The Deputy Prime Minister has owned up again—that makes two concessions I pocket. The Deputy Prime Minister has realised that he will still not be powerful enough. I have heard of the all-powerful aspirations of Yorkshiremen, but this is ridiculous—even

  653
  in Welshmen who are Yorkshiremen by adoption. It is the Liverpudlian extraction that protects him from megalomania.
  The crucial clauses are clauses 25 to 36, because they contain the meat of the Bill, dealing with principles and powers, not with structure and policies. They illustrate the accumulation of power that the Bill contains, with the Secretary of State's full knowledge, I am sure. Clause 26(2) states:
  "In deciding whether to exercise any of the powers of the Authority … a body or person shall have regard to any guidance issued"
  by the Secretary of State. Clause 27 starts well, with:
  "The Authority shall have the power to anything which the Mayor considers will further the purpose"
  of the assembly. However, one then comes to what must be the subsection to reduce the power of the hon. Member for Brent, East, clause 27(10), which states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order … make further provision for preventing the Authority from doing … anything … which may be done by a London borough council, the Common Council or a public body"—
  that is any public body—
  "and … which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order."
  As if that were not enough, the final subsection in the clause, subsection (11), states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order impose limits on the expenditure which may be incurred by the Authority by virtue of subsection (1) above."
  The mayor can have wonderful strategies, but not strategies that are truly her or his own, because clause 33(3) states:
  "the Mayor shall have regard to … the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policy".
  I am happy that the mayor's strategy should have to take account of Government policy, but what is the point of having London regional government if it cannot decide its own strategy where it thinks that the Government's strategy for the whole country is inappropriate for London? If the mayor does not do what she or he should do, clause 36 provides that the Secretary of State
  "may direct the Mayor to prepare and publish the strategy within such period as the direction shall specify."
  Finally, schedule 13, which was referred to earlier in respect of transport, enables the Secretary of State, in respect of both road charges on users and the non-residential parking place levy, to require the GLA
  "to pay a prescribed portion of the net proceeds … to the Secretary of State".
  So the Secretary of State is going to tell the authority, "You have the power to raise the money, but I'm going to take a whole load back, thank you very much."
  Mr. Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the proceeds of the congestion charges Londoners pay should be spent in Chelsea or Cheam, rather than in Cheltenham or Chester; and that the Bill must be amended so that the Secretary of State is not entitled to a portion of the proceeds of congestion charges?
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has a good point, although the alliteration makes me suspect that he thought
  654
  of it some moments ago. He is right: Londoners, who will be paying the charges, will expect the money to return to them.
  Mr. Prescott: It will.
  Mr. Hughes: I am now hearing that it will. Perhaps the Minister for Transport in London will elaborate.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I shall reiterate the position, because either the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) was not listening to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me make it abundantly clear: every penny of money that is raised from congestion charging or the non-residential parking place levy will be spent where it is raised for the benefit of transport. There will be costs, but once those costs, which we believe can be kept to the minimum, are covered, every penny raised will be spent where it is raised.
  Mr. Hughes: That was clear and I am grateful to the Minister. If that was said before, I accept it. However, in that case, it appears that schedules 13 and 14 are not needed.
  Ms Jackson: There will be a 10-year review.
  Mr. Hughes: Well, we can return to that point in Committee. If the Minister is right, we accept that. We are happy with a 10-year review, but for the first 10 years, we want the money to go to the citizens of Chelsea and Cheam, to echo my hon. Friend's phrase. If that is the case, we can agree and so save time in Committee. That is the third point I pocket.
  Ms Jackson: Let me repeat, yet again, that where the money is raised is undoubtedly where it will be spent.
  Mr. Hughes: I hear what the Minister says and I am hopeful that we can agree that the big clawback clauses, which are always written in by civil servants to give big powers to their Ministers, should be done away with. I gather that such powers are called Henry VIII powers, but the Secretary of State is a far slimmer, meaner and leaner man than Henry VIII and I am sure that he does not need such powers as that autocratic monarch had in years gone by.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman has a fundamental point. May I draw his attention to schedule 13, paragraph 15(5), which states:
  "Any sums received by the Secretary of State … shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund."?
  Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman may imagine, I was reading that very paragraph in bed last night. I went to sleep and nearly dreamt about it—although my dreams had nothing to do with Henry VIII.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful for this opportunity to spare the House from having to hear about my hon. Friend's dreams. I refer him to the Minister's comments: she said that money would be spent where it was raised. Does my hon. Friend agree that that interpretation could

  655
  be applied to the contributions of those people who travel into London from outlying areas? That would trigger the use of the relevant subsection in schedule 13 and the money could be spent outside London.
  Mr. Hughes: We heard the Minister's statement and my hon. Friend has raised a linked question. It may be that we can begin the debate tomorrow if my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) catches Madam Speaker's eye. I accept that the issue must be pursued. We are worried that the clauses may be too powerful, and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and Conservative spokesmen appear to share our concern. I hope that the drafting will reflect the comments of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Transport in London.
  Mr. Prescott: It is in my speech, so read it.
  Mr. Hughes: I will pocket a copy of that as well.
  There are serious funding concerns. The Government will retain their capping powers—I understand that they will be the latest upgraded Prescott variants on capping. However, if this is to be genuine citywide government, the GLA should be able to set the ceiling and the floor and control the funding from left to right. The authority will have a starting budget of £3 billion, with the power to raise money to increase that sum to £4 billion or £5 billion. There are many detailed financial considerations that we must discuss in Committee. For example, the Government Office for London, which currently has a budget of £1.25 billion, will retain £750 million after the establishment of the GLA. Why does it not have to hand over all of its budgetary powers and responsibilities to London government?
  The budget for London transport raises different issues. It appears that, unlike other capital cities, London could be without any national subsidy for its transport system under the new regime in the new millennium. I remember that, when the Secretary of State was the shadow transport spokesman, he regularly reminded the then Government—we believe correctly—that London Transport needed public subsidy. It is worthwhile for the taxpayer to pay for the public transport system because that is in the public's best interest.
  It is a nonsense not to allow the people of London to choose how much money should be raised. The Government eventually conceded that power to Scotland—although the Scottish Parliament will not be able to exercise that right for the first two years. The population of London is much bigger than that of Scotland. Although the GLA will not be a national parliament, we must trust Londoners. If they think that more money should be raised—as they did with the "Fares Fair" policy under the GLC—they should vote for it, and the same applies if they want to see less money raised.
  In the hours and days ahead, debate will rightly turn to the key issues in the Bill. A sustainable London means a sustainable transport system. I hope that we can agree—I think Ministers are starting in the right place—that we should look first at the pedestrians, then the cyclists, the public transport users, then quasi-public transport such as taxis and the river bus, and finally the cars. We must try to ensure that London works first for those who use the most healthy, cost-effective and least congesting and
  656
  polluting forms of transport. I hope that we will see integrated ticketing for London river transport. The Secretary of State has been committed to that policy for many years, and I share his objective. I know the difficulties involved, but it would be wonderful if London's public transport system included the river.
  There is another issue—to which we shall return—concerning the confusion between borough and London responsibilities regarding roads, particularly trunk roads and some roads out of the city. I will not go into detail now, but we are concerned that that issue has not been thought through and concluded adequately.
  I turn finally to policing. Londoners will welcome the fact that, for the first time since the establishment of the Met at the beginning of the last century, London policing will be democratically accountable. At last, London, like the rest of the country, will have democratic policing. I am confident that the police want that also. In that way, democratic participation will address the difficulties of recruitment, racism and inherent prejudice—which is perceived and often real—which still exists in the police force.
  Our job is to get a Bill on the statute book. However, the Liberal Democrats also want to ensure that the Greater London authority has real Greater London authority autonomy and ensures greater power for Londoners. We have a suspicion that the control freaks are hanging on on the Government Front Bench, or possibly behind it. We suspect that some people are not yet willing to let Londoners run London. We see our job as speaking up for Londoners so that they may reclaim the power to run this great capital city themselves.
  6.25 pm
  Ms Joan Ruddock: I crave the indulgence of the House: this may not be another nasal contribution, but it will be a throaty one, because of my bad cold.
  I came to London from a small town in south Wales to study at Imperial college—then, as now, one of the world's foremost scientific institutions. The college is situated in south Kensington, within strolling distance of the Serpentine and the great green spaces of Hyde park. I found a great and wonderful soaring city at my feet. I had little money and no thoughts of a car, but I went everywhere. I fell in love with Kew gardens, and went to the Proms, the south bank and the ballet. I even stood through "Gotterdammerung" at Covent Garden—although only once.
  It was some years later, when I left academia and went to work for Shelter, that I saw the other side of this great city: the appalling overcrowding of families, and the damp and unfit flats and Rachmanite landlords. The injustice and inequality that I saw then led eventually to my being elected as the Member of Parliament for Lewisham, Deptford—the most deprived part of a borough that is the 14th most deprived district in England. First impressions bear out those statistics. There is neglected social fabric: poor environment, poor housing and ill health.
  However, we also have a vibrant community, with extraordinary ethnic diversity that is expressed in commerce and culture. We have our own great institutions, such as Goldsmiths, Laban and Lewisham colleges; a community theatre at the Albany; Hales, a superb modern art gallery on Deptford high street; and a

  657
  variety of artists' studios linked to regeneration initiatives. This is the London we share: a city of great contrasts, marked by extremities of wealth and poverty. It is "a capital divided", as the London Research Centre's study of the same name showed two years ago.
  New Labour's manifesto promise to Londoners was to deliver the leadership and infrastructure that would promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of the many, not the few. We are today debating the substance of that promise, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on bringing it to fruition. I cannot speak comprehensively in the time available, but, like other hon. Members, I shall touch upon a few issues.
  The first issue is the mayor. I have no doubt that the mayor's success will lie in the quality of leadership that he or she brings to the job: the ability to inspire confidence and pull together all the key players—or possibly warring factions—who can provide the dynamic leadership and partnerships necessary to deliver strategic policies. There is already considerable consensus about the Government's plans, as witnessed by the many organisations that have written letters of support to London Members of Parliament.
  The mayor will also need to listen carefully to ordinary people. The most recent picture of London opinion was provided by a Mori poll on the health of Londoners commissioned by the King's Fund and the Evening Standard. The findings certainly present a challenge. Three out of five Londoners think that our city is an unhealthy place to live, and half think that the situation is getting worse.
  When asked in the survey what the London mayor's top priorities should be in solving the problems associated with ill health, nine out of 10 people opted for environmental issues, including traffic reduction and improving air quality. Not surprisingly, other top priorities included work opportunities and life-style issues, such as child care and tackling drugs.
  The poll clearly tells us that the quality of the environment and people's health are no longer subjects for expert epidemiologists but matters of common public perception. As with everything else in London, there are enormous inequalities in access to health services. I believe that the mayor's role must be clarified and strengthened in relation to the health of Londoners. I trust that my right hon. Friend will revisit the proposals advanced by the King's Fund—particularly the case for a public health unit to inform the mayor's policy agenda.
  I turn now to transport, wherein lie Londoners' greatest hopes and fears. Seven years ago, as shadow Minister for Transport in a team headed by my right hon. Friend, I wrote our first transport strategy for London. It has stood the test of time. We said then:
  "We will link land use and transport planning to provide greater access at lower environmental costs. We will set higher standards for every aspect of public transport and maximise the integration of different modes to make easier, more pleasant and reliable travel. We aim to create greater fairness in that the needs of women and those with disabilities are better met."
  The mayor and assembly of London must rise to that challenge. Nationally, the Government have already laid down a template in the integrated transport strategy White Paper, and every Londoner could suggest changes that
  658
  would make a difference. Often, the decision to run a car in London is based not on the need to commute to work but on the need to travel to leisure and other public services and facilities.
  We know from survey after survey that women are especially concerned about their personal security on public transport. Even as someone who is not afraid to travel on public transport in London at night, I recognise the intimidating environment that is presented by deserted, poorly lit stations, tube trains ankle-deep in rubbish, and frequent, unchallenged anti-social behaviour by other passengers.
  There has to be a case for more staff outside rush hours, and more attention to passenger comfort and convenience. A strategic view demands proper integration of all modes and ticketing policies that assist and encourage people to travel on public transport, rather than defeating them at every turn. One has only to consider what has happened at Paddington since the setting up of the non-integrated Heathrow express and the chaos created as people leave that train to get tickets to other destinations. Today, it is nobody's job to deal with such problems; tomorrow, it will be the mayor's job.
  The need to discourage car use and expand public transport capacity is now a matter of consensus among opinion formers, but if we are not to disable the mayor from the outset, we must ensure that a central strategy can work. There has to be money to expand capacity ahead of punitive measures. Buses are, of course, the quickest answer. A strategic network with draconian powers for policing bus lanes and green, clean, low-floor buses will go a long way to creating alternatives to the private car. I make a plea for better standards of driving of those important London buses.
  No mayor worthy of the job will countenance any of the moneys raised from congestion charging—which, of course, we all support—going to anything but public transport. I am grateful for the guarantees that Ministers have given Londoners today.
  Mobility is central to London's economy, and it is appropriate that the mayor should establish the new bodies and appoint the members of the new transport authority for London and the London development agency. The task of the mayor and the assembly will be informed by the recently published comprehensive blueprint for economic regeneration, "The London Study", which was led by the Association of London Government, and the first report of the London Development Partnership. Those studies embrace the realities of modern city living, counting the economic, social and environmental costs of urban growth. They argue that the key to solving the problems identified lies in adopting a model of sustainable development.
  In that model, three policy areas—economy, environment and equity—are given equal and overlapping status. Many of us have argued for that for a very long time. We all know of the tensions that exist between economic development, social cohesion and environmental protection, and nowhere more so than in London. The mayor's greatest challenge will be to lead and foster the negotiated partnerships through which strategic success can be delivered.
  Londoners have fallen behind in the modern labour market, which is often not recognised in the House. As the London Development Partnership report points out,

  659
  unemployment here is second only to that in Merseyside, and considerably above the rate for Wales, for Scotland and for the UK as a whole. Almost half the country's ethnic minority communities live in London, and suffer disproportionately from unemployment. That is a huge challenge, and an opportunity.
  London must get its fair share of the spending rounds and regeneration funding. Our small businesses need better support, not only for start-ups but through the continuing commercial life cycle.
  The community and voluntary sectors also need better recognition of their enormous contribution, and the way in which they are rapidly adding to our sum of economic regeneration. Of course, our economy is rooted in the service industries and tourism, which offer the mayor a potentially huge—and probably very enjoyable—role as an ambassador for London.
  Surely, if we are to promote the delights of our great cultural centre, the time has come to follow the examples of our competitor cities in other parts of Europe and pedestrianise our central areas.
  As well as direct and indirect powers, the mayor will have the opportunity to produce strategies on biodiversity, waste, air quality, noise and culture. Although a number of bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the London Wildlife Trust, welcome the Bill, they have expressed concerns that I share and seek to raise today. The mayor's strategy will set an important precedent for the statutory basis of local biodiversity plans, but it will be important for the mayor to be able to take action to help to deliver the measures agreed in the plans.
  Excellent work is already under way in a partnership of environmental bodies working in London on biodiversity. The London Wildlife Trust, of which I am pleased to be a member, has set up the first biological database, which will inform the process. It is now widely recognised that biodiversity is the best indicator of our natural environment, and its incorporation into strategic planning in London is crucial.
  I want to touch on the important extension of democracy that the Bill represents. As my hon. Friends have said, for far too long, London's services have been run in an unaccountable way. The new strategic bodies—the London transport authority, the London development agency, the metropolitan police authority and the fire and emergency planning authority—will counter that lack of democracy.
  Like most other commentators, I warmly welcome the new openness and accountability in the proposals for mayoral reports, the debate on the state of London and people's question time. The only discordant note that I have received came from the London Voluntary Service Council. It is not opposed to those measures—quite the contrary—but it wants the voluntary sector to be more closely involved and consulted. I am sure that it is right—the sector's contribution to London life is extremely important, and I hope that Ministers will return to that issue, and consult further on it. I thought that the proposal for a civic forum, which was flagged up in the White Paper, was excellent.
  On a completely unrelated point, will the Minister reassure us that the new London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will be able effectively to co-ordinate with the London ambulance service, which remains outside its remit?
  660
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate, policing will be dealt with tomorrow. Suffice it to say that crime remains at the top of most Londoners' agenda. Thankfully, crime is falling, and is being substantially addressed by the Government's national plans for partnerships to reduce crime and ensure local safety.
  Intelligence-based policing and local partnerships are clearly the way forward, but in London, as others have warned, the greatest challenge lies in restoring and retaining public confidence in the police. Without it, no strategy can move forward at the rate we need. London's population is now one quarter non-white and, as the Stephen Lawrence inquiry has shown, Londoners of good will, black and white, want racism in the Met stamped out once and for all.
  I regard it as a privilege to have taken part in this debate on behalf of my constituents and, indeed, the people of London. London is indeed a great city, but it has been slipping behind in many respects. Our task will be not only to modernise the city, its institutions and its governance, but to prepare it for the future and take it into the 21st century.
  Clearly, the mayor of London will be a very special and busy woman or man, but, whoever is elected, he or she will be entering that great new office with the enormous hopes of all Londoners riding on him or her and on the new assembly—hopes that they will deliver to us the great world city that London should be, and, at the same time, a better quality of life for the people of London.
  6.41 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). I hope that she will not be embarrassed if I say that my only disappointment is that we no longer hear her from the Government Front Bench.
  I was also interested to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). He prayed in aid the Marquis of Salisbury, who was the Prime Minister at the turn of the century and who, unknown to me, tried to finish off the old London county council. I can only say that my view of the Cecil family has undergone a dramatic change in the past few weeks.
  The Greater London Authority Bill is a very important and very long Bill. It has 277 clauses, 243 pages and 21 schedules. Obviously, it will take a little time to go through it clause by clause, line by line and word by word in Committee. In light of what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, it might be helpful if I make a public declaration here and now to the effect that I have absolutely no intention of standing as mayor or for membership of the assembly. When the House has heard my contribution, it will understand why, and doubtless greet it with a great sigh of relief.
  I regretted the fact that the referendum consisted of only one question. I accept that 72 per cent. of the people who took part voted for a mayor and an assembly. My party voted yes, but we wanted a mayor and not an assembly. I think I am right in saying that the Liberal Democrats wanted the assembly but not the mayor. We have to look to the future now, and accept that we have to make the mayor and the assembly work, but I think

  661
  that it was a mistake for the Government to insist on just one question. They could proceed with much greater confidence had there been separate questions, but that is all in the past.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) that the assembly should be informal, and have the minimum necessary powers. It is important that the mayor has direct contact with the 32 boroughs. I accept that he will, but it would be better if the assembly contained one representative from each borough, preferably the leader, and, of course, the City of London. We are introducing into the governance of London not only a mayor and an assembly but the London development agency on top of the existing unitary boroughs. We are also keeping the Government Office for London. If we are not careful, the governance of London will be suffocated.
  I have not read every word of the Bill, but I have read most of it. Ministers might call me to account, but my impression is that it will encourage bureaucracy, sow confusion in the minds of Londoners as to which body has which powers, and cause dissension between the assembly and the mayor. The assembly and the mayor will both argue that they have been directly elected, and will seek ever more powers. Empire building is inevitable, no matter how hard the Government try to control it with legislation. I am absolutely convinced that the result will be an unnecessarily costly exercise, which will take powers and influence away from the London boroughs.
  We can have differences of opinion about this, but since the abolition of the Greater London council in 1986 and of the Inner London education authority in 1990, the governance of London has come closer to its people through being managed by the boroughs.
  It is all very well for hon. Members to say that there is an overwhelming wish for a Greater London body to be re-established—I am not making a party political point, as abolition took place under the Conservative party—but had my constituents been asked way back in the 1960s whether they wanted to leave Hertfordshire and join Greater London, I know what 95 per cent. of them would have said. However, the compensation of joining London—or one of the compensations, as there may have been a few—was that education moved nearer to the town hall. The town hall, although it was in Hendon rather than Barnet, was nearer to the people of Barnet than was Hertfordshire's county hall. There were pluses and minuses.
  Given the resolution of the people of London to have a mayor and an assembly, we want to ensure that both work in the most cost-efficient, fair and effective way possible. The Secretary of State referred to the successes of London. Those successes have increased rather than diminished in recent years. I know that the hon. Member for Deptford, like all hon. Members, cares deeply about the terrible social problems in our capital city. I share that concern and the resolve to do something about them, but I do not think that the creation of a new tier of government will necessarily solve them.
  I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that the White Paper, which was published just before the referendum—I was grateful for that—made it clear that the authority would have powers to impose new taxes on motorists. I
  662
  remember warning that the referendum should take place after the Bill had been passed, so that Londoners would know exactly what they were voting for.
  I said that Green Papers can be quite different from White Papers, that White Papers can be different from Bills, and that Bills can be different from Acts of Parliament. I remember likening White Papers to bikinis—what they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal can be vital. Some of my constituents will feel slightly aggrieved that the Government did not, as it were, come clean on their desire to give the authority the power to impose new taxes on motorists, a measure included in the Bill.
  The White Paper claimed that the Government themselves would meet most of the cost of running the Greater London assembly and the office of mayor through grant. I am aware that 80 per cent. of the expenditure on local authorities' responsibilities in the capital is met by revenue support grant or by the taxpayer rather than the council tax payer. I believe that more funding of the new structure will have to come from Londoners, which gives me the gravest suspicions.
  The Government claim that the Greater London authority will simply assume responsibility for the present £3.3 billion expenditure a year. They calculate that the administrative cost of setting up the assembly and the mayor will be about £20 million. I doubt that; I shall be interested to see the administrative cost for the first year. I wager that, whatever it is, it will be more than £20 million. It will have doubled in five years.
  I have seen such things happen in the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. Once such a body—doing wonderful work, I am sure—is created, there is an impelling imperative to find more work. The functions—if not the powers—of the assembly are comprehensive. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 14. So far as I can make out, the assembly has the right to investigate and report on virtually anything. It will take that opportunity. Hon. Members may say that that is a good thing, but I am not so sure. Such a power will create an overweening bureaucracy, which will be very costly.
  The Deputy Prime Minister kindly allowed me to intervene on the subject of planning. I declare a possible interest. For many years, I have been a non-practising chartered town and country planner, and I am a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I mention that because, for the first time, I have heard the phrase "spatial development strategy", which will become the responsibility of the mayor.
  I note that London boroughs' unitary development plans will be required to conform with that strategy. Although I have no objection to that in principle—it seems eminently sensible in principle—I think that, in practice, at least some London boroughs, including mine, might be concerned. Barnet was the first London borough to put into practice its unitary development plan, which is coming up for renewal. There might be a problem fitting in such a revision and renewal when the mayor introduces his spatial development strategy.
  Will the Minister say whether applicants and appellants under the development control system will retain the same rights, especially those of appeal to the Secretary of State, once the mayor has the right to direct a London borough—the local planning authority—to refuse an application? I, personally, would like the Secretary of

  663
  State's power to be retained, and the mayor not to be given such a power to direct. I firmly believe that such matters require co-operation between the Secretary of State and the local planning authority. As the mayor will appoint members of the planning committee and the London development agency, it is important that there should be no conflict of interest.
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point about the relationship between the boroughs and the GLA. Does he share my concern that, if the mayor directs an authority to refuse planning permission, costs might be imposed on the authority following an appeal, which would not have been imposed if it had taken a different decision unfettered by the mayor?
  Sir Sydney Chapman: That is a possibility. Such balances must be weighed up. As the Secretary of State already has call-in powers for any significant planning application, I do not see the need for the mayor to intervene.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Perhaps it would be helpful and put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery if I reassured him that appellant rights will indeed still rest with the Secretary of State.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am very grateful to the Minister for that. It clears up a substantial point, but lays even greater stress on whether the mayor should have such powers.
  Detailed points are, of course, for the Committee, but I want to raise one or two in order to discover whether they find any echo in the Chamber. First, under clause 40, it is proposed that a people's question time will be held twice every financial year, which any member of the public will be entitled to attend. I am interested to know where it will be held. Perhaps more importantly, I note that the mayor and the assembly are required to be present at the question time and the people's debate, which is another special event. What will happen if one of the 25 assembly men or women is ill or unavoidably detained? That is a small but important point.
  Secondly, under clause 19, it seems that virtually anybody can be mayor. Having considered the clause carefully, I reckon that any hon. Member, even among those who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales—let alone the rest of England—qualifies. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will stand, but you have the right to do so under the proposed terms. Are paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) necessary? Instead of stipulating qualifications of age, country and nationality, it would surely suffice that any person who is entitled to vote and on the electoral register in the Greater London area is eligible.
  I turn to a point on which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey allowed me to intervene: schedule 13. It is quite wrong that it specifically requires an authority to pay a prescribed proportion of the net proceeds from motoring charges to the Secretary of State. The schedule states:
  "Any sums received by the Secretary of State … shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund."
  664
  That puts at risk the certainty of the Deputy Prime Minister's promise that all funds would be hypothecated into transport expenditure.
  Ms Jackson: I reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): moneys raised will in their entirety be used as part of the mayor' s transport strategy.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: It is not that I do not want to trust the Minister; we work together in north London on many things. However, given her answer, paragraph 15(5) of schedule 13 is totally unnecessary. We shall address that point in Committee.
  When the Greater London council was abolished in 1986, the Evening Standard highlighted
  "Five years of futile extravagance and irrelevant politicking".
  My fear is that Greater London assembly will lead to the sort of problems too many Londoners experienced under the GLC. I fear that it will lead to unnecessary bureaucracy, confusion, dissension, duplication, waste, and, most certainly, increased taxation for Londoners.
  6.59 pm
  Ms Linda Perham: I speak as a native Londoner who represents the London constituency in which I have lived for 25 years. As a former London borough councillor, the first Labour woman mayor of the London borough of Redbridge and a former officer of the Greater London council's department of planning and transportation, I welcome with pride and delight the Second Reading of this Bill, as part of the process of fulfilling Labour's manifesto commitment to restore a strategic authority to the people of London. "Strategic" is the key word. Overall direction is vital to the efficient governance of the greatest city in the world, but it has been sadly lacking in the past 12 years of democratic deficit in our capital city.
  Like other hon. Members, I find much in the Bill that I should like to comment on, but—partly because I served on my local council as chair of the leisure committee and the highways committee—I shall focus on aspects of the cultural and transport strategies and leave other detail to other hon. Members.
  First, as a professional librarian and chair of the newly formed all-party group on libraries, I welcome the proposal to create a cultural strategy for London, and I welcome the fact that library services are to be part of the remit of the cultural strategy group. I am sure that the Library Association—the professional association that represents all types of libraries—will be pleased to work with the cultural strategy group, and that it will be represented on the group.
  A report commissioned by the former Department of National Heritage—"London: Library City", published in 1996 by Comedia—described London as the library capital of the world. The capital has a vast wealth of library resources of all types—public, academic, voluntary, commercial and professional, from the smallest workplace library to the British Library, now in its new building at St. Pancras. The Comedia report suggests that those resources are not well known or widely used by Londoners. Moreover, in some respects, public library provision across the capital amounts to less than the sum of its parts, as each borough plans its service with little reference to its neighbour's or London's overall needs.

  665
  I hope that the mayor's cultural strategy will include a vision of library resources throughout London. The cultural strategy group could help to co-ordinate services to contribute to the Greater London authority's aims of promoting economic and social development in Greater London, to ensure equity of access and to exploit opportunities for resource sharing in order to make best use of limited resources.
  The Government have pledged to modernise the delivery of services and information, and aim to provide 25 per cent. of their services electronically by 2002. The GLA, as a new authority, should be encouraged to embrace that concept from the outset. It should look to make its policy documents and services available throughout the public library network that is to be developed under the leadership of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Public libraries, and the new public library network in particular, could ensure that all Londoners have access to the deliberations of their authority, and provide a way to open the GLA to participation and scrutiny.
  As a former information officer in the GLC research library, I welcome the recognition of the role of the London Research Centre in the new GLA. The research library that forms part of the centre has an enviable record in the information that it provides to support London boroughs. In its former role as the GLC research library, it also provided support to elected members and departments of the council. Members of the assembly, the mayor, the staff of the GLA and all the agencies associated with it will need accurate and timely information to contribute effectively to the development of London. The research library offers an admirable base on which to build the information infrastructure that will be required by the new authority.
  I little thought, when I worked on supplying information to GLC officers and members more than a quarter of a century ago, that I would one day look up at my fifth floor window in County hall from the Terrace of the House of Commons—or that, sadly, 25 years later, I would be contemplating a visit to that beautiful and elegant building, paid for by the people of London, and the home of London government for decades, only to see an aquarium.
  Secondly, I unreservedly welcome the establishment of Transport for London, which will provide a centralised resource with control of Londoners' transport needs, and make an essential contribution to the integrated transport system that our capital city so obviously requires.
  I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised when I mention taxis. As she knows, taxis are a key component filling the gap between London's different forms of transport provision. As many hon. Members know, my constituency is renowned for the number of licensed taxi drivers who live in the area. A former taxi driver, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), is sitting behind me. I hope that I shall not say anything that he had intended to say; plenty of people have done that to me in the past.
  I was pleased that the taxi was included as part of the proposed integrated transport system in the White Paper this year. As we know, taxis are an important part of London's transport planning, and a vital means of linking transport termini.
  666
  I am pleased that, in the Bill, the regulation of London's taxis—and of private hire vehicles, whose licensing reached the statute book earlier in the year, following a campaign by hon. Members, including me—is to be transferred from the Metropolitan police to Transport for London. That will ensure that the taxi fleet is managed as part of London's wider public transport strategy.
  Taxis provide Londoners and millions of visitors with a safe, efficient and reliable service, and it is especially important that taxis should have access to ranks at railway stations. That is at the heart of an integrated service for London's travelling public.
  I urge the Minister to consider incorporating in clause 176 provision enabling a driver to designate his cab as either smoking or non-smoking. Currently, a driver can only request that a passenger not smoke, and that can, naturally, lead to a driver being required to carry passengers who insist on smoking. Obviously, that is a threat to drivers' health. A change to the legislation would closely fit the Government's wider policy on smoking.
  I also hope that the Minister will consider introducing the necessary wording to enable an administrative charge to be introduced for "the knowledge". At present, it is not possible to charge knowledge applicants for the resources that they use. All testing costs—including those of examiners, syllabuses, administration and testing—are met through the driver's annual licence fee. The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 allows minicab applicants to be charged for their tests; the same principles should apply to licensed taxi driver applicants.
  I can think of no other industry where the examination of applicants or trainees is entirely subsidised by that industry's qualified professionals. What happens is equivalent to the driving test being completely subsidised by the road tax. The current situation also hampers the development of more modern procedures, as the Public Carriage Office does not have the necessary revenue to update testing processes. The proposed change would also be popular with licensed drivers, as their licence fee would be reduced. That is another change that I believe that the Minister is on record as having supported; I hope that an opportunity will be found in the Bill to update an obvious anomaly.
  I briefly mention the danger that private hire vehicle drivers will register their vehicles as public service vehicles under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. I am aware that that is occurring in places outside London, including Southend. That practice enables drivers to circumvent checks on their criminal record, health, vehicles and topographical training. Given recent reports of further assaults by minicab drivers on women, that may form a dangerous loophole in the law.
  The Bill also passes responsibility for public service vehicles to Transport for London. I hope that, in co-ordinating the granting of such licences, TFL will ensure that the hard work that went into protecting public safety by passing the Public Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 is not lost.
  A modern and efficient taxi service plays a core role in a modern and efficient London. The Bill, by creating a mayor, an Assembly and Transport for London, will go a long way to establish the necessary direction and long awaited strategic planning that our capital city so badly needs.

  667
  Lastly, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said that he might like the leaders of London borough councils to be members of the assembly, or to represent the assembly. I should have thought that leaders had enough to do; and if the Conservative amendment were successful, there would be 33, not 25, members to be paid, thereby increasing costs.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I declare an interest, although it is not in any sense remunerated. I am the elected president of the London Green Belt Council, which as hon. Members know exists to represent the interests of varied groups all around and within Greater London, to ensure that its beautiful green belt spaces are preserved.
  The Secretary of State said at the outset that the Bill would produce a measure offering greater power to the people of London. I wish that it were so. I am delighted that Opposition Front Benchers have supported in principle the establishment of a voice for London, but that voice should be as democratic as possible. To me, this is the starting point, and it is the fundamental principle upon which I diverge from the Government. I voted against the abolition of the Greater London council because the then Conservative Government, whom I supported, did not offer a residual, slimmed-down strategic authority for London which could speak for the capital's interests within London, and to Government and in the councils of the nation as a whole. That, however, is for the history books.
  We must address a most interesting measure. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has much experience in these matters and, as usual, he made an original, interesting and relevant speech. He described the Bill as "a package of powers leading to regional government for England." I do not share those wider objectives but the Bill has some features that are common to the prototypes of regional government which we have established both in Wales and Scotland—most particularly, the method of election for the assembly men.
  I earnestly wish that the assembly were drawn up of elected representatives from each borough. Opposition Front Benchers, quite reasonably and with much cogent force, argue for those representatives to be the borough leaders. I do not believe that borough leaders should be diverted from their primary task, which is the leadership of their boroughs. To me, that is a full enough occupation, and I think that any ancillary work would be more than most borough leaders could reasonably be asked to fulfil. They are not even fully paid professionals. Many of them have other occupations, and I do not think that it would be sensible to expect them to travel backwards and forwards to central London to fulfil their obligations as assembly men as well as borough leaders. However, I recognise that my view is a personal one.
  I shall argue this through if I am fortunate enough to be selected as a member of the Standing Committee. I spent long enough in the Royal Air Force to know that one should never volunteer, but like the hon. Member for Brent, East, I do volunteer. It should be a most interesting Bill to consider in Committee. As we discovered so often during extremely entertaining speeches when considering the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill of 1997, the devil will be in the detail.
  668
  I asked the Secretary of State, quite specifically, what the formula was for the election of closed-list assembly men. They are the minority of 11, but an important 11. Those 11 people will be in the privileged position of having no constituents. They will not have as much work to do as the others but they will probably have the same salary. They will not have the onerous constituency responsibilities—they will be mega-constituencies—as the other 14 assembly men.
  I asked the Secretary of State what the electoral formula would be. The right hon. Gentleman did not know. At least, he could not describe its operation. It is the familiar d'Hondt formula. I do not really understand it but I hoped for some instruction from the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that the payroll was paid to fulfil an educational function of that kind. However, if the Secretary of State cannot understand the formula, how is the average Londoner to comprehend it? To revert to the question of democracy, I think that a comprehensible electoral system is fundamental to any credible electoral process.
  The constituencies will be mega-constituencies of two or more boroughs. I do not think that that is right. Directly elected Members of the European Parliament showed us what that tended to mean. The average elector saw little of his Euro Member. Following the precedent that some colleagues on the assembly will not have constituencies, I suspect that we shall see little even of our constituency assembly men.
  I shall take a parochial view. We all do so because it is the way in which we judge most political processes. In Hillingdon, we shall be linked with Ealing. Hillingdon and Ealing do not have much in common apart from the fact that they are contiguous. However, Hillingdon is equally contiguous with Harrow in the north and with Hounslow in the south. I suppose that the compromise was to choose Ealing in the middle. That does not especially satisfy my constituents in Ruislip-Northwood. It may not—I hate to presume this—please the constituents of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) in the south. Apart from being a compromise, I do not see what there is in the linkage for the residents of Hillingdon.
  In democratic terms, I think that the assembly will be a step backwards from the old Greater London council. The GLC was a much more democratic body. There was one member for each parliamentary constituency. We usually came to know very well our local GLC representative. Ruislip-Northwood had a most distinguished GLC member. Indeed, Sir Cyril Taylor went on to become sheriff of Greater London. Many constituencies formed a close individual link with their Greater London council members.
  Again, to take the parochial perspective which I think is typical among the electorate, it is important that there should be someone elected for Hillingdon. After all, Hillingdon has London Airport; and in the Harefield ward, which is in my constituency, it has probably the greatest expanse of green belt in the whole of London. In area, the Harefield ward is as large as the borough of Islington. It has most of what is left of rural Middlesex.
  Under the proposed system of election, there is no guarantee whatever that we shall have any representative with a particular understanding, first, of air transport matters, which are so important to those who live round Heathrow and derive their livelihood from the airport.

  669
  Secondly, there is no guarantee that the area will be represented by someone who has any special understanding of rural and green-belt issues, which are so important to my constituents in Harefield. That, then, is the problem with the assembly.
  What about the mayor? I am probably very old fashioned but I suspect that the electorate understands what I am saying. I prefer first past the post. I do not like any jiggery-pokery with the figures once the votes are cast. The person who receives the most votes should be elected. I cannot see the merit in the supplementary vote system whereby the second preferences of those who are eliminated because they happen to have done worst—not first or second—count more than the second preferences of those who came first or second. That does not seem logical to me. If it is not logical to me, I doubt whether it will be logical to most of London's electors.
  Mr. Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in an election with six, seven or 10 candidates conducted under a first-past-the-post system there is the dangerous possibility of an extremist racist candidate winning with perhaps 20 per cent. of the vote? A supplementary vote would guarantee that such extremists would not win.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Again, I am old-fashioned. I believe in the wisdom of Londoners to choose an appropriate person for the job. It is fundamental that we should trust the electors to exercise their discretion. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's reasoning lay behind the Secretary of State's stipulation that there should be a threshold of 5 per cent. of the vote below which a candidate could not be returned to the assembly.
  I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point, except to the extent that it reinforces my argument with the hon. Member for Brent, East that the mayor, once elected, should be accountable. He will have huge powers of patronage over bodies such as the London development agency and the transport body for London. Offices of the greatest importance will be within his patronage. He should be checked and scrutinised and should be removable from office by a majority vote of the assembly. Co-operation and effective collaboration between the mayor and the assembly will be central to the efficacy of the Greater London authority. Londoners need to know that a mayor who misbehaves because he is racist, corrupt, lazy or inefficient can be removed easily.
  The reasoned amendment so wisely drafted by my right hon. Friends also mentions the effects on transport in London. The transport functions of the authority are probably of most interest to Londoners. We all suffer from traffic congestion and the difficulties of public transport. I deeply regret the fact that the Secretary of State has not made more progress with the reform of the London Underground.
  We are told that the tender process for the three infrastructure companies may not be completed until 2000. That is a long time for the bids to be open. In most commercial tenders there would be a much shorter period. Judging from the Labour party's manifesto for London, Londoners would have expected the Government to have in place by now—or, if we are being very generous, at least by the end of this year—a new system for running transport in London effectively.
  670
  I fear that there is potential for conflict between the mayoralty, with its overall responsibility for public transport in London, and commercial enterprises that have invested good money on behalf of their shareholders in the 30-year leases for the infrastructure companies. If there is too much political interference from the Greater London authority—or even a fear of such interference—the investment that the Government are hoping for will not be forthcoming.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) wisely pointed out, it is verging on the unethical for the Government to insert proposals on congestion charging and parking levies at places of work when those issues did not feature in the White Paper and were therefore not put to the electorate in the referendum campaign. They are more taxes on London.
  Mr. Raynsford: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House, even unintentionally. The White Paper made it clear that the Government were considering congestion charging and non-residential parking charging. A decision was deferred until publication of the subsequent transport White Paper. The issue was raised in the London White Paper and Londoners were aware of it.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Minister for that, but I am afraid that it does not exonerate the Government from my charge. A consideration of a matter is different from specific proposals. That bears out the argument of many Conservative Members that it would have been more honest of the Government to put to Londoners a post-legislative referendum, allowing them to judge exactly what the powers of the authority would be and how they would impinge on life in London.
  I fear that the effect of congestion charging will be negative on outer London. Motorists will come to the end of the tube line and leave their cars there, not wanting to pay the congestion charge. The congestion will be transferred from inner London to outer London, where traffic is already diabolical. I suspect that it will be made worse. The proposal will penalise those who take the trouble to get in their cars and go to work. Very often they do so for good economic or practical reasons. The idea will cause problems.
  A levy on parking spaces is also proposed. Employers are doing more than enough by providing work. They have to make pay-as-you-earn contributions, they have to pay business rates, they have to pay national insurance contributions and now employers in London will have to pay a levy for giving employment. That will make them less competitive and less likely to take on workers. The effect will therefore be negative.
  The Bill needs to be scrutinised with the utmost care in Committee. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I am glad that the authority will not become operational until the spring or summer of 2000. We need a careful scrutiny process in both Chambers. We shall need to select candidates for the mayoralty with the greatest care. We do not want people who are in it for an ego trip or for self-publicity. The job will require qualities of the highest order to co-operate with the assembly and work together effectively. That will not necessarily be achieved by someone seeking a high profile for themselves.
  The Liberal Democrats suggest that we use the intervening time for a Special Standing Committee. I chaired the Special Standing Committee on the Armed

  671
  Forces Bill. Even that fairly modest measure took days and days in Special Standing Committee. They do not even propose an open-minded Committee. The beauty of the Special Standing Committee system is that it takes as wide a spectrum of interested and informed opinion as possible so that it can come to the appropriate conclusions before the Standing Committee sits. The Liberal Democrats are suggesting what such a Special Standing Committee should do. Their instruction talks about the Greater London authority being
  "declared the regional government for Greater London"
  and having the power to conduct referendums. It would have tax-varying powers, and the ability
  "to transfer powers between the Mayor and the Assembly".
  Those are all issues of such magnitude that they could sensibly be discussed and approved only by the House.
  The Liberal instruction goes on to discuss
  "the establishment of parish and community councils in Greater London"—
  I would argue that exactly the same applies—and also says that the Greater London authority could have a role in overseeing health and further education services.
  The last two might have merits. We are bruised in our part of London because two of our leading hospitals—Mount Vernon and Harefield—are under threat, but health service issues could not be dealt with by a strategic authority for London without proper borough representatives. Most people are worried about their local hospital, the particular services that it supplies, and the particular features of their locality.
  Like my party's Front Benchers, I support the measure and the mayoralty, but I do not support the system of elections that has been chosen. I should like there to be directly elected representatives from each borough, and I hope that the Bill receives the thorough scrutiny in Committee that it deserves.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I also declare an interest as a candidate—not for mayor or for the assembly, but for the Standing Committee. I urge the Whips to use the d'Hondt mechanism for selecting its members, because on that basis I may stand a chance of getting on to it.
  It is 12 years since the abolition of the Greater London council, and I greatly welcome this excellent Bill. It will restore democratic strategic government to our city, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on his strength of commitment to our capital city in securing parliamentary time, as a priority, to get the Bill through. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction, for the dedication, expertise and professionalism that he has shown in the drafting of the White Paper and for this mammoth Bill.
  I read an article at the weekend about the need to return to the fashion for erecting statues to national and local figures. After reading the Bill, my hon. Friend has my support for being shaped in concrete—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend should be shaped in stone.
  I do not want to dwell on the past, but it has been somewhat unseemly not to have had at least one word of apology or regret from Conservative Members for the past
  672
  decade, in which London has been left bereft of democratic leadership. It is disheartening that any repentance, even at this late stage, appears to be too much to ask from them.
  Whatever one thought of the GLC—many of us had immense criticisms of its structure and role—surely political wisdom dictated reform rather than abolition. Indeed, in the early 1980s there was cross-party support at county hall, and in some parts of the House, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, for reform to establish a streamlined structure, some of which is in the Bill. The Bill will right the wrong of abolition, but in considering it we have to address the question whether it will achieve a reformed authority that will prove effective in representing and forwarding the interests of Londoners.
  There are five tests of any democratic body. First, does the authority have clear and suitable objectives? Secondly, does it have sufficient powers to achieve those objectives? Thirdly, is its structure and organisation capable of delivering its goals? Fourthly, can it secure the resources that it needs to fulfil its role? Fifthly, will it command sufficient popular support, democratic involvement and participation to stand the test of time?
  On the first test, the objectives of the new authority are set out at clause 25, which states:
  "The Authority shall have the purpose of promoting economic and social development in Greater London and the improvement of the environment in Greater London."
  It goes on to emphasise economic development, social development, sustainable development, the creation of wealth and improvements in the health of Londoners as key objectives.
  The Bill represents a written constitution for the strategic governance of our city. Although I did not expect literary artistry in the drafting of that essential clause—or calls for liberté, égalité and fraternityé—we could have been slightly more forthcoming to make explicit the positive role and duty of the new government for our city. We should set out clearly as our authority's objective the securing of the well-being of Londoners and the enhancement of the quality of life in the capital. Drawing on the White Paper to redraft that clause would give more definition to the dynamic and beneficial role that we expect the new authority to play.
  I appreciate that much of the inspirational detail of the objectives, role and policies of the new body will be derived from the individual policy strategies which are to be drafted by the mayor. Surely in that key clause, however, there should be more specific reference to the vital role that the authority will play in promoting social cohesion, securing community safety, tackling poverty, achieving greater equality and tackling discrimination in any form.
  In addition, a significant omission in the list of strategies for which the mayor has been given development responsibility—at clause 33—is that no specific duty is placed on the mayor to develop strategies of that sort. I am also anxious that a general duty has been placed on the authority to ensure reasonable balance between promoting economic, social and environmental development. My anxiety is not about the spirit of that proposal, but about its prospective implementation, which appears to open up a vista of litigation from individual London boroughs and ratepayers and hamstring the new authority's activities.

  673
  On the question whether the new body has sufficient powers to achieve its objectives, I am pleased that it has not only been given a wide breadth of responsibilities, but that a range of explicit powers of direction are linked to those responsibilities.
  There are, however, two areas of concern. They stem from threats from above and below. From above, I am extremely concerned that clarity should be achieved on the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene in the policies and operation of the Greater London authority.
  London First, a business organisation for London, has identified 30 examples of where the Secretary of State can exercise power over the new authority and has expressed concern that they range from fundamental controls over budget setting and policy development to relatively minor issues such as approving the penalties for parking on strategic roads.
  My right hon. Friend has a sweeping power under the Bill to issue guidance to the authority on the exercise of its role, as defined at clause 25. Clarity is needed on how, and where, that guidance will be developed and debated before being issued, and how he is to be held to account for the exercise of that power.
  For the first time in local government legislation, there is also an extraordinary duty placed upon the mayor, at clause 33, to have regard to
  "the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policy and international obligations."
  That will introduce a national veto and control over local policymaking, which has never before been made that brutally explicit in local government legislation. In respect of international obligations, we are reminded of some past policies of the GLC, where we thought that it would be invading various places.
  From below, the threat to the potence of the new authority lies in the fact that lack of definition of the GLA's remit remains in key areas. For example, in planning I am still unsure how the strategic issues over which the GLA will have responsibility will be defined in practice or what consultation will take place to develop the Secretary of State's guidance on the matter.
  Planning was always a source of conflict and duplication between the former GLC and the boroughs, and it is important that we avoid such confusion under the new structure. In some areas the proposals in the Bill to exclude London borough councillors from serving on strategic bodies may work to reduce the understanding, support and co-operation from the boroughs.
  In assessing whether the new structure is capable of achieving the goals of the new authority, it is clear that, at the bureaucratic level, the bringing together of the expertise from the surviving strategic organisations will provide a proficient professional base for policy advice and research. I support also the introduction of term-limited political appointments, to form the senior policy team for the mayor. That recognises the reality of many key senior appointments in local authorities across the country and the practice, which is to appoint people who are sympathetic to the causes and the objectives of an authority.
  The new structure seeks to be as inclusive as possible by ensuring that there is a requirement upon the mayor to consult various interests in the preparation of key
  674
  strategies, including in some policy areas, the setting up of strategy groups. However, there is an inconsistency: policy areas such as culture warrant the establishment of a strategy group whereas no strategy groups are envisaged to deal with noise, air quality or waste, for example. Similarly, some unusual omissions in the designation of whom the mayor should consult in drafting a strategy may need to be reconsidered. On biodiversity, for example, the Bill does not require consultation with the London Wildlife Trust or the Groundwork Trust.
  Inclusive consultation could have been facilitated if the Bill formally supported the formation of a London civic forum, which was mentioned earlier. I hope that we reconsider that proposal, which is supported by the London Voluntary Service Council, the London Churches Group and the Association of London Government. It would establish a cross-sector, cross-community body that was firmly rooted in London's voluntary sector and civil society to advise the GLA on policy making for the capital. Moreover, it would place a duty on the mayor to consult such a forum.
  I believe that the assembly's powers should be strengthened so that it has the right to be consulted on appointments to all the groups and consultation bodies. The lack of a right to recall the mayor has been highlighted. Such a right would not be a Lewinsky or impeachment clause; it would give the assembly the opportunity to exercise democratic control if things went wrong.
  We should also consider what qualifications people need to stand for the assembly or for mayor. The Bill allows people to stand merely because they have a business interest or own some land in the city. On that basis, anyone who has made a large amount of money from writing poor novels may stand for the position of mayor in any city in the country on the basis that he has bought a small plot.
  A fundamental test of the new structure will be whether it can marshal sufficient financial resources and expend them effectively to implement its policies and realise its objectives. I welcome the restoration of the precept but regret the reserved power to limit the GLA's ability to raise a sufficiently high rate to tackle all the long-term needs of Londoners, dependent on the wishes of Londoners. I also regret that we are not restoring the business rate, although that is another debate.
  I am pleased that there will be a right of virement across functional bodies and additional funding sources, such as congestion and parking charges. I suggest that we leave it open to the strategic authority to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider additional funding sources, which may be hypothecated to pay for specific services.
  I suggest a further and less contentious innovative proposal for additional resources. The City of London is proposing a Bill to reform its electoral arrangements in a pathetic attempt to dress up the inherently undemocratic sham of an authority that seems capable of serving a good dinner but not of running a vital part of London. I suggest that we insert into the Bill an amendment to the Corporation of London's proposal and allow the mayor to negotiate a voluntary lump sum payment or levy on the corporation to support Londonwide projects. Such an amendment would allow the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill to be passed contentedly; without the amendment, the Bill would be unsupportable. Some may

  675
  claim that that is a subtle attempt at blackmail against the Corporation of London; all I say is that no subtlety is intended.
  The final test of popular support will be whether the new authority can gain and maintain popular support. I believe that people will judge the new authority on whether it is relevant to their lives. That will depend on its powers, resources, influence and freedom to act. It will also depend on whether the people of London have a genuine opportunity to choose the candidate whom they want. Any grubby attempt to manipulate the internal selection process of a political party to prevent any candidate from running will not only have repercussions for that party but may undermine the credibility of the new authority.
  I conclude with these optimistic words: I welcome the Bill and wish it good speed. In thanking the Minister for London and Construction and his team, I pay tribute to some of those civil servants who have worked over the past decade to ensure that the Bill is delivered in a form that can be supported. I thank in particular Madeleine Williams, the deputy secretary of the Association of London Government. She pioneered the London study and has worked for the past 12 years to develop alternative proposals once again to secure democratic government for London. People of principle such as her have enabled this debate to take place today.
  7.45 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Unlike other hon. Members who have spoken, I have no interests to declare. I was elected by the people of Beckenham to represent their interests in the House, not to divide my democratic energies between the House and a London assembly.
  In the short time that I have represented Beckenham, I have discovered how unenthusiastic the borough of Bromley is about a mayor and an assembly. The area had one of the highest turnouts in the referendum but the smallest possible endorsement for the proposals. I suspect that, if the local elections had been going slightly differently, Bromley may have been the borough that did not vote for the mayor and the assembly.
  Hon. Members may remember Bromley as the borough that challenged the fares fair policy, which began the Greater London council's demise. A strong suspicion of a centralised London authority continues to dominate the conversations that I have with people in Bromley about the new Bill. People, especially those involved in local government, are deeply concerned about the imbalance that may reassert itself when there is a mayor and assembly in London.
  Many well-off people live in Bromley. The council has managed its affairs—at least until the most recent local elections, when the Labour and Liberal parties formed an uneasy coalition—well and frugally; it has not charged residents huge amounts in local taxation. People are concerned that the Bill will mean that local taxes will increase. We have heard reassurances, although I could not make out whether the Secretary of State said that there would be a charge of 3p or three per cent. per week—
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Three pence.
  Mrs. Lait: I thank the hon. Lady for that information. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West
  676
  Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, the London School of Economics has calculated that that figure is more likely to be £2 per person per week. That would just be a start, however; as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said, and as most Conservative Members believe, taxes inevitably go up, however much we try to keep them down. That will be especially true of an organisation such as the assembly; given the opaque nature of the proposed powers, the temptation will be to increase taxes—it will be the people in Bromley who have to pay.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that London has great poverty and great riches. No one would disagree with that but if, as he suggested, there is an attempt to sort out that problem through redistribution of wealth, the mayor and assembly will immediately face huge resentment. Bromley and many of the outer boroughs will be very suspicious of the assembly if it proposes any significant redistribution of wealth.
  Hon. Members from both sides of the House have expressed concerns about relations between the mayor and the Secretary of State. Clause 27 makes it clear that the Secretary of State can override anything that the mayor wants to do. I am sure that, with the best will in the world, Ministers will say that that will not happen, but the Bill none the less allows for it.
  It does not take a lot of imagination to envisage a situation where Ministers have one objective and the mayor has another, which may be a well-founded desire by the people of London for a certain policy. However, if Ministers disagree, there will be controversy and a debilitating row. Exactly the same could happen between the mayor and the boroughs.
  It is clear from the Bill, and the briefing that goes with it, that the mayor can ask the boroughs to do a great deal of work that will cost them a great deal of money, and that the mayor can keep on demanding that work. Again, that will be at great cost to council taxpayers in the boroughs—to no productive effect, necessarily. The speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) showed the desire to usurp the functions of the boroughs to bring them in towards the assembly.
  Conflict is inevitable, and it will be bitter and hard fought, because we must recognise that the assembly will be as political as this Chamber—although there will not necessarily be the huge majority that we have here. In such circumstances, the government of London could be paralysed. I find that concerning, and I hope that Committee members tease out a much clearer definition of what the mayor does and what the relationships will be.
  One matter that has been mentioned in Bromley is the transfer of the police functions to a police authority. I join with others—including the Metropolitan police—in welcoming a Metropolitan police authority. However, the Secretary of State is keeping responsibility for the provision by the Metropolitan police of the national functions required for London, such as the diplomatic protection service, and others. I am not sure how those are to be paid for. Will that money be given by the Secretary of State to the police authority? Will the citizens of London at any time have to pay for those costs to the Metropolitan police? Who will manage those functions? The Commissioner will report directly to the Secretary

  677
  of State. How will that fit in with the priorities that the Metropolitan police authority may well have? That is another recipe for conflict.
  In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Brent, East bid for the assembly to become the health authority for London, and for more tax-raising powers. I would not be at all surprised if my constituents were not tempted to vote for the hon. Gentleman, if only out of devilment, to try to subvert the assembly, which they do not like. It will be a turn-up for the books if the hon. Gentleman even emerges as a candidate—and that will be an interesting process to watch. It would be interesting to see how many votes the residents of Beckenham would give to him.
  I am concerned at the hon. Gentleman's desire for more control. I used to chair a family practitioner committee in the east end of London, and I was the chairman during the move from a family practitioner committee to a family health services authority. The membership went down from 36 to 11, and we changed from a debating society into an organisation that could make decisions and get things done. If we are to change the nature of health authorities into a system that is controlled and run by the assembly—as wished for by the hon. Member for Brent, East—we will go back to those debating authorities, decisions will never be made and, I am afraid, the health service provided to Londoners would not be as well managed as it currently is.
  We have had discussions about schedule 13, paragraph 15(5), and we have heard reassurances from the Minister that no money raised from congestion taxation shall go to the Secretary of State. If that is so, why does the Bill state that the Secretary of State will be able to take money and put it into the Consolidated Fund? If he were not going to have the money, we would not need that statement. I seriously hope that we get a clear answer and that that paragraph is deleted in Committee. That is the only way in which the Minister can be seen to carry out her promises on transport.
  As everyone will have registered by now, I believe that the people of Bromley are deeply suspicious of the assembly. They are concerned about its centralising effect, and that they will lose local powers. They are concerned that the assembly will cost them money, to no good effect. I very much hope that as the Bill goes through the House, it is so amended that the people of Bromley can feel reassured. However, I have to confess that I doubt it.
  7.56 pm
  Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I love London so. Wherever I go in the world, I come back to London, and my constituency of Romford, convinced that we have the most historic, interesting and vibrant capital city anywhere in the world. London has lacked direction and co-ordination over the past 12 years, but I believe that the Greater London authority will restore that direction and leadership.
  When I thought about this debate, I realised that different manifestations of a strategic body for London have been woven like a thread through my life. When my parents were living in a bomb-damaged tenement block in London in 1948, they were given the opportunity to move to a new house at Harold Hill in Romford by the
  678
  London county council. Many years later, when us children had grown up with families of our own, my parents moved within the Greater London council estate to be near us in their old age—a move that was relatively easy then and is incredibly difficult now, judging from my case work.
  When I protested about the abolition of the GLC 13 years ago, my children were toddlers and the placards that they carried were almost too big for them. I am proud that they will soon be able to vote for a mayor and an assembly for London, bringing a unity of purpose and pride back to London.
  At the time of the abolition of the GLC, I was angry at the undemocratic way in which it was done. I try to be a forgiving person, but I have never forgotten, and still deeply resent, the vandalism—some of it literal, as well as metaphorical—which followed the abolition. There were skips outside the back door of county hall and furniture was thrown out. The archive was broken up and the building was sold.
  Every time I see the new office block going up across the road—which will house offices for Members of Parliament—I look across the river at county hall, which would have made excellent offices and, no doubt, would have saved the public a lot of money. In addition, it would have provided a home for the new assembly. I have nothing against the companies in county hall, but I cannot bear to go in there—it is too painful a memory.
  Following the abolition, London fell into the hands of residual bodies and quangos. Our capital city deserves better than that. Services were fragmented, and there was no overview of London's needs. Only a Labour Government could have the courage to restore a democratically elected strategic body for London.
  Nowhere is a Londonwide strategy needed more than in transport. Anyone who travels across or in and out of London—and about 3.5 million people work here—needs no lectures about the problems. Trains, buses and the underground do not stop at local authority boundaries, and there must be a co-ordinated public transport strategy. We all know that the sheer volume of traffic—cars and freight—means that it takes only a minor accident or a few cones to bring everything to a standstill. Even bicycle lanes can come to a sudden end because the road goes into a different London borough.
  Getting London's transport right—and moving—is a mammoth task, and one for which the mayor and Transport for London will be best suited. The mayor will have a general duty to promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services, both to and from and within London. The Bill requires the mayor to prepare an integrated transport strategy which deals with the movement of goods and all forms of transport, including walking.
  Transport for London will implement that strategy. It will be an executive body, with a board comprising not politicians, but people who know something about transport and management. It will be answerable to the Greater London authority, and thus to the Londonwide electorate.
  I warmly welcome the commitment to concessionary fares for the elderly. Introduced by the GLC and supported by London boroughs, the freedom pass is indeed a liberating concession. It is one of the few advantages of growing older and I know that it is much

  679
  appreciated in Romford. My sister was thrilled to get her pass and uses it to full advantage, hopping on and off buses and travelling up to London. By contrast, my sister who does not live in London has to think carefully about travel in her area, as it is so expensive. The freedom pass keeps people young and in contact. I hope that, when we open up river transport, concessions will be available for that, too.
  In an area such as Romford, where car ownership is relatively high, many pensioners choose to use public transport rather than cars for local journeys because they have their pass, thus saving further congestion. We certainly do not want granny and granddad gridlock. I am pleased that the Bill, as far as I understand it, enables the Secretary of State to require London local authorities to meet the cost of providing concessions, even when they have not agreed arrangements to do so. The annual round of negotiating agreements has caused pensioner groups much concern in the past; now I hope that there will be a guarantee.
  The provision to maintain transport for the disabled is likewise very important, and I am glad that dial-a-ride will be the responsibility of Transport for London and that there will be negotiations with the boroughs about the taxi card. I hope that the mayor and Transport for London will also consider the orange badge scheme. I have been involved in several cases in which the London boroughs seem to have been using different rules for badge holders. Constituents of mine have received fines in Westminster and Camden because their orange badges were not accepted. There should be equality of issue and implementation, giving orange badge holders as much access to parking as possible. The mayor and Transport for London could work with the boroughs on that.
  I make no apologies for mentioning minicabs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) did. Like most hon. Members, I wanted minicabs to be regulated, and we now have the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, which will begin to be implemented next year. I know that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I truly believe that, had the GLC been in place, that legislation would have been dealt with years ago. The GLC would not have tolerated unregulated minicabs in London, and who knows how many accidents and assaults would have been avoided?
  It makes sense that licensing for both taxis and minicabs should come under one body: Transport for London, transferring from the Public Carriage Office. I again make no apologies for echoing my hon. Friend's request that taxi drivers be allowed to designate taxis as non-smoking and that a charge should be made for those taking the knowledge. At the moment, because it is free to applicants it can be treated in rather a cavalier fashion. Indeed, about 85 per cent. of applicants never attain the knowledge and the successful drivers, who pay for their licences, subsidise the unsuccessful, so passengers pay indirectly for the inefficiency of the system.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There is another view on why so few people qualify, which has to do with the rather difficult to understand central control of the exam process, which makes applying a lengthy process. The office that deals with these matters must be shaken up because the situation is far from satisfactory.
  Mrs. Gordon: I absolutely agree. All parties are looking to modernise the system.
  680
  I welcome the new police authority for London, the majority of whose members will be from the elected assembly. I also welcome the provision for environmental and waste management issues to be dealt with Londonwide because, again, pollution does not stop at a borough boundary. I further welcome the strategic overview of planning and monitoring London's health services, but I would like to see to what depth that goes.
  On the day when the Bill receives Royal Assent, I will feel that the wound of the abolition of the GLC has healed. Once again, we will have a strategic body looking after London, elected by Londoners and believing, as most Londoners do, that ours is the most wonderful city and deserves the best government.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. John Randall: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. We have heard some excellent contributions, and I single out those of my neighbours, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). When the Greater London council was abolished, they both had roles in politics: my hon. Friend was in the House, as he has told us, and the hon. Gentleman was, I believe, a member of that blighted organisation.
  I share some of my hon. Friend's views. I was not involved in any of the decision making—I was more likely to be dusting down some old cabinet at the time—but I have some sympathy with the view that reform of the GLC would have been better than total abolition. I must concede, however, that there would have had to be a great deal of reform. This might be seen as a bid by me not to be put on the Committee.
  The Bill is lengthy and weighty. It details the functions, finances and electoral arrangements for the new authority. Many of the arguments were rehearsed last year, when we debated the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill. With my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, I am very sorry that the Bill does not include a stronger constituency base.
  I would be interested to hear from Labour Members, who have been talking about the great virtues of the GLC, which had a strong constituency base, whether they feel happy that the tie is now pretty well lost. Hillingdon is tied with Ealing. I can see the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in his place, and the thought of being tied with him is, of course, greatly appealing. However, if the GLC was such an admirable body, can Labour Members explain why getting rid of the constituency allegiance is a good approach for the new authority?
  The House does not need to be reminded that the Conservatives favoured splitting the question posed in the referendum, so that voters would have the choice between having a mayor or an assembly, or both or neither. The Government were not persuaded by our powerful arguments and we ended up with a single question on the ballot paper. At least the debate allowed the House to air the arguments about the future of London government and we are revisiting those arguments tonight.
  The referendum result was disappointing. The turnout was a mere 34.6 per cent. and it could be argued that Londoners did not flood to the polls to vote in favour of the new structure. As a Member who represents an outer London borough, I must say that the support for and

  681
  interest in the referendum was not impressive. The poor turnout resulted in some bizarre logic from the Minister for Transport in London. She argued that the poor turnout was a sign of overwhelming support for the Government's plan, which was a curious defence. I suppose that I am just learning.
  The referendum confirmed the Government's desire to introduce the mayor and the assembly as a complete package. We made it clear that we did not believe that the two would work well together. In fact, we believe that the structure in the Bill has a high chance of resulting in conflict between the mayor and the assembly. There is no guarantee that the two will agree. It could be argued that the paranoia over the choice of the Labour candidate betrays the Government's fear of inevitable conflict between the assembly and a Conservative mayor and also between the assembly and a mayor of the old Labour variety. It is also possible that the mayor could be from one party and the majority of the assembly from another, and both would feel that they had been mandated in their elections.
  Potential for conflict also exists between the boroughs and the assembly, as many local government leaders have pointed out. The Bill will result in a mayor, an assembly, the London development agency, the Government Office for London and the 32 London boroughs all vying for as much influence and power as they can get. Conflict will result at all the different levels, unavoidably leading to more bureaucracy.
  The Conservatives' plan for a committee of the borough leaders or of borough representatives—my preference—to advise the mayor would mean that the existing structure of local government would be integrated into the new arrangement, not excluded as proposed in the Bill. It is difficult to see how the Bill squares with the Government's desire to renew local government, as outlined in the recent White Paper. The Bill makes numerous references to the Greater London authority's strategies having to be compatible with nationally determined policy, but power would not be decentralised to the GLA if its functions were hedged round with so many constraints.
  The use of the additional member system for electing the assembly involves two votes, as we have heard. It is not clear why two votes will be necessary to operate the system. The percentage share of the vote achieved at constituency level is surely enough of a basis for allocating the top-up seats. More controversially, why does the Bill propose to have the mayor's deputy chosen from the assembly? Would it make more sense for the deputy to be elected directly? In the event of the mayor's position becoming vacant, there would then be no need to rerun the election. It might be argued that the Labour party is having so many problems trying to find one mayoral candidate who is acceptable to the leadership and the party managers that it might be even more difficult to find a running mate. I wish to put in a bid for the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington because he has relevant experience and blind loyalty to the leadership. I hope to advance his career as much as I can.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has already put in a bid for the Opposition to support the candidacy of my hon. Friend
  682
  the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). We now hear that Conservative voters in Uxbridge are flooding to the standard being raised, nobly and heroically, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). At some stage might we hear the name of a Conservative who attracts any support on the Opposition Benches?
  Mr. Randall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We do not have a problem with our candidates, because we have so many to choose from. Labour Members seem unable to make up their minds and have to wait for messages to come through. There are some good candidates available who will probably bring the authority quickly into disrepute.
  The Bill proposes a London development agency, which would be an additional unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, overlapping with the GLA and local government. Most of the LDA' s functions are carried out by other organisations, such as London First. The proposed agency would add yet another layer of bureaucracy on top of all the others proposed in the Bill.
  We welcome the idea of a directly elected mayor, working in conjunction with the 32 London boroughs, but we oppose a structure that would come between the boroughs, leading to confusion and conflict. London is a hugely successful city and a major part of the British economy. It has had rave reviews in newspapers and magazines all over the world. It is a major cultural and tourist centre, attracting millions of visitors every year. None of that is the result of the Greater London authority, but of the enterprise and hard work of its people. London needs a directly elected mayor, working with the London boroughs and helping to co-ordinate solutions to the city's problems. It does not need another layer of government on top of those that exist already.
  8.18 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: A dozen years ago, a promise was made to the people of London that at some future time they would again have the chance to be represented as the citizens of a great city should be. There was not a dry eye on the south bank on that grim night in March 1986 when we sang along to the strains of Dame Vera Lynn and imagined the bluebirds over the white cliffs of county hall. The bluebirds are now dead, stuffed with particulates and lead, but the vision remains the same. The Labour Government have delivered on that promise. We have not gone back, because times have changed and the responses required of Government have also changed. We now have a wonderful opportunity to create a new city government for a new millennium. That government will have flair, vision and energy.
  A city government that combines the talents of the mayor and the assembly will be able to champion the cause of London, represent its needs, campaign for innovative solutions to its problems and lead on its external relations. Above all, it can offer a truly inclusive model of government, helping to redress the deep divisions that scar the city—divisions between the extremely wealthy and the poor; between the highly trained, educated working population and the unskilled unemployed; between the life opportunities of black Londoners and white Londoners; and between central

  683
  London and the suburbs. I was tempted to offer to bridge the gap between north and south London, but I decided not to be silly.
  In pursuit of the vital objective of inclusive representation, it is right to break with the idea of electing assembly members matched with boroughs. It is right to draw a mix of members from geographically based constituencies topped up on a citywide basis. The Conservative party is wrong to argue for a form of government drawn from the 32 boroughs.
  The Association of London Government represents local government in London and, as last week's grant settlement helped to confirm, it does so extremely well. During the debate on the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill last year, we argued that the worst system would be to have specific boroughs represented in the assembly, either by members directly elected from the boroughs, or by drawing from the leaders of the borough councils.
  Mr. Randall: Why, then, was such a system the basis of the Greater London council, which the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends seem to think worked so well?
  Ms Buck: The GLC was based on parliamentary constituency borders, not local authority boundaries. I am not arguing that the GLC was the ideal model of government; I do not think it was. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said, it had flaws, and it is, in any case, right, 12 years later, to consider a new model.
  The problems of borough representation are twofold. On the one hand, borough representatives argue for their local agendas, which differ for outer London boroughs and central London boroughs for all kinds of reasons that are reflected in the political control of the boroughs. On the other hand, an assembly drawn from individual constituencies or local boroughs would make it easy for the mayor to construct coalitions of support by favouring particular boroughs or constituencies. That is why the electoral boundaries have been drawn in such a way that each constituency represents at least two local authority areas.
  We must allow the Association of London Government to get on with the job it does so well—representing local government. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, the leaders of local authorities should be left to get on with representing their own authority's interests.
  Responsibility, Mr. deputy mayor—
  Mr. Pound: It is Mr. Deputy Speaker at the moment.
  Ms Buck: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Responsibility should devolve from the Government, or rise from the boroughs, to reflect particular issues that are being transferred to the mayor and the assembly. Many other hon. Members have put the arguments for co-ordinated and pan-London strategies for issues such as transport, environmental protection, strategic planning and policing. I am perhaps a little jaundiced by my own experience of local borough representation because I represent at least part of the borough of Westminster, whose controlling councillors could not run a whelk stall without seeking to turn it to their electoral advantage, then
  684
  splitting the profits to pay their own legal fees. I have a particular desire to see that that borough does not have a higher profile in the strategic management of London.
  The interaction of mayor and assembly will create an opportunity to develop a new political style based on dialogue and practical negotiation. There will be conflict aplenty. I was surprised and disappointed to hear hon. Members talk as if conflict was a bad thing. It lies at the root of politics, and it is healthy and right as long as it is rooted in a passionate conviction about the best solutions for the problems of London rather than point-scoring exercises or sterile bickering.
  The constituency style of representation by which the assembly is to be elected will demand a new style of politics. We shall seek to include in those politics the many disfranchised communities in London. I was particularly pleased to note that representatives of Operation Black Vote have welcomed the mayor and the assembly in the belief that an assembly with powers on economic regeneration and the appointment of a police committee will be perceived as being more important to black Londoners than the local boroughs. We must take the opportunity to reach out to the quarter or so of the London population who are non-white so that we can bring them more directly into our political and civic processes.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington in asking the Government seriously to consider the idea of a civic forum. That idea, which was debated during our proceedings on the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, would create a vital counterweight to the political management of the city through the mayor and the assembly.
  The relations of the mayor and the assembly with central Government will involve more than a little creative tension, as they should. The Evening Standard had it about right in its editorial last week, when it said:
  "The balance will be hard to strike … A Mayor who turned out to be little more than a Departmental Minister will be too tame for London's tastes … on the other hand, a Mayor conducting a running duel with central government will be equally damaging."
  That comment positively screams for a response along the lines of a third way, but I shall resist that temptation. A challenge will give the mayor and the assembly something to rise to, and will give the Government something to which to respond. Londoners will not forgive any participants who neglect their duty in favour of posturing or vapidity.
  The task facing the mayor and the assembly is huge. If we were pitched today into the anticipated annual state-of-London debate, which is a welcome part of the Bill, contributors would rightly focus on transport, an issue addressed by many hon. Members this evening. They could draw on the recent revelation that speeds on the capital's roads have fallen again to a 19th century average of 10 miles an hour. At the same time, however, one child in seven is afflicted with breathing disorders such as asthma.
  The recent MORI survey referred to by hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) related to an Evening Standard poll that found that poor air quality and too much traffic were by far the most serious perceived threats to health. An estimated 24,000 excess deaths in Britain's urban areas are connected to pollution. Tough action cannot come soon enough.

  685
  Such a debate would focus also on the need for further and more evenly spread improvements in the Metropolitan police's reduction of crime. It would encourage the police to tackle the injustices of stop-and-search figures that overwhelmingly discriminate against black Londoners. A more accountable Metropolitan police service will be very welcome, and it can and must demonstrate that it is a service for everyone in London.
  The debate would also pay attention to an excellent study—on which the Association of London Government should be warmly congratulated—that maps out the challenge of combining economic regeneration in all parts of London with the need for environmental sustainability.
  No doubt, contributions would also be sourced to the recent independent public health study on health inequalities in Britain which, alongside other evidence, confirms that the incidence of suicide among young men is reaching a critical—even an academic—level in the city and that the scale of psychiatric morbidity in central London is four times the national average, while also confirming the recurrence in the late 1980s and 1990s of the diseases of poverty, such as tuberculosis, which have been linked to chronic overcrowding and the rise of homelessness. The devastating impact of poverty and social exclusion would be spelt out, drawing attention to facts, such as the fact that, in 1996, one in four of London's children lived in households with no one in work.
  The mayor and assembly, with the tools available to them, can take on the policy debate about London's future and simplify and popularise it. There can and must be a transparent set of objectives for change in London and transparency in the measurement of progress. Citizens of London should know as fact whether our city is, at least partially thanks to their efforts, moving towards the goals of a cleaner environment, a more competitive economy and greater social inclusion. For, as "The London Study" points out,
  "there is not one London, but many, and children in the different Londons have grown up in different worlds".
  Those divisions and that experience have weakened us, and the absence of an effective voice for London has allowed those divisions to deepen. Now, we are being given the chance to make a fresh start. As an Essex girl who came to the city 20 years ago and fell in love with it, that makes me proud.
  Henry James summed up the city rather well at the end of the 19th century, when he said:
  "It is not a pleasant place, it is not agreeable or cheerful or easy or exempt from reproach. It is only magnificent."
  It is good, at last, to see it getting the government that it deserves.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I was first elected to my local authority, the London Borough of Sutton, in 1986, at the point at which the Greater London council was about to cease to be. For the past 12 years—it seems more like 15—I have observed the way in which London has been governed as a consequence.
  I once saw a chart that was drawn up by someone who was trying to map the lines of accountability of decision making in London following the abolition of the GLC. So
  686
  confusing was it, with all the quangos and joint boards that had been established, that it looked like a plate of spaghetti. It is no wonder that people have felt increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of governance in our capital city. That is why I welcome the opportunity in the coming weeks and months to debate with the Government how we should re-institute and restore to London what it always needed, which is a voice and a proper way to gather the strategic view and translate it into action.
  In so far as the Bill returns to Londoners that right to self-government, I welcome it, as do my colleagues. However, I must point out to the Minister for London and Construction and the Minister for Transport in London that, during the referendum campaign earlier this year, I did not detect much enthusiasm on the doorsteps in my constituency for the Government's proposals. Indeed, the level of awareness of the existence of the referendum was depressingly low. I am sure that Ministers found it depressingly low as they were working hard to try to raise the turnout and raise interest in the issue.
  Londoners may have voted yes in the referendum, but many more of them did not express a view one way or the other, and it is inappropriate for any of us to attribute our view to those people who did not cast a vote. In my constituency, few people mentioned the referendum on the doorstep. I dare say that the issue failed to excite constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps that is a reflection of the general expectation, as recorded in the opinion polls, that it was going to happen anyway—that London would get a new form of government. After all, the majority of Londoners voted in the general election for parties that favoured restoring government for London. Perhaps it also reflected the fact that the referendum did not allow us to debate how London should be governed, but shifted the focus to the more media-friendly question of who should govern London. Like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) I believe that it was a mistake for the Government not to allow more questions on the ballot paper, but, equally, I accept that that is now passed and we must deal with the legislation before us. That is what my colleagues and I intend to do.
  Offering Londoners no choice of the way in which they were governed was perhaps a sign that the Government lacked confidence in their case—or perhaps they do not trust the judgment of Londoners. That lack of trust goes through the Bill. In some ways, the Government are hard-wiring a lack of trust into the new institutions. I shall demonstrate what I mean. The Secretary of State does not appear to trust the mayor, who is not allowed to trust the assembly or the London boroughs.
  The Bill is crammed full of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct and guide the mayor. The purse strings are tightly held by Whitehall. Indeed, as Tony Travers and Gerry Stoker wrote in the Association of London Government's paper, "A Tale of Two Cities, the Government of New York: Lessons for London":
  "The greatest doubts about the proposals for London remain around its fiscal and financial capacity. The Mayor of London will have much more than the Mayor of New York to look to higher levels of government for funding. The relationship between the Albany—capital of the state—and New York is not always comfortable.

  687
  The proposed new arrangements for London may prove even more difficult for Whitehall given that the funding regime may give the Mayor little option but to look to central government for the increased resources, backed by the votes of some 5 million Londoners."
  In other words, the same disease that afflicts local government will afflict the Greater London authority: lack of financial independence. Without that, everything that is welcome in the Bill becomes secondary.
  Like any council, the GLA will be subject to the new twin capping regime—so-called sophisticated capping. The Secretary of State has described it as Prescott's sophisticated capping. I am delighted that he chose to add his name to the capping regime. There is also the council tax benefit clawback. The GLA's freedom of manoeuvre will be further circumscribed by the imposition of a spending floor as well as spending ceilings.
  The authority will find its power to promote economic, social and environmental well-being—I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that the Bill's wording on this is not appropriate—undermined by lack of discretion and flexibility in using its budgets. It will not have access to the revenues that it needs to fulfil its purpose.
  The GLA will be largely dependent on Whitehall for funding. Even new sources come with Treasury strings firmly attached. The proposals for congestion and non-residential parking space charges could leave Londoners footing the bill. Although we have had several welcome exchanges across the Floor and several welcome assurances from Ministers, the Bill makes it clear that moneys could be paid into the Consolidated Fund at the Treasury. There will be a problem if Londoners see themselves footing the bill without all the money flowing back into investment in improved public transport. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that we need to ensure that there is investment ahead of the introduction of what might be regarded by many Londoners, and many people who live outside London, as punitive charges. A carrot-and-stick approach may be necessary to overcome London's chronic transport problems, but if Londoners learn that the Treasury is siphoning off some of the proceeds, they will regard the charges as yet another tax.
  The charges must be clearly earmarked or hypothecated for transport in London. It is clear from the Bill that the Treasury has other plans. I hope that the assurances that were given earlier this evening by Ministers will be reflected in Government amendments to schedules 13 and 14.
  Mr. Ottaway: Fat chance.
  Mr. Burstow: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, "Fat chance."
  Clause after clause gives the Secretary of State powers to offer guidance or to intervene. I understand that the technical term for some of them is "Henry VIII clause". Perhaps we should adopt a more modern description of what the clauses are all about and call them the "Ken Livingstone clauses", just in case the persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) leads to his name appearing on the Labour party selection procedure ballot paper and he finds himself on the right side of the desk in the mayor's office.
  688
  The GLA will be highly dependent on the grace and favour of central Government for funding. It will also be very much directed by central Government in respect of its policy outputs and strategies.
  There is also the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. Alongside the mayor, the assembly is a weak and feeble institution. Liberal Democrats believe that we must rebalance the powers between mayor and assembly to give the assembly more teeth, more authority and greater ability to hold the mayor to account in his work and duties. Even with his or her powers heavily circumscribed by the Secretary of State, the mayor will hold massive powers of patronage through appointments and be subject to only the lightest of checks and balances by the assembly. The assembly has no role in scrutinising appointments, and it will have a largely negative and delaying role in matters of strategy and finance.
  Not only does the Bill provide the mayor with a mandate independent of the assembly's mandate: it goes on to deal all the aces to the mayor in his or her relationship with the assembly. In stacking the deck in the mayor's favour, the Bill gives the mayor the trump card in dealing with the London boroughs, as clause after clause takes power away from the London boroughs. In planning and in transport, the balance of power is tilted away from the interests of the individual borough and town hall towards the mayor's office.
  The results of concentrating power in the hands of the mayor and failing to institute adequate checks and balances are serious conflicts of interest. The mayor will appoint the board of the London development agency and he or she will also approve its strategy. The mayor also approves the spatial development strategy and has the power to compel London boroughs to bring their local powers into conformity with it. The mayor can even require a London borough to refuse planning permission. Given the retention of the applicant's right of appeal to the Secretary of State, if the mayor directs an authority to refuse planning permission, who picks up the costs if the inspector awards costs against the authority—the mayor or the individual authority? I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that when she winds up the debate.
  How will conflicts between the spatial development plan and the LDA's strategy be resolved? Outside London, the regional development agencies are not to be given planning powers, but the LDA will be perceived as having the power to exercise planning powers through the mayor. Those conflicts of interests run far wider than the administrative boundary of Greater London as, in matters of land use, transport and waste management planning, London's footprint—its impact—extends much further. It is important that organisations such as Serplan—the south-east regional planning conference—are in the loop when the mayor develops and consults on his or her strategies.
  What are the Government letting go of? The Government Office for London looks set to stay, to fight another day; and the democratic deficit in the health service will remain. Given the Government's stated aim of promoting more joined-up government, they have missed an opportunity to link health and sustainability issues more closely. The Bill does not make it clear that principles of sustainability should underpin all the strategies and policies of the GLA.

  689
  So far, I have spoken about the relationship between the different tiers of government. The success of the experiment depends on getting that relationship right, but the experiment will fail if the GLA, in all its many guises, does not engage with London's wider civic society. That is why the proposal of the London Voluntary Service Council that there should be a civic forum for London is so welcome. I strongly agree with the comments made by several hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Such a forum could build on many existing partnerships and tap a wealth of expertise for the benefit of Londoners. To be an effective partner to the mayor and the assembly, the forum would need to take its authority from statute. It should be provided for in the Bill and be seen to be more than just another consultation mechanism, alongside all the others that the mayor might or might not deem appropriate for the carrying out of his functions—
  Mr. Pound: Or her.
  Mr. Burstow: Indeed—or her functions. If London government is to be inclusive, consensual and influential, it needs that civic forum. Other hon. Members have said as much.
  London needs self-government. The capital needs a strong and effective strategic authority with a buoyant revenue base. There are many aspects of the Bill that I do not like, as hon. Members might have noticed, but it does provide the basis for a constructive debate and I hope that the Government will be receptive to proposals to improve it. If the Bill is not improved before becoming law, there is a danger that the House will have allowed the Government to establish a mannikin mayor with a puppet assembly, the first tied hand and foot to the policy goals of the Government of the day—perhaps not the current Government, but one with entirely different objectives—and the second far too weak to make a difference. That would not be good for London, nor would it be home rule for London; instead, it would be a continuation of the direct rule that has led to the spaghetti-like mess of quangos and joint boards, and to complete confusion about who is responsible for governing London.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Clive Efford: I join in this debate with a somewhat nasal voice, in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I shall also contribute a considerable amount of knowledge that no other hon. Member can bring to the debate. Having said that, I hope that I shall not disappoint my colleagues too much by announcing that I am not a candidate for mayor of London.
  It will not surprise anyone to hear that I welcome the Bill—all 277 clauses. The large number shows the importance of addressing the democratic deficit in London. For more than a decade, London has operated at a distinct disadvantage as a result of a lack of co-ordination in many areas of local government, including planning, economic development, transport and the environment.
  London's strategic approach to holding major events has also suffered. For instance, it has been some time since London last put together a bid to hold the
  690
  Olympics—although some have voiced the opinion that it should do so. The millennium experience exhibition will be staged close to my constituency, and some hon. Members may be surprised to learn that there has been a lack of co-ordination across London regarding that event.
  The millennium experience is a major event of national importance that will bring benefits not only to London but to the whole country. Despite the best efforts of many of my former colleagues and hon. Members who now occupy these Benches to introduce some sort of strategic approach across London, there is no chamber co-ordinating that event. The lack of a strategic authority has meant that arguments in favour of exhibitions such as the millennium experience or bids to stage major events such as the Olympics have fallen by the wayside.
  Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in regretting the past actions of the present Minister for Sport, his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—who I believe is mooted as a possible Labour candidate for London mayor? Shortly before Labour's victory in the general election, he tabled an early-day motion suggesting that South Africa, rather than Great Britain, should be the venue for the next World cup.
  Mr. Efford: I referred to a London bid to stage the Olympics, not the World cup. I would certainly support the staging of a future world cup in South Africa, and I am sure that that would not detract from the Government's World cup bid and the likelihood that a future world cup will be held in this country, with the final in London.
  I wish to address the strategic role of London, which is not easy to deal with in a Bill. I hope that the assembly's members and its mayor will give priority to the function that London performs as a gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom. London is the shop window through which businesses or people thinking of holidaying in the United Kingdom view this country and its regions.
  It is an inescapable fact that people look to London when they think of Britain. I do not detract in any way from Manchester's efforts to stage the Olympics, but it is highly unlikely that the International Olympic Committee or any other body that runs international sporting events will agree to stage those events or major sporting finals anywhere but in this country's capital. That is an inescapable role for London, to which the mayor and assembly will need to give priority.
  I have already mentioned the scepticism that surrounds the issue of the millennium. I have spoken to many people and hon. Members from the regions who think that too much money is being spent on the millennium, and that it will bring no benefits to them. As a former London taxi driver, I know that many people come to London to visit many of its major attractions, stay longer than is necessary to do so, and spend a considerable part of their holiday travelling to the regions.
  I say to those who have criticised the millennium experience as a waste of money that they should regard the event as an opportunity to attract its visitors to the regions. Not enough has been done to achieve that. A strategic authority for London will have the responsibility and the wherewithal to co-ordinate efforts to attract London's visitors to the regions. That issue highlights London's strategic role in the country, which we do not sufficiently appreciate.

  691
  Members of the authority will need to resist the temptation to view themselves merely as local representatives for London. There is an opportunity to redistribute resources from London. Currently, taxes paid by people employed in the London area provide a budget surplus of more than £200 per person. I am not recommending that Londoners should pay more than is necessary to the Exchequer in order to subsidise services in other parts of the country, but I recognise that people who are employed in London can make that level of contribution because of the city's special position in the nation's economy.
  It is right that London provides a surplus to the nation's capital that will be redistributed to the regions. That, too, demonstrates the importance of London and its strategic role, which could be lost if people focus on resources and try to claw back more and more to London at the expense of the regions.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) made a point about relatively high levels of deprivation, particularly in inner London. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is a case for greater recognition of the extent of deprivation, such as unemployment, in inner London, which, when we consider the distribution of resources around the country, is sometimes masked by the fact that London is one travel-to-work area, but the employment opportunities in some parts of inner London are relatively few?
  Mr. Efford: I accept that. There are examples of that deprivation in Eltham. It is true that there are pockets of deprivation in London which have missed out on resources because of the way in which they have been distributed. I am not suggesting that London is awash with the resources necessary to deal with those problems, but a major capital city such as London has the capacity to provide resources to the Exchequer which can be redistributed. My point relates to the important role of assembly members and the mayor in running the nation's capital, not just a regional government for London, which they need to remember.
  I certainly welcome the plans to co-ordinate public transport and the road system in London under the new transport authority. Those plans not only recognise the strategic role of roads in providing transport links, but allow a co-ordinated approach to transport.
  My constituency is not served by the London underground. People there rely heavily on the Connex South Eastern rail network to get to central London. That puts them at a considerable disadvantage because Connex is an extremely inefficient provider. It could be argued that that is largely because there is little alternative for the fare-paying public. They could get in their cars and drive to central London, but it is an incredibly inconvenient journey to have to make.
  My constituency is bisected by two major arterial roads—the A20 and the A2—which are heavily congested every morning, and my constituents suffer the resulting pollution. Introducing a strategic approach to public transport and giving the Greater London authority some influence over franchisees is to be welcomed.
  I take this opportunity to promote one of my pet subjects, which is the notion of turning over considerable chunks of our major arterial roads to designated bus links
  692
  that can be publicised as extensions of the London underground network. To introduce a rail link into the London underground network in south-east London is likely to take considerable time, but if we had a dedicated bus route, which was timetabled and understandable, and advertised in a way not dissimilar to the London underground network, we could provide major links with some of our smaller towns in the Medway area.
  We could bring people in on the M20 and the M2 to link with the new Jubilee line extension at North Greenwich, thereby allowing them to continue their journey. The exchange between a bus service of that nature and the London underground should be as seamless as changing from the Bakerloo to the Central line.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a growing consensus in London, among people of all parties and among those who belong to no party, that the part of the transport system that it is easiest to develop and to make responsive and flexible is the bus system? The hon. Gentleman's suggestion of more dedicated bus routes across the Greater London boundary, and within it, would be quicker to implement, and far less costly, than any of the alternatives immediately available.
  Mr. Efford: Yes, the road network is there, and the technology certainly exists to provide priority for buses at traffic lights and so on. We could at least begin to tackle the growth in traffic volume within the M25 boundary, especially in south-east London, where there is no alternative to the rail network. That would encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport, and allow them easily and swiftly to join the extension of the London underground network.
  I welcome the fact that certain responsibilities have been given to the mayor, especially that of improving air quality, which is related to the promotion of better public transport links. When I was chair of the environment committee in Greenwich, we undertook a survey outside several schools. We measured air quality throughout the day, and identified a serious pollution problem when parents were dropping off their children. The nice little school run, which is often undertaken when the car's engine operates at its least efficient, was making a considerable contribution to the poor air quality around some schools. At the same time, some parents in the area were part of the campaign to close one of the roads due to poor air quality.
  I have a problem with road pricing, of which I know my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction is aware. I have shared platforms with him on which we have discussed the issue. He has made a very good case, and I commend his abilities on the issue to everyone.
  The subject of the school run leads me to question whether road pricing will achieve its objective. Some of the most polluting journeys will not be prevented by it. Road pricing will be paid for by those who use their cars regularly along whichever roads charging is introduced. Those who can afford bigger cars will be able to afford the charges. Those who cannot, whose cars are perhaps less well maintained and cause more serious pollution, will be inconvenienced. Indeed, they may subsequently cause greater pollution by making even longer journeys in order to avoid paying charges.
  The jury is out on road pricing as far as I am concerned. I am not convinced that it will bring about the desired reduction, but I welcome any opportunity to raise

  693
  additional resources which can be invested in public transport. It is slightly perverse that the very pollution that we want to eliminate will be the source of such investment. Although I am yet to be convinced that road pricing is the best way forward, I accept that the mayor should have such an option in his or her armoury in order to try to deal with the ever-growing problem of traffic pollution in London.
  I think that everyone will welcome the new police authority. Anything that creates transparency in the operation of the Metropolitan police is to be welcomed. I shall not go into much detail, because I am certain that we will have an in-depth debate on the Metropolitan police early in the new year, following the publication of the report on the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in my constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred to the application by the police in London of stop-and-search powers. It is a sad fact that an innocent black person who lives in London is eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than a white person. The range of powers that the police have used, which are recorded in the latest annual report, shows that there is a problem with the way in which they target certain sectors of our community.
  The point must be made that democratic accountability is not a solution in itself. We must have adequate information in order to be able to monitor what the police do and how they target their resources. Such information is not collected. If the new strategic authority is to be an effective scrutineer and monitor of the Metropolitan police, it must conduct an urgent review of how police activities are monitored, how statistics are collected, what statistics are collected, and what methodology is used to collect them.
  Such scrutiny is essential if the police authority is to be effective and to run the sort of police force we all want for the city of London. I end with a plea to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Perhaps I may start by commenting on the penultimate point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford)—who, of course, knows his way around London better than the rest of us. To be serious, he made an important point about the Metropolitan police, and the Metropolitan police authority to be established by the Bill. I hope that, when we have discussed these matters a little more, he will agree that it is not enough to establish an authority whose members include several elected members, and to assume that the element of democratic accountability created thereby will resolve some of the problems instanced by the Stephen Lawrence case.
  The hon. Member must know, as I do, that it is necessary to change the culture from within, and that that cannot be done simply by monitoring, or by providing management information, or even by instituting democratic accountability to members of an authority. I suspect that the efforts of management inside the Metropolitan police, and perhaps the relationships that are
  694
  forged at borough level—such as between the local head of police in a given borough and the community in which that segment of the police service operates—are more likely than anything else to create the change of culture inside the police that all hon. Members seek.
  I shall now discuss the principles of the Bill. I do not represent a London constituency. Like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), I started as an Essex boy, as it were, in that area which was Essex when I was born there and is London now, but I have worked in London all my working life. It might be useful to inject into the debate a sense of its importance to Members beyond London. London is a powerful influence on our constituencies and the wider region in which we work, so we are keen to ensure that the Bill is effective. The Bill is part of our constitution making, so we are anxious that it should proceed along the right lines.
  As London is obviously a world city, we are not constructing the debate, or debating the Bill, on the basis that London should be examined within its own confines. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House substantially accept the Government's contention that London requires citywide government, not simply because it is a big place, but because it has a range of responsibilities, and because a range of issues affect people throughout and beyond London and have an impact on the region—and the nation, as the hon. Member for Eltham was at pains to point out.
  During the passage of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, I did not dissent from the principle of establishing some form of citywide government, because it was obvious to me that London occupies a unique position in this country and is a unique city. Although we have not reached that stage, in due course other cities may, in like fashion, desire to establish directly elected mayors to help manage their government, for reasons which, curiously, have not been mentioned in the debate.
  We speak of the importance of giving Londoners greater democratic involvement in decisions that affect all of London, but the electorate's participation in recent elections in London has been low. The greatest single contribution that a directly elected mayor for London could make might be to increase the participation of the electorate in elections, and in subsequent decisions as to what is to happen in the city as a whole.
  I make those arguments partly because debate on the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill centred so much on the questions that should be put to the electorate, and in fact the electorate were not given an opportunity to vote for a mayor and separately to choose whether an authority or assembly should be directly elected or constructed out of the boroughs. That is, in a sense, at the heart of the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and others.
  It is important to recognise that there is a problem at the heart of the Bill. It was not resolved by the referendum, because the referendum gave the electorate of London no opportunity to express a discrete view on this subject, which is how London is to be accurately represented in the government of London that is proposed in the Bill.
  As the Minister will know, I supported and wrote about the desirability of a directly elected mayor before the general election. I am not party to a change of mind on

  695
  the subject. However, given the structure of the Bill, I do not see the precise form of directly elected mayor that I for one was talking about. At this stage, we are not dealing with a directly elected mayor as a mechanism for promoting greater participation in local government. Instead, we have the proposal of a mayor as an individual operating on a wide—almost regional—basis.
  That raises the question, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, whether we are talking about regional government or local government. The answer is that we are talking of neither. Instead, we are discussing citywide government. It is important to retain that distinction. In that I play a small part in these proceedings, I do not propose to treat the Bill as if it were a stalking horse for regional government throughout the country. The circumstances that apply to London are unique, and the Bill would be all the worse if it were to be treated as a precedent.
  I hope that the Minister, when replying to this or future debates, does not fall prey to the trap, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) signally did, of treating the Bill as part of a route towards the construction of regional government.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is entirely possible to argue that the capital city of any country should have, as many do, its own form of metropolitan area government. That is the position in Australia and the United States, for example. The question that is raised by that—I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees—is what we then do to create regional government for London.
  Would it not have been better if the Government had thought through their constitutional agenda for England, so that we knew at the beginning of the exercise whether we would get a parliament for England or regional government, and, if so, where city government for the capital fitted in, rather than legislating for the metropolitan area of London first without any knowledge of whether we would have regional government, and if so of what sort, let alone a parliament for England, which some of us support?
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman thinks carefully about these issues, and I think that he makes an extremely good point. I intended to mention the difficulty of seeing the Bill in its constitutional context. In a sense, it is easier to see it in isolation than to divine what its context might be. I am not in the business of offering the Government solutions for how we might introduce regional government.
  Mr. Hughes: We are.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman rightly says from a sedentary position that he is in that business. We differ on that, so I shall not offer a solution to the Government, advising them how in future they might pursue regional government. We would then be presented with the difficulty, in London, of boroughs, citywide government, and even a tier of regional government.
  The Bill relates to citywide government, and that means that the Government Office for London will continue in substantially the same fashion. In a real sense, we shall continue to have both citywide government and regional
  696
  government under the proposed legislation. However, I am not in the business of giving the Government an opportunity or cause to go further and construe the mayor and the Greater London authority as a regional form of government. It is fair to treat the proposals as a citywide form of government, and consider how they relate to the city and the issues of the city.
  It has been central to the Official Opposition's argument and to mine that the Bill fails in the critical respect mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). It does not reflect the character of London as it is experienced by the people of London. There are three main issues of constitution making where the Bill does not yet satisfy. First, when one constructs political institutions, it is best—I would suggest mandatory—to follow political identity.
  As a Member of Parliament from East Anglia, I do not believe that there is a political identity called the eastern region, so it does not make sense to create a form of government for that region. Unlike some other regions, London has a political identity. Whether that identity precisely matches the boundaries of the former Greater London council is a matter for debate. However, as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, that political identity consists of many citywide problems, but many Londons within that. That is at the heart of the political identity of London.
  I remember talking about Essex London, Surrey London and Middlesex London in a previous debate. I was born in Essex London, which is not necessarily first and foremost in London. In many parts of London, one is primarily in the relevant area rather than in London. During the Uxbridge by-election campaign, we were well aware that it was not just Uxbridge.
  Mr. Raynsford: When did the hon. Gentleman last hear a popular song celebrating belonging to Uxbridge or saying "Maybe it's because I'm a Northolter"? Has he ever heard evidence of that?
  Mr. Lansley: I am trying to remember the last time that a song was written about Hornchurch.
  Mr. John Horam: Doing the Lambeth walk.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend mentions the Lambeth walk. I have not yet arrived at the point at which I believe that popular music culture should be the determining factor for governance in London. I think that we are some way from that.
  Mr. Randall: Does my hon. Friend know whether there is a cricket team for London, as opposed to Middlesex, Surrey or Essex?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a better counter to the Minister than I managed. I shall rest on the superiority of sporting culture over musical culture.
  The referendum has not resolved my first problem. It would be constitutionally wrong to suggest that a pre-legislative referendum could settle the issue. It is right, as the reasoned amendment suggests, to look for a form of authority that combines the executive responsibility of a mayor with an assembly established from within the London boroughs.

  697
  It has been argued during the debate that it is impossible for those from the boroughs to have the necessary strategic view. That misses the point that, in any form of government, if a strategic view fails the test of acceptability and ownership for the local communities, it fails the test of good government.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said that acceptance was one of the tests of good government. If the wider strategy is not accepted because the local interests that tend to be derided in this context are overridden in many areas, it fails the test of good government. Bringing the local interests—the many Londons—into the authority will produce a creative tension in the relationship between them and the mayor, combining the driving force and strategic vision that the directly elected mayor for London is intended to provide with the scrutiny and accountability of the boroughs.
  The second issue is clarity of responsibilities and functions. Far from accepting the proposition of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that the Bill will introduce responsibility and clarity, I suggest that the opposite is true. In place of a range of bodies with separate clear functions and relationships to boroughs and Government, the confusion that emanates from the Bill about whether Secretary of State will be making decisions will result in a lack of clarity on where responsibility lies.
  Planning is a good example, which goes to the heart of setting strategies.
  It is difficult to be clear about the relationships whereby a borough will establish its unitary development plan—at the behest of the so-called spatial development strategy. The mayor, in a way that seems to go beyond what is asked in other areas of regional planning guidance, will be able to declare the UDPs incompatible with the spatial development strategy. If the mayor and the authority have particular land use objectives that they want carried through into the UDPs, they can do it by that mechanism.
  Over and above that, and highly confusingly, the mayor will be able to direct a borough to refuse an application. One wonders on what basis that is to be so. A borough should apply the UDP, as it is a plan-led system. If it does so in a way that will not be open to appeal or to call-in by the Secretary of State because of departure from the plan, why is the mayor being given that additional ability to go beyond the normal relationship of regional planning guidance to UDP? Far from getting clarity, we will get confusion.
  The third issue is that the Bill exhibits characteristics that were rightly criticised in debates on the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The Government seem to believe that the writing of constitutions can be accomplished substantially by suggesting what objectives should be met and then construing that the various bodies concerned will engage in constructive partnership for the achievement of those objectives. In practice, one has constitutions—just as one has to have contracts—to determine what happens when those partnerships and agreements fail.
  There is some confusion here. For example, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) rightly talked about the importance of training and employment to economic development in London. That is central to
  698
  bringing improvement into parts of inner London. In practice, of course, the economic development strategy that will be set by the London development agency will command the support of the business community only if greater business involvement is implied.
  At the moment, business involvement—through consultation—is largely at the behest of the LDA, rather than the Bill mandating greater involvement from bodies that best represent business—for example, through the London Business Board. Unless that ownership is built into the process, any breach between the LDA and the business community will not be resolved. Likewise, there is a suggestion of partnership between the London training and enterprise councils and the economic development strategy, but no mechanism for making them come together. It is important that they do.
  In a range of areas, it difficult to see how disagreements are to be resolved. The greatest disagreement could be between a mayor elected for four years on a platform with strategic vision—if a mayor does not bring strategic vision to the process, what else will he bring?—and the Government, who have their view of what should happen in London.
  I will not bore the House by reciting them, but other hon. Members have rightly pointed out that the number of occasions when the Secretary of State will take the power to override, second-guess or effectively dictate the decisions of the mayor and the authority on a range of issues suggests that, when conflict arises, all the issues and all the answers will transfer to the Government rather than rest with the mayor and the authority.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned hypothecation of user charges to transport. Reference was made to public transport, but I hope that Ministers will refer to hypothecation to transport expenditure. I have two reservations.
  First, as a representative of many people who will pay user charges in London but do not live there, I hope that user charges will not be used narrowly to benefit London public transport and transport infrastructure, without reference to the benefits of ensuring that it is easy to get in and out of London on public transport.
  Mr. Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that large numbers of Londoners—including my constituents who live by the A12 to Essex and the east, and others who live by major roads into the city—suffer the consequences of pollution and associated problems such as noise? It must be just that Londoners should receive some compensation from people who live in leafy areas outside the city and cause environmental pollution when they travel into London.
  Mr. Lansley: The point of congestion or user charging is not to put money into the pockets of people who live next to the A12; the charges should be used to ensure that transport noise and pollution are reduced. That is what will benefit people who live by the A12; they should not personally benefit financially because they live in a polluted atmosphere.
  Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lansley: No. I have taken up a lot of time, so I should come to a conclusion rather than take interventions.

  699
  In checking on the Government, people should consider not only hypothecation but additionality. I warn hon. Members that, if the Government are allowed to hypothecate user charges for transport purposes but simultaneously to reduce transport expenditure in the programme budget, the benefit will be negligible.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will. my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend must forgive me; I said that I would not take any more interventions, so I should be consistent.
  The Bill has given rise to high expectations. The proposals for a directly elected mayor with a strategic vision for London are designed to encourage greater democratic participation, but I fear that the Government's intention comprehensively to establish the ascendancy of the Secretary of State over the mayor will frustrate that aim. Like my hon. Friends, I regret that the Bill will not directly involve the boroughs and allow them to bring their concerns to the forefront when the authority determines strategy. In these respects, in so far as the Bill is confused about responsibilities and where policy conflicts will be settled, it leaves much to be desired.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: My credentials in this debate—apart from the fact that I represent Upminster on the edge of east London—are that I was born, brought up and educated in London and come from a family of Londoners. For the first 21 years of my working life, I was employed by the Port of London Authority and I saw the decline in the use of the River Thames and the enclosed docks. I experience, as most of us do, the terrible congestion that we have to put up with day in and day out on the roads, although most days I travel to the House on public transport.
  My view on the political identity of London is somewhat different from those that have been expressed. Some of my constituents come from the original Essex towns and continue to see themselves as Essex people, but the vast majority of them moved out to the east from inner London and feel that they are Londoners. Harold Hill, for example, is an old Greater London council/London county council estate, and the people who live there see themselves as Londoners.
  Mr. Lansley: Try saying that in Hall Lane.
  Mr. Darvill: I have canvassed in Hall Lane and know it well. I feel reasonably well qualified to speak in this important debate because of my background and experience.
  I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench colleagues on introducing the Bill so early in the second Session of this Parliament. In the 19 months since the general election, we have had the Green Paper, the White Paper, the referendum legislation, the referendum itself and now the Bill. That is good progress. The consultation period was important. When the Bill is enacted, its provisions will form an important part of the constitutional changes that will help us to modernise our country for the new millennium.
  Clause 2(5) and schedule 1 indicate that the Secretary of State can have a radical review of the assembly's constituency boundaries, and the Bill makes it clear that
  700
  that is an option for the Secretary of State. I am one of those hoping for a radical review sooner rather than later. I would have preferred multi-member constituencies on a sub-regional basis. That was emphasised in the Green Paper, but it did not receive enough debate London wide, as we focused on the constituency link—important though that is. London's sub-regional emphasis should be underlined, and I hope that, as the strategic authority develops, we will leave that open as an option for the future.
  I made representations to the Local Government Commission when it was drawing up the constituency boundaries, and I know that other hon. Members made the same arguments. In my area, we share a health authority with Barking and Dagenham, and the transport structure of our area goes along the Thames parallel. It would have been far more suitable for the constituency boundaries to reflect those strategic views—albeit not on a totally sub-regional basis. However, that is another matter for the future. I recognise that the constituency boundaries were drawn as they were for convenience and speed.
  I am a member of the all-party Thames gateway group, and we are working in partnership with the public sector. The Bill will allow partnerships to promote the sub-regions and to assist in the development of strategies, as well as economies. Bearing all that in mind, my borough of Havering would have been much better placed with Barking and Dagenham because of the links to which I have referred.
  I welcome the package of electoral voting methods—by the supplementary vote system for the mayor, and by the first-past-the-post system and the additional member system on the d'Hondt formula for the assembly. I had difficulty reading schedule 2 of the Bill, and I had to read it several times before I was able to understand it. I was certainly relieved to see the explanatory notes.
  The principle of closed lists has been discussed many times in this House and in another place during the consideration of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I sat through some of those debates, but did not contribute to them. Opposition Members often made accusations to the effect that few Labour Back Benchers supported the Government. They did, of course, support the Government in the Lobby.
  There are advantages to closed lists. In democratic terms, it is for the political parties to decide on the pecking order of the lists. Political parties that do not allow their own internal democracies to flourish and do not encourage wider member participation will do themselves no good, and eventually will suffer. My party benefited from changing its internal rules for electing candidates. The Conservative party has suffered because it did not—although it has changed, belatedly. Those, however, are matters for the parties and not for Parliament.
  The closed list will be simple. All candidates in the list will be named and the electorate will know whom they are voting for—contrary to press reports during the European Parliamentary Elections Bill debates. There was a popular misconception that people would not know who the candidates were. Most of the electorate vote for the party of their choice as well as for the candidate.
  I am absolutely certain that, for example, in local elections, some of the electorate voting in multi-member wards do not fully understand the system and often

  701
  mistakenly vote for the wrong candidate. My experience in local election counts over the years is that, quite often, the candidate for a particular party whose surname starts with an "A" is likely to get more votes than those with names that start with letters further down the alphabet. A closed-list system would avoid that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have never understood the justification for that argument. Is the hon. Gentleman honestly telling us that it is better for the electorate to have no say as to which of the Labour party candidates they would prefer to elect, and to have to accept the list that is presented to them?
  Mr. Darvill: One has to consider the provisions as a package. I would argue that, for the GLA, as a strategic authority, and for the European elections, it is acceptable to have a party list, bearing in mind the fact that people are not excluded from voting for candidates in local and parliamentary elections. When people vote in a closed-list system, they will know who the candidates in the party list are.
  Mr. Hughes: How can one express the judgment that one likes one of the party's candidates but not another? Voters may be disfranchised because they decide to vote for nobody rather than accepting as a package a list of people some of whom they would be happy to see elected but with one of whom they fundamentally disagree, regardless of party allegiance.
  Mr. Darvill: Some members of the electorate may take that view, but as the hon. Gentleman himself said earlier, there is no ideal system, and I believe that, on balance, we have to accept that weakness.
  The electorate will have a package of democratic representatives. It is important to distinguish the strategic role that the GLA will play. As with the European elections, and bearing in mind the fact that people will have ward councillors and Members of Parliament who fit into the democratic process, I see no wrong in the system. With the benefit of proportional representation, more votes will count and a new dynamic will be released in our political life.
  I am pleased that clause 25 provides for the authority to promote the health of Londoners as well as promoting economic and social development in Greater London. Clause 27 is an important safeguard, in that the mayor will not be able to do anything that will duplicate the statutory functions of Transport for London, the police and fire authorities or the London development agency. Subsection (9) will allow the mayor to use the powers under the clause to co-operate with other public bodies to co-ordinate and facilitate activities on a wider than local basis.
  Clause 33 provides for the mayor's strategies. There will be no shortage of strategies on matters such as transport, economic development and regeneration, biodiversity, municipal waste management, air quality, ambient noise, culture, the health of London, and something close to my own heart: promoting the use of the Thames for passenger transport and freight.
  The transport strategy in clause 123 and the transport functions of the authority covered in clauses 122 to 201 are of the utmost importance and priority, and a London
  702
  Evening Standard poll recently showed transport to be a priority of Londoners. Clauses 200 and 201 are probably the most radical, providing as they will a framework within the GLA for the introduction of road charging schemes and non-residential parking levies across all or part of London.
  Several Conservative Members have suggested that those powers were not emphasised in the lead-up to the referendum. However, they will be an important feature in the lead-up to the elections in May next year. If mayoral candidates do not want to use those powers, they can stand on that platform and give Londoners an opportunity to decide on that basis. It is a false argument to say that the powers, which were mentioned in the White Paper, should have received greater emphasis during the referendum debate.
  I welcome the ability that the boroughs will have to introduce parking schemes in their areas, subject to the agreement of the mayor. It is essential to ensure the hypothecation of the net revenues from those charges and levies for spending on a wide range of transport measures, in support of the mayor's integrated transport strategy. A clean, safe, efficient and reasonably priced public transport system for London is crucial, because otherwise congestion will worsen, the health of Londoners will suffer, the Londonwide economy will suffer and regeneration will be more difficult to achieve.
  Transport is the key to a better London. Whatever strategy the mayor puts forward, it will be difficult to sustain and develop without an improvement in public transport. Londoners see transport as a priority for the mayor and GLA, when elected.
  I have a background in the Port of London Authority and I am especially interested in promoting the use of the Thames, which is an under-used asset. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, the decision by Westminster council to transport waste by road rather than by barge along the river was disgraceful. The mayor and the GLA will have an important opportunity to develop a meaningful strategy to ensure that more freight is transported by water-borne modes of transport. More passenger use should also be made of the river, especially through a river bus scheme. Experiments have been carried out in the past, but they have not been successful because of the poor integration of the schemes with other forms of transport. The experimental schemes also did not extend beyond the centre of London, but river buses should be extended to the east and west to encourage greater use. The mayor and the GLA will be able to insist that integrated transport links include river bus stops.
  The Bill deserves the support of the House and it has the support of Londoners. The Members of Parliament who will scrutinise the Bill in Committee will have an important role to play to ensure that it becomes good law and that the mayor and the GLA work effectively. The principles of the Bill are sound and welcome, and the sooner it is enacted the better. I support the Bill's Second Reading and commend it to the House.
  9.44 pm
  Mr. John Horam: I apologise to the House for having had to leave the Chamber for about two and a half hours earlier to fulfil an engagement that I could not reasonably have postponed. I managed to hear

  703
  the opening speeches made by the Deputy Prime Minister, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and by the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is flagged up in the Evening Standard tonight as having said in his speech that he would be another candidate for mayor, although he seemed to me to suggest that he would be a candidate for the assembly. Whichever interpretation of his remarks is correct, I welcome the gathering number of candidates for mayor. The more, the merrier. If the hon. Member for Brent, East stands in addition to an official Labour candidate, I shall be delighted. To have Conservative, Liberal Democrat and independent candidates standing would be excellent for London.
  I congratulate the Minister for London and Construction, who has a great interest in these matters, on the two schemes—they have been advertised in the Evening Standard—for a new building to house the assembly and the mayor at Camden or on the riverside. Each, in its totally contrasting way, is excellent. One makes use of an existing building, and the other would create a new building by Norman Foster. The latter, in particular, is brilliant in conception, but I believe that we would be mistaken to give the assembly a new building to play with at enormous cost to the London public.
  The old Greater London council buildings still exist, and I understand that the chamber and associated offices are not used. It was a splendid place for the old London assembly, and I do not see why the building cannot be used for the new one, rather than our going to the trouble and expense of constructing or renovating another building. I like the proposed buildings, but some cautious cost effectiveness would not go amiss.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman's argument would have a little more force if his party had not, when in power, decided to change the use of the building so that it is now a place in which fish swim rather than one in which politicians debate.
  Mr. Horam: All human life is there, no doubt. The old building contains a hotel and an excellent Chinese restaurant that is occasionally visited by hon. Members. I cannot see why the assembly and the mayor cannot use the premises, which are excellent and well known. The option should be considered, and, although I put the point light heartedly, I hope that the Minister will know that I mean it.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East said that one of the worst and most immediate problems facing any mayor or assembly elected to run London would be traffic congestion. That is indeed the case. It can take two hours to get from central London to Orpington, which is on the very edge of the old GLC area. It can take that time between 4 pm and 6 pm, and it seems to be no quicker no matter what evening it is. Friday and Monday are the same.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) came down to speak last week, but he had the good sense to go by train from Victoria to Bromley South, which took him between a quarter of an hour and 20 minutes. That is the daily contrast in London between
  704
  travelling by car—rather foolishly if one is going from Orpington to central London—and going by public transport.
  The Bill contains the idea tried elsewhere in the world of a congestion tax or user tax, to be combined with a car-parking tax. That is an idea whose time may have come, but there are severe difficulties. First, obviously, the ordinary motorist may feel that unless he gets something out of the proposal, it will simply be yet another tax—and a considerable one at that. Already, the motorist pays about £31 billion a year in taxes, but only about a fifth of that goes back to him in transport spending. The Exchequer's total take from an average litre of unleaded petrol is about 78 per cent. The amount has gone up and up under Conservative and Labour Governments because of the fuel price escalator. It is a huge burden on motorists, and we must consider what they get back from it.
  We will have to get used to the idea of green taxes. If we are to get the idea across and make it work, it is vital that the motorist, who is being taxed and inconvenienced, can see some compensating, clear advantage as a result of the extra imposition.
  That means ring fencing of the money that will be raised through the two additional imposts. These days, there is much talk of hypothecation, which is a controversial idea, but one that has a long history. I think that the ship money was the first example of a hypothecated tax in this country. Levied in the 17th century by Charles I, it was one of the factors that led to the civil war, so such taxes are not without their political dangers. Another example was the road fund tax, which was memorable for being lost without trace about five years after it was introduced. The history of hypothecated taxes is not a good one, however good the intentions behind them may have been.
  On reading the Bill more closely—it is a very long Bill—I was alarmed to find that schedules 14 and 15 would give the Secretary of State clear powers to take a portion of the proceeds from those taxes. He would have to hand them over to the Consolidated Fund, there is no question about that.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I am grateful for the encouragement that the hon. Gentleman has given the idea of congestion charging. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, it is only right and proper that he should do so. He highlighted some of the difficulties that the mayor and the assembly will have to tackle. I reiterate yet again that congestion charges will be spent in their entirety on the mayor's integrated transport strategy. If they are raised in the boroughs, they will be spent there. There is a clear commitment—and so there should be, as we are talking about raising sizeable amounts of money—that the system should be reviewed after 10 years. If funds are no longer required for the integrated transport strategy because public transport has improved so much, congestion is down and the air is cleaner, it is entirely right and proper that moneys that are not being used in that way should go into the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. Horam: I hear what the hon. Lady is saying and I clearly heard the Deputy Prime Minister briefly reiterate

  705
  in his speech that, for 10 years, 100 per cent. of the proceeds of the taxes will be spent on transport, which I welcome. It is a new commitment—unless it has been said before and I missed it—and I welcome the fact that it was either reiterated or declared tonight. The worrying aspect is that it is one thing for Ministers to say that on a Monday evening in this debate, but it is another for it to be in the Bill. The fact of the matter is that schedules 14 and 15 of the Bill contain powers—I see the Minister for Transport in London smiling, but she knows that they are there—that a future Government could use for different purposes.
  Ms Jackson: We have all heard that concern reiterated by more than one hon. Member tonight. Ministers have made a clear commitment—and not only this afternoon and this evening—as to where the moneys raised from congestion charging will be spent. We will take notice of what has been said about the two schedules to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. Horam: I am glad that the Minister will take notice of what has been said, but it is an important point. As the hon. Lady said, as Chairman of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, I am committed to try to do something sensible on all these problems. It is vital that we win over the public. At the moment, they are extremely sceptical, if not cynical, about the extra taxation. They will regard it merely as an extra impost, unless they can see some tangible benefit from it, which will be hard for the Government to achieve, however it is spent.
  It is not merely a question of the money being ring-fenced, ear-marked or hypothecated—whatever the term that one wants to use—as the second point is that it must be additional, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, among others. It is not good enough for it simply to be hypothecated; it must be additional expenditure, otherwise the whole point will be completely lost. If we find at some subsequent date, despite the Minister's bold remarks this evening and those of the Deputy Prime Minister, that some funds are removed, beneath the table as it were, or that in some future settlement they say that they have lost a hard battle with the Treasury—they usually do—Londoners will not thank them for that approach.
  I hope that the Government can demonstrate that additionality is for 10 years, just as they say that hypothecation is. It will take at least 10 years to make an impact on transport congestion. The Automobile Association has demanded not only hypothecation and additionality but that the proceeds should be seen to be spent before they are raised. I thought that that was a little over the top and I do not go along with that, but I take the point.
  Such taxation can begin to tackle some of the problems by deterring and helping to manage traffic, and building infrastructure in a different way. Planning can also do much. In that respect, 1 strongly support the Deputy Prime Minister's initiative under the general label of World Squares for All. He came out strongly in favour of proposals, again by Norman Foster, to enhance Trafalgar square, Whitehall and Parliament square by pedestrianising larger parts of them. That will affect traffic, but the matter is important to London as a capital
  706
  city. This is a major heritage area, not only for Londoners, but for the whole country and for tourists. We want to be proud of it. We want its buildings, including our Parliament, set off properly. Currently, Trafalgar square is a traffic roundabout, which is disastrous for people trying to enjoy their surroundings.
  The Deputy Prime Minister made a strong statement. I hope that he does not allow it to be whittled away by all the usual excuses about where the traffic goes. We have to choose between doing something dramatic and sensible that I believe would be applauded by all Londoners and some bad consequences in slightly more traffic congestion. We simply have to live with that. I suspect that if something sensible were done, people would quickly come to terms with it, other arrangements would be made and the congestion would not be as bad as many fear. I hope that the mayor, whoever he or she is, takes up such initiatives and puts pressure on the Government to see them through. I hope that that will be the sort of benefit that people can see from having a strong mayor.
  Penultimately, I turn to the police. I do not expect a reply this evening because the matter will be debated tomorrow. If hon. Members watch "The Bill"—one of my favourite programmes—this Christmas, they will see that Orpington high street is featured. I am delighted by that because it seems that the only way that one can get publicity for one's high street is when it features in a sit-com or television series. Sadly, there is a different reality because there was recently a murder and two major burglaries in the high street. That emphasises that even in the leafy suburbs crime problems worry residents, as all hon. Members know.
  The Government and the Home Secretary have said many tough things in their manifesto and subsequently, including the famous soundbite,
  "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."
  The reality is very different. Resources are being cut and do not meet the demands of the police. As a consequence, in my area 10 constables' jobs have been cut this financial year. As a result of a settlement made only a week or so ago, another 10 will go next year. Two police stations, at Chislehurst and Biggin Hill, will be closed down. The Conservative Government opened a new police station at St. Mary Cray. The Government are not delivering on law and order in terms of having people on the street, reassuring the public that people are looking after the problem.
  There are problems of vandalism and petty crime in my area, even though we usually avoid the big burglaries and more serious crimes that often afflict central London. I hope that the Bill can address such issues. Will it be possible for the mayor and assembly to vire—I believe that that is the technical phrase—resources from one part of the budget to another if they feel that law and order issues deserve a higher priority than they have at present? I certainly hope so.
  As is probably clear to the House, I support some of the basic concepts behind the Bill. I always thought that London should have a strong voice and recognised that a mayor had the potential to embody that voice. It is important that he or she does that. However, yet again, as with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the Government have started a process without marking out a finish. Therefore, the structure that the Bill would establish is unnecessarily cumbersome and messy, and I suspect that it will be unnecessarily costly as well.

  707
  I represent an area that is on the very fringe of London—Orpington hardly considers itself part of London at all; in fact, it would rather be part of Kent, even if that meant that the people could not vote for a London mayor. To persuade such people of the value and the importance of the authority is extremely difficult. I wish that the Government had taken on board more of the commonsense, down-to-earth criticisms of the proposals that were voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would have been better had the Government's proposals been more modest and less expensive, while still giving Londoners an authority that could do the job for London that we want a mayor to do.
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). I shall not dwell on the past, but it is interesting to note that the previous Government, having abolished the Greater London council, had a long time in which to come up with an alternative, perhaps of the sort that the hon. Gentleman now advocates, but that no such proposal was seen until 1997, when the Labour Government were elected with their pledge to bring back a strategic authority for London.
  I was born in London, in the borough of Redbridge—an area slightly more inner than the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). I am pleased to represent Ilford and see myself as both a man of Essex—not an Essex man—and a Londoner. I believe strongly that London has to have a voice, not only as a capital city, but as an international city, one of the four or five great cities of the world in terms of its attractiveness to investors and tourists, its cultural diversity and its museums and galleries. Look at the number of people who have come from all over the world, fleeing from persecution, racism, anti-semitism and poverty, to live in London and make it one of the world's great cities.
  It is an absolute disgrace that we have gone so many years without having a voice or an effective means of representation in Brussels that would enable us to get much-needed resources to London. I welcome the Bill, because it goes a considerable way towards addressing the democratic deficit that we in London have had for the past 12 years, although certain aspects could be improved. What is most important is that, at last, we have the opportunity to debate the Bill. Perhaps the media will now get away from their personality obsession with the self-publicists who publish articles and give speeches about what they will or will not do; perhaps they will now take a look at the needs of London and at the Bill.
  I say that as one who has no intention whatsoever of standing as a candidate for the assembly or for mayor. However, I want to continue to represent my constituents in this place and I believe strongly that it is time that the country and the inner-London media ended their obsession with personalities and started to examine the content of the legislation that will pass through Parliament in the next few months, which aims to improve the quality of life of Londoners and address the issues that concern them.
  Other hon. Members have already referred to those issues. The organisation London First, which was established to fill the gap left by the abolition of the GLC,
  708
  published a briefing for Members of Parliament. I was interested to note its reference to the fact that London produces 15 per cent. of the nation's gross domestic product and contributes £14 billion a year to other parts of the country. That contribution is right if other parts of the country are poorer and we have a formula for allocating funds.
  However, the briefing also points out that 13 of the 20 poorest local authority areas in the country are in London. My local authority is not one of the 13, but my constituency nevertheless contains severe pockets of deprivation, high levels of unemployment and serious social problems that are not recognised generally by the country as a whole. Unemployment levels in many London constituencies are significantly above the national average, yet other parts of the country regard this area as the wealthy south-east. I have heard people denounce what they call "capitalism" in London—and they are not talking about an economic system. It is about time that the whole United Kingdom appreciated the fact that areas of London can be as poor as parts of east Belfast, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Sheffield or any other area that is represented in the House.
  There are 289,000 unemployed in London at present, which is more than the totals for Scotland and Wales combined. That is very worrying as we know that the global economic crisis emanating from south Asia has disproportionate consequences for my constituents and many others who work in central London in financial and banking institutions, in insurance and in the information technology industry, which is so important to this city and to the country's economy.
  The London Research Centre recently produced an important transport study of four world cities: Paris, New York, Tokyo and London. It concluded:
  "Overcrowding is an endemic problem on London's rail and underground. Lack of funding has postponed schemes, such as Crossrail, designed to alleviate central area congestion and reduce the need for interchange."
  I am pleased to see that the Minister for Transport in London is in the Chamber. She will recall that I have been pushing crossrail's case in the House for the past 18 months. I represent the constituency of Ilford and I believe that crossrail from Stratford to Paddington would benefit greatly east-west communication across the city and prevent many of the interchange journeys and delays that make travelling difficult for so many people.
  Reference has been made to the recent report in the Evening Standard about the King's Fund study, which found that Londoners were pessimistic about the health of their city. That poll revealed the priorities for change that Londoners believe a London mayor must adopt upon his election. It found that nine out of 10 Londoners believe that environmental issues are a priority, with some 57 per cent. voting for reductions in traffic, 50 per cent. for improved air quality, 27 per cent. for cleaner streets and 23 per cent. voting for improved housing.
  The London authority will not have responsibility for housing; that will remain with the boroughs. That is right, but we need to consider the problems in the outer London boroughs. When I was first elected to the House, six and a half years ago, people were being placed in temporary accommodation in my borough, Redbridge, by authorities such as Westminster in central London, or Hackney and Newham in east London, because they had housing

  709
  shortages. There is now a general housing problem in Redbridge and my council has 200 families in bed and breakfast accommodation and is even placing people in Clacton, Southend and Westcliff-on-Sea. That is not good for the families or the children's education. We cannot easily deal with that on a borough-wide basis; we need strategic action to deal with London's serious housing problems, particularly cost.
  One of London's problems—I am pleased that this is the subject of another Bill—is that it has borne a disproportionate burden of coping with the increased number of asylum applicants in recent years. I understand that about 40,000 destitute asylum seekers are being supported by London boroughs. That is not only a question of financial support; there are problems of pressures on education, social services and, again, housing.
  That is important in this House and in all democratic parties in this country because unscrupulous populists and extremists might try to seize on the issue to gain support in elections for the assembly and the mayor. For that reason, I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who spoke earlier. I believe that a 5 per cent. threshold for votes for the assembly is essential because I do not want fascist and neo-Nazi candidates to gain a foothold among the 25 places in the assembly. A 5 per cent. threshold will act as an important impediment to the development of fascist organisations in London, so it must be included in the Bill.
  For similar reasons, the electoral system chosen for the mayor should be strongly supported. The advantage of the supplementary vote is that in an election that will be contested by a huge number of candidates—some serious, some not so serious, some joke candidates and some people with a single-issue agenda—it is conceivable that we could have 20, 30, 50 or 100 candidates vying for the publicity of such a high-profile role. In those circumstances, it would be extremely dangerous to have a first-past-the-post electoral system because we could end up with a victor such as those in Latin America, Georgia or other countries where articulate populists from the media circuses or extremist political groups have succeeded. The Conservative party would not gain enough votes to be in one of those categories. In a first-past-the-post election with many candidates, someone could creep to victory with a low vote, so the supplementary vote is an important democratic safeguard.
  I have already mentioned the city's problems. The new transport authority for London will play an important co-ordinating role. The organisation that will be established to provide for the first time in our city a democratic accountability for the police service is long overdue. I am glad that the body is welcomed by the Metropolitan police because that demonstrates that they are forward thinking and that they believe in extending throughout the city the partnership that has been so well established with many boroughs. That is all to the good.
  Many members of the assembly will spend a considerable time serving on the police authority; others will serve on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. For that reason, I am delighted that, in making changes between the White Paper and the Bill, Ministers have taken account of what many of us said and have decided that members should be paid. If we are to have a
  710
  proper, effective and democratically functioning London authority, we need serious people with the time and commitment to do the job. It would be patently absurd if members of the Welsh Assembly received payment whereas members of the London authority did not. We have taken a step in the right direction, which is to be welcomed.
  It is important that the Bill contains safeguards in respect of the mayor's accountability to the authority. The two-thirds majority provision with regard to the budget is welcome, but I hope that in Committee, we can re-examine other aspects of accountability to provide reassurance that should something go wrong, for whatever reason, and should an authoritarian or idiosyncratic person be elected as mayor, there would be no difficulty in applying the appropriate checks and balances.
  We also need to make it clear in the election campaign that the Greater London authority is not GLC mark II. It is a new body; everyone knows that it is a new body, and the structures have been established to ensure that it is a new body. One of the most important is that the leader of the GLA will, in public parlance, be the democratically elected mayor. That person will have a popular mandate. It will, therefore, be impossible for anyone to come to a position of power by virtue of a change in the balance within a party group. It is very important that the public are aware of that democratic commitment and the need for a high turnout and maximum involvement in the election.
  The proposals in clause 39 for a state of London address and the people's question time are an important part of the mayor's accountability. Perhaps the dome could be used for such events after the millennium.
  I am also pleased that the Bill sets out a procedure whereby the deputy mayor will be appointed from among the elected members of the assembly. That is an important safeguard in the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. It will ensure that the mayor has to be sensitive to the politics of the assembly and its members.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am interested to hear the reasons that the hon. Gentleman will give for not allowing the assembly to choose the deputy mayor. What reasons will he give for allowing the mayor to have, in addition to all his other powers, the power to be in fact very insensitive to the assembly, and to choose someone of her or his preference, irrespective of the views of the assembly and, indeed, arguably, exactly contrary to the assembly's wishes?
  Mr. Gapes: That issue can be explored in some detail in Committee. I do not have time to go into it now, but the important point is that an electoral system has been established whereby no single party is likely to have an overall majority in the assembly. For that reason, it will be important for the mayor to work constructively with at least two, and possibly all three or four, of the parties that have members elected to the assembly.
  Two further points need greater consideration. One is the mayor's duty to consult the assembly. I do not think that it is spelt out clearly in the Bill, and I hope that it will be further considered in Committee.
  Tourism is a very important part of the future development of London. Further consideration could be given to how the Greater London authority might tap some of the great revenue from tourism, which adds to

  711
  congestion on our public transport and demands on services, and offset it against other needs. Other worldwide cities are capable of that in one way or another, and we in London should consider it, too.
  I very much welcome the Bill. I hope that, now there is support on both sides of the House for at least the principle of establishing democratic government in London, all parties will work together to try to ensure that it is a great success. On that basis, this city will receive the level and quality of government that it deserves.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Iain Coleman: I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's Second Reading debate, which marks the Government's commitment to honouring the key election pledge to set up a strategic authority for the capital and establish the post of mayor of London. I shall highlight several points in the Bill that concern transport arrangements. I should like first to welcome the functions proposed for Transport for London, as set out in clause 122.
  The concept of integrating the consideration and provision of transport issues has already been taken up by the London boroughs through the formation of the Transport Committee for London. That committee, founded in January, has brought together several functions which were previously carried out by the boroughs on a Londonwide basis. The functions include parking enforcement issues and the provision of the parking appeals service, which were previously the responsibility of the Parking Committee for London; concessionary fares and the provision of door-to-door transport, which were previously the responsibility of the London Committee on Accessible Transport; the operation of London's night-time and weekend lorry ban, which was previously the responsibility of the London Boroughs Transport Committee; and the operation of London's traffic signals and traffic controls, which was previously the responsibility of the traffic controls system unit. The Transport Committee for London has already started to make changes to integrate some of the functions in order to make services more efficient and effective for Londoners. All the functions are directly relevant to the Bill.
  Following the passage of the Road Traffic Act 1991, the development of parking controls and decriminalised parking enforcement has been one of the success stories in London boroughs. Since implementation of the Act in 1994 by individual boroughs and through their joint committee—now the Transport Committee for London—great improvements have been made over previous levels of enforcement and compliance with regulations, although the need for such enforcement, especially in bus lanes and on bus routes, remains a problem. I hope that the new arrangements will make progress on it.
  Following enactment of the Bill, it is critical that the Greater London authority, through Transport for London, takes responsibility for parking enforcement on the new road network. I should be surprised if the mayor did not wish to use the new decriminalised form of enforcement which has worked so well in London.
  The Transport Committee for London operates the parking appeals service, which has replaced the magistrates courts in considering appeals against decriminalised parking tickets. Comments in the press and
  712
  a recent survey of appellants by Birmingham university have highlighted a great deal of satisfaction with the service. It would make no sense at all to set up a separate appeals body for enforcement on GLA roads. I am therefore pleased that it is intended in the Bill that the parking appeals service should continue to offer unified provision for the capital. Clause 193 achieves that by making Transport for London a member of the Transport Committee for London.
  The Transport Committee for London comprises one elected member from each of the 33 London boroughs. It is therefore a little surprising that it is proposed that the body Transport for London, rather than a elected member of the assembly, is to be a member of the joint committee. The inclusion on the committee of members from each borough provides a high degree of accountability, which has been vital in ensuring that the new parking enforcement system works effectively. A representative of Transport for London would be an official with very indirect levels of accountability and, in order to ensure that the services provided continue to allow good enforcement with public acceptability, accountability is essential. In those circumstances, I urge the Government to consider the possibility of the mayor appointing an elected member of the authority—instead of an official—to the Transport Committee for London, to ensure continued accountability.
  Clause 186 allows the Secretary of State to make regulation concerning concessionary fares in London. The concessionary fares system for elderly and disabled people in London provided by the London boroughs through the Transport Committee for London is currently the best in the country, providing free travel on all forms of public transport throughout Greater London after 9 am—or 9.30 am on the national railways.
  That scheme was established by the GLC more than 20 years ago, initially as an off-peak free travel service on the buses, and extended in the 1980s to provide a half-fare scheme—and later a free scheme—on the London underground and a half-fare scheme on national railways within the capital. Since the scheme was taken over by the London boroughs in 1986, it has been extended to provide free travel on national railways within London—giving equality to those in south London, where there is no tube—and to cover the evening peak hours. It costs about £140 million a year.
  However, the scheme is vulnerable. It must proceed on the basis of unanimity among all the boroughs, and it needs only one London borough to fail to agree with any part of the scheme to bring it down. Several times in recent years, one or two authorities—I shall not name them—have tried to blackmail the rest of the London boroughs, leading to great confusion and considerable uncertainty. For that reason, it was necessary to legislate to establish a reserve scheme, so that if, by 31 December of any year, London Transport felt that there was not agreement between the boroughs, it could institute that reserve scheme.
  However, the reserve scheme is much less attractive for all the parties involved except London Transport, because it provides the benefits only of the scheme as it existed in 1984. It provides no concession on national railways, and only a half-fare scheme on London Underground. Ironically, because London Underground could set that

  713
  reserve scheme into motion without negotiation, it would also be able to charge more than the current voluntary arrangement through the concessionary fares scheme.
  The Secretary of State might wish to consider using regulations to safeguard the existing scheme for all parties. There could be a formal duty on all the London boroughs to agree the concessionary fares scheme. That could be done by bringing it into the statutory remit of the Transport Committee for London, as all boroughs are at present required to be members of the committee. That would prevent one borough trying to blackmail the other boroughs, and holding the scheme up for ransom. Such a change would be warmly welcomed by organisations representing elderly people and people with disabilities.
  The London night-time and weekend lorry ban is a further responsibility that the London boroughs inherited following the abolition of the GLC. It provides an enforceable way in which only lorries with legitimate business in London may use all but the most important roads in London at night-time and at weekends. It has provided substantial noise relief for many thousands of London residents who live alongside roads previously heavily used by juggernauts at night. In two cases, Graham road in Hackney—an especially narrow residential road—and Cheyne walk in Chelsea, the flow of heavy lorries, which was previously as heavy as 600 per hour in the 3 am to 5 am period, has been cut to a tenth of that figure, to the enormous relief of all the residents involved. The ban achieves those results without a great imposition on the freight industry, which is now on record as supporting the continuation of the ban and agreeing that there is a need to support the ban.
  Following the abolition of the GLC in 1986, not all the boroughs participated in the scheme, and at one point 19 boroughs successfully kept the scheme alive. They deserve congratulation on having done so, in the face of strong opposition from some Ministers in the previous Government, who should have known better.
  The formation of the Transport Committee for London has changed matters. All boroughs are now agreed in principle to support the scheme, with most actively involved, and by next April all boroughs are expected to be fully involved. We should congratulate the Transport Committee for London and the individual boroughs on supporting the ban.
  That participation has led to changes in the network of excluded routes—on which any lorry may travel—being reviewed for the first time since 1984, and consideration of more flexible operation of permit conditions, and of better enforcement using new camera techniques and new technology. Those changes are being supported by the freight industry. Although it was antagonistic when the ban was first introduced, it is now on record as supporting the needs that lie behind the scheme, the review and the extension of the ban. It is a function that could be made a statutory duty on the Transport Committee for London. My right hon. Friend might like to include that duty in the Bill. That would ensure the stability of the scheme and allow it to work properly within the context of the mayor's freight transport strategy.
  714
  At this time of night I shall not detain the House any longer. I welcome the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues on all their hard work. 1 heartily welcome all the proposals that are contained in the Bill.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am doubly grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate. First, I must apologise to the House for not being in my place for the opening speeches. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction will accept that that was due to the fact that I was fulfilling a long-standing speaking engagement on his Green Paper on leasehold reform. Secondly, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my accent betrays the fact that unlike many of my hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate, as well as other colleagues, I am not a native Londoner, although I speak for my constituency of Brent, North.
  I am proud to represent my constituents, who live in the most ethnically diverse borough in Europe. One of the essential features of London is that diversity. In effect, London is a collection of villages which have, over time, expanded to fill the spaces between them. It is that that makes Kilburn different from Kensington and Willesden different from Westminster. I welcome that diversity and individuality which make for the richness of the city's life, but such diversity can lead to a lack of strategic thought and it is that lack of strategic thought which I believe has characterised the governance of London for the past decade. The Bill will ensure that that strategic thought is restored for the somewhat meagre cost of 3p a week per person, or £1.56 per Londoner a year. For strategic thought, £1.56 is a jolly good price to pay.
  Many Members have spoken of the need for a co-ordinated transport policy. I concur with their pleas for a joined-up approach, for joined-up major routes and joined-up cycle routes that do not fizzle out at borough borders. Many Members have spoken of the need also for the London development agency to promote a strategic plan as detailed in clause 204.
  I wish to emphasise that these functions of the Greater London authority are not separate. They contribute to the essential purpose of the Bill as expressed in clause 25, which is promoting economic and social development in Greater London and improving the environment.
  I offer Brent as a perfect example of both the lack of strategic thought and the need to combine the powers of the LDA with the London transport authority. Such a strategic overview is essential to the economic development of our city. I can encapsulate the issue in one word: Wembley.
  In the 1920s, the empire exhibition was held in the borough of Wembley. A community developed based on the economic drive that the empire exhibition created. The foundation of Wembley stadium gave another heart beating at the centre of the economic community. It was well placed for transport links, near to the London ring road and the start of the M1. Sadly, such harmony of planning, transport infrastructure and economic drive is not in evidence for the new national stadium proposals at Wembley.
  Wembley Park station, which takes 55 per cent. of public access to the stadium, is decrepit. The police have to close it from time to time because it represents a danger

  715
  to those using it. I cannot say that the construction of a new access way for visitors coming to Wembley is even half finished, because it is not even half started. Yet we are looking to Wembley to be our new national stadium and the centrepiece of our 2006 World cup bid.
  Wembley Central station bears 18 per cent. of those coming to the stadium, but it is more reminiscent of a 1920s—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I know that Second Reading debates can go somewhat wide of the mark, but the hon. Gentleman must talk about the government of London rather than a specific project.
  Mr. Gardiner: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to bring my remarks to the point that I want to make about the Bill. No hon. Member from London or outside would deny that a project such as Wembley is of huge strategic importance to the whole of north-west London, but that project cannot get off the ground unless the elements of the transport infrastructure are brought into harmony with the London development agency's dealings with the surrounding industrial estate. There is no point in having a jewel set in the midst of a midden. That is how developments at Wembley should have been carried out, but the strategic thought that the Bill will apply to the whole of London was lacking. It has not been possible to effect that major project with the oversight that the new London authority will be able to give.
  I am delighted that clause 202 stipulates that at least half the members of the London development agency must have experience of running a business—or at least they must appear to the mayor to have such experience. In thinking strategically, we must look to how we can get the driving focus of business and the local economy to take forward major infrastructure projects. I welcome that clause.
  I could not properly represent my borough of Brent without mentioning the Metropolitan police authority proposals. Brent is the most multi-ethnic borough in the country and, indeed, in Europe. Yesterday evening, a young Asian man in my constituency told me with great force that the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was the best thing that the Labour Government have done in 18 months. To be entirely honest, he said that it was the only decent thing that they had done. I remonstrated with the man on that point, but his remark about the inquiry was made forcefully, and I should like to welcome with equal force the proposals for the Metropolitan police authority, which mean that we are seeing a new democratic structure. I trust that it will bring transparency and accountability to policing in London, which many of my constituents will welcome most heartily. I welcome the Bill and wish it all speed.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Tony McNulty: First, I apologise for being absent from the Chamber for a couple of hours. I had forewarned the Speaker's Office. Secondly, without being tempted to go down the same road or to receive the same admonition as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), I agree with much of what he said about the development at Wembley and the absence of a strategic dimension. I am a north-west London Member of Parliament, and the direction in which that development goes will have serious ramifications for my constituents as well.
  716
  Conservative Members, not least the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), were utterly wrong earlier in the debate—on London transport, London Underground and congestion charges. It is a shame that she is not present, but it struck me that she had not read, or had entirely misinterpreted, the transport section of the Bill. That is a matter of profound regret, given the Bill's importance, which was highlighted admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman).
  The reasoned amendment tells us—more by exhortation than any substance—that 33 London borough leaders and a directly elected mayor are what is required. No evidence is offered to prove it, and there is no reasoned analysis of why that should be the case, just: "It's there because it's there. That's our amendment, so that's what it should be." I hope that that will be elaborated on.
  The amendment also tells us that the Bill is about the diminution of London boroughs, but no evidence is offered. Most of the debate I have heard suggested nothing about diminution of their powers. I repeat what I said on Second Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998 and when the White Paper was published: the measure reinforces the democratic parts of the post-GLC settlement far more readily than anything suggested in the reasoned amendment or in what I have heard from Conservative Members.
  Neither is the Bill—this is suggested by mantra rather than by any point of substance—a recipe for disaster because of the relationship between the Greater London authority, the boroughs and the mayor.
  Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNulty: Yes, but make use of it.
  Mr. Randall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Unfortunately, he was not able to hear some of the debate, so perhaps I can ask him the question that I asked earlier. Does he think that the GLC was strengthened by the constituency link—the borough link?
  Mr. McNulty: If that was the kernel and substance of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I am rather pleased that I missed it. The debate is not about a GLC mark II and what was, by any definition, a hybrid between a glorified council and a glorified regional body. As I shall continue to say, the debate looks forward to a settlement on London's governance for the new millennium. I say with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman that we should not hark back to old stories, whether in English, Serbo-Croat or any other language. The Bill moves us on from Baroness Thatcher's spiteful vandalism in 1986.
  We—by which I mean London; I am not speaking in a partisan way—need vision and leadership for the millennium and beyond; we need not historical throwbacks to the mid-1980s, but a new, modernised and reinvigorated leadership and vision to take London, our city, into the next century. The Bill provides a voice and a government for our London in the 21st century.
  I shall dwell briefly on some of the Bill's key points, although I hasten to add that, even at this hour, I am using my definition of briefly, not anyone else's. I said on Second Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill that London's future prosperity and

  717
  success would depend on the way in which the new architecture of governance for London worked. That remains the case. However large this Bill is, it cannot legislate for and foresee the shape of and the basic relationships between all aspects of the new governance of London in 10 or 15 years. Anyone who thinks that the Bill can or should do that has little understanding of the modern world.
  The relationship between the mayor, the Greater London authority and the boroughs is crucial. By definition, the new architecture of governance for London will evolve and grow. The strategic powers in the Bill will mean that we are not creating a reincarnated GLC. That is not to say that the GLC was dreadful, and that we do not want to reinvent it. By the mid-1980s, what the GLC was doing was broadly fine. As many of my hon. Friends—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell)—who were not Members of Parliament at the time have said, the GLC needed serious reform, not spiteful abolition; it was necessary to re-engage the boroughs with what they should have been doing, and the strategic authority with what it should have been doing.
  The new architecture that is rooted in the Bill will evolve as the strategic confidence of London grows. That confidence has been ripped out for the past 12 years; some would say—it is a subject for a chat in the Tea Room rather than for this debate—that it was ripped out way before then. Some parts of the GLC's activities were far from strategic; it was doing things that should have been done by the boroughs.
  As I also said on Second Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, London needs a strong elected focal point, which a citywide mayor will provide. The voting method for the mayor is sound; it will produce a mayor with a strong mandate. I shall not get lost among the quibbles about what happens when only the top two candidates are left, but I do not accept the premise that that would undermine the legitimacy or strength of the mayoral mandate.
  The proposed election system for constituency members and London members of the assembly is appropriate; the Bill demonstrates the strength of a proper use of election systems. We do not need shibboleths; we do not want people saying, "The system must be this one, because it is as pure as driven snow; it is the most perfect and moral." The starting point for choosing an electoral system must be what is appropriate for the elements of government to which one wants to elect people.
  The combination of constituency members and London members—to use the Bill's jargon—is also appropriate. I profoundly disagree with those hon. Members who suggested that the 5 per cent. cut-off was wrong. Experience of continental systems shows that the 5 per cent. cut-off is crucial. If hon. Members do not believe that, they should remember what happened in the Isle of Dogs, when some parties—I could mention the Liberal Democrats—lost the plot about what constituted racist literature, although I shall not go into that now.
  The two-thirds veto on the budget is an important safeguard, and the relationship between the mayor and the assembly will evolve and develop within the strategic legislative framework proposed by the Bill. Contrary to
  718
  what some of my hon. Friends have suggested—perish the thought that we would disagree—the power of recall for the mayor is a total red herring. The notion that somehow, given the uniqueness of the mayor's position, there needs to be some form of recall is nonsense.
  No one talks about the power of recall for Members of Parliament—perhaps they should. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) suggested, Members of Parliament were to become idiosyncratic—perish the thought—no one would say, "Let us have a petition in Ilford, South and get rid of him." They would say, "Come the next election, he's out." That is entirely appropriate for the mayor. Having a recall as some sort of get-out clause would fundamentally undermine the powers of the assembly, of Londoners and of the mayor.
  It is time for the London and national media to start to take seriously a major development for this country, and not just this great city. I am bound to say that, to date, by covering a serious political development almost as a beauty contest—with unendorsed individuals posing as party candidates and rushing for the latest photo opportunity—the media have fundamentally let down London and Londoners. Where is the debate?
  Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNulty: Only if it is good.
  Mr. Burstow: I shall endeavour to honour that request. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill ought to include some specific provisions to enable the election expense rules to apply from the point at which people declare their prospective candidacies—and, indeed, start campaigning, as a number of Members of this place and elsewhere appear to have done so far?
  Hon. Members: What about the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)?
  Mr. McNulty: I think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) meant serious candidates. To give him his due, that is a fair point—in the context of the Mickey Mouse contest that we are having now. If I thought seriously that this was the start of what ultimately will be the contest between the candidates in May 2000, he would have a more serious point. In general terms, that matter must be addressed—not least because the essence of some of the American models was all about going out and buying a mayoralty with the individual funding of particular people. That was wrong. That was a good point—I will give the hon. Gentleman that one.
  In terms of the London and national media, where is the debate about the future vision for London? Where is the debate about the strategy that London should be taking, on a cross-party basis, into the 21st century? It is not there. It is about who can pose with Puss-in-Boots last and look best, which has let down London by offering nothing about what London needs from the mayor and the assembly.
  We need more than putative Tory candidates suddenly developing—out of nowhere, almost—concern for London; concern that is far too late to be taken seriously, and far too two-faced to be treated with anything other

  719
  than contempt. That is the case whether it is a Tory candidate who does not know his arts from his elbow and does not know fact from fiction; or a gallivanting spiv who sells second-hand cars—a putative Dick Whittington, whose experience shows that he owes more to the first name of that illustrious mayor than to the second.
  Surely Londoners deserve better from the media and from the candidates concerned. It is essential throughout what is left of the run-up to the first mayoral election that all parties have grown-up processes to select their mayoral and assembly candidates—processes that reflect London's diversity and are as inclusive as possible. To take far wider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, London by its nature is a rich and varied community. More than 35 per cent. of its electorate are black or Asian in origin. That must be reflected across all parties in the mayoral or assembly candidates if Londoners are to take us seriously as politicians and as political parties.
  In general, business welcomes the Bill's proposals, as do the traffic professionals, with whom the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk had so much difficulty. Despite what was suggested on Second and Third Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, the police fully accept the proposals. Everyone accepts them, except the Tories, who seem simply not to understand the notion of strategic governance or what London needs for the future, and the Liberals, who as ever play whingeing schoolboy games. They are loaded with pomposity and divorced from reality, and think that they are playing with a little Lego set rather than a vital element of our constitution.
  There are key elements of genuine concern that could have been brought out far better in the debate in the media and in the House, but the overall provisions of the Bill are to be welcomed. As someone who served for 11 years on a borough planning committee and for about four years—it seemed longer—on the London planning advisory committee, I accept that some greater clarity may be needed on the specific planning proposals in clauses 226 to 241, but I do not believe, from my reading of the Bill, that they are loaded against the boroughs, or that we will have a nasty GLC mark II that is inherently anti-development and will try to stop areas of London doing what they want.
  The key to the spatial development strategy is the word "strategy". The relationship between borough unitary development plans, the spatial development strategy and the role of the mayor will pan out in the appropriate fashion. Concerns about borough planning powers are misplaced.
  To those who have the pleasure of being on the Committee—that is a plea not to be on it, I hasten to add—it will become clear that the spatial development strategy, the London development agency strategy and the transport strategy must be pulled together if they are to prove effective.
  The architecture of governance for London outlined in the Bill will allow London to be a key international city for the future, with, I hope, mayoral candidates and assembly members for the future. That new governance, representing all of London, will give us all faith and confidence, and a strategic vision rooted in democracy for Londoners. That democracy and strategic vision are long, long overdue.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who laid great emphasis on the word "strategy". That is the word that one uses when one does not really know what to do; hence "strategic rail authority", when the Government have no policy of their own on the railways. It was a bit rich for my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) to be lectured by the hon. Gentleman, who said that she did not understand the Bill's provisions for transport, when it became increasingly obvious during the Secretary of State's speech that he did not understand what to do with the tube.
  We have heard much about the functions of the proposed authority and the conflicts that might arise. There were interesting contributions from Government Members about the voting system and whether open lists should be introduced. I wonder whether we will have a re-run of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill on that issue. There were many contributions from Opposition Members—not only Conservative Members—about hypothecation of road charges, and I will return to that later.
  It is something of a privilege for me to be at the Dispatch Box tonight. I think that I am the only Front Bencher from any party who has spoken for his party on the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and now the Greater London Authority Bill. Such is the serendipity of politics. Speaking as someone born of Scottish parents, with a Welsh name and born a Londoner, perhaps I am qualified to do so, however. By a further irony, my wife's grandmother turned on the lights of the Greater London council in the building that is now an aquarium, and my father turned them out. I take great pride in both actions.
  The Queen's Speech referred to the need to help to make London a world-class city. If it is the Government's policy to approach the establishment of a Greater London authority on the basis that London is not already a world-class city, that might explain the absence of media interest in this debate to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East referred. The Bill presents the potential for a vast new layer of bureaucracy. There is a strong case for a mayor in a co-ordinating role, but the Bill proposes a huge panoply of powers and duties. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk pointed out, the Bill is twice as long as the Scotland Bill, which has far more constitutional significance.
  The composition of powers on transport for London contains not the prospect of integration, but the danger of conflict. Everything done by the boroughs can be second-guessed by the mayor under clause 131, and everything done by the mayor can be second-guessed by the Secretary of State under clause 124. As usual, the Government are trying to have it both ways. They pretend to be in favour of genuine devolution, but allow the control-freak mentality of Ministers to maintain ultimate control over everything.
  The research conducted by the London chamber of commerce showed that business sees transport as the priority issue for the mayor, and that point was echoed by many hon. Members tonight. Once again, the Government are trying to have it both ways, which is leading to the dither and delay that have become a feature of the Government's transport policy. Over all looms the

  721
  presence of the Treasury, which remains the ever-present ghost at the feast of any transport debate under this Government.
  The Bill is a two-headed beast on transport. The new transport authority for London will be vested with huge powers and a glance at schedule 9 shows that all the panoply of powers of the existing transport authorities—to own transport, to operate vehicles and transport services, to finance and to subsidise—will be transferred to the new authority. Schedule 9, paragraph 14(2)(a), even contains provisions giving powers to own and develop property for completely unrelated, unconnected purposes. Extraordinarily, paragraph 8(1) will give the new authority the power to manufacture and repair spare parts. The new authority will have powers to do everything bar renationalising privatised industries. The Bill has all the hallmarks of old Labour, but it is also new Labour.
  New Labour wants all the benefits of privatisation. In particular, it wants access to private capital, but none of its disciplines. That unlikely mixture of old and new Labour is behind the PPP—the private partnership—
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The public-private partnership.
  Mr. Jenkin: It is not surprising that I am confused. The game was given away when the Minister of Transport gave evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Select Committee. Instead of referring to the public-private partnership of the National Air Traffic Services, he inadvertently referred to privatisation, which is the one word that he was not meant to say.
  The public-private partnership is part of the new Labour third way and is an extraordinary mixture of old and new Labour. The sub-committee described the Government's proposals for the tube as "rather a convoluted compromise". That has led to dither and delay and left the Secretary of State with no policy at all.
  The order of events has been curious during the run-up to the Greater London authority, particularly as regards congestion charging and transport policy. Usually, Governments produce a consultation paper, then a White Paper and then a Bill, before the funding is put in place if that has not been done already. However, the third way—that mixture of old and new Labour—meant that we began with manifesto commitments that bore little relation to reality. Then there was a year's delay, and then the funding was rather unfairly settled when the Secretary of State lost his battle in the comprehensive spending review. The tube subsidy is to be cut by 2000, as the Secretary of State confirmed today. The revenue subsidy will be phased out and new revenues of up to £1 billion a year from non-residential parking charges, congestion charges and road tolls are assumed by 2005.
  After the funding came the transport White Paper in July. Then there was the U-turn on the tube, and then came the Greater London Authority Bill, which contains powers for congestion charging and non-residential parking charges. Finally, the Government produced a consultation paper to prove that they had not made up their minds on how the money should be collected, who should pay, who should be exempt and how much people should pay. All that is yet to be decided, and the most important city in the United Kingdom is to be the guinea pig for an experiment.
  722
  The financing of transport in London—particularly that of the tube—is in a state of chaos. The Secretary of State did not help to resolve the confusion when he spoke this afternoon. He first admitted that it was assumed that the public-private partnership would replace tube funding by 2000. How can that be? How can capital raised from the private sector replace a revenue subsidy provided by the public sector? It is a complete mystery.
  The interesting word in the Secretary of State's speech was "assumed". He spoke in the past tense. He obviously no longer makes that assumption. He was at great pains to emphasise that there was no deadline for the public-private partnership of the tube. I believe that he was conducting a negotiation with someone not in the House, and that person must, of course, be the Treasury. By agreeing to the abolition of the tube subsidy by 2000, the Treasury has set a deadline. What will the Secretary of State do to replace the funding? Is the tube really expected to become self-financing in 2000? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
  When the Secretary of State said that there was no deadline, he meant that the Treasury had already set one. The Treasury has him over a barrel. Once again, the Chancellor has stitched up the Secretary of State. That explains the Government U-turn on the transfer of the tube to the Greater London authority. The Financial Times was briefed by an un-named Minister as follows:
  "The chances are that candidates would campaign on a platform of blocking the sale. That would have been a disaster."
  Note the word "sale". It is not the correct word. It should have been "public-private partnership".
  All that explains the urgency of using London as the test bed for the congestion charging experiment, which is the Secretary of State's fall-back position. It is the only option that the Chancellor has left the Secretary of State. The new revenues are to replace cuts in subsidy on the tube.
  Mr. Raynsford: Wrong again.
  Mr. Jenkin: If that is wrong, I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation. The whole question of hypothecation of revenues remains open.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making a most important point. What the Government are doing is central to their approach and typical of new Labour. They propose to clobber the motorist and the employer with their new charges rather than making London's transport the fantastic service that it could have been with proper privatisation that would have given people an incentive to use it. We are getting the worst of both worlds.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. He was also right to point out that parking charges will place an extra burden on employers. Those are extra taxes, which the Confederation of British Industry has roundly condemned. Again, it is new Labour: old Labour. New Labour is meant to be friends with the CBI, but old Labour, which raises taxes, is rapidly falling out with that organization.
  That raises the question of hypothecation, the constant claim of the Secretary of State since he produced the White Paper in the summer, but it is completely at odds with parts of the document "Breaking the Logjam", which was produced earlier this week, and with parts of the legislation.

  723
  The Bill is clear. We have already discussed schedules 13 and 14. It includes a provision
  "requiring a charging authority to pay a prescribed proportion of the net proceeds … to the Secretary of State",
  and any sums received by the Secretary of State will be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
  The Bill does not conform to what the Government are saying. If they are serious about their pledge, let them put it in the legislation. Of course, they cannot do so because they have lost the argument with the Treasury. They protest and cite the 10-year pledge. That pledge, which is in "Breaking the Logjam", reads:
  "The Government therefore proposes that local authorities which bring forward pilot road user charging schemes should be able to retain 100 per cent. of the net revenue generated for at least 10 years".
  The operative word there is "should". The Treasury prevented the Government from putting in "will" because it has not agreed. The explanation is given a little further on in the document:
  "This is because there could be poor value for money if low priority transport projects were undertaken simply because of restrictions on the use of revenues."
  There we hear the silky voice of the Treasury mandarins, who are determined to ensure that the principle of hypothecation is a buck that they do not pass.
  Interestingly, paragraph 3.16 of the document, gives the value added tax implications. We read:
  "Action is currently being taken by the European Commission against the UK … for not levying VAT at the standard rate … on road and bridge tolls."
  We read this in a document produced by a Government who deny that tax harmonisation is on the agenda of the European Union. It also underlines the fact that, when they lose that case—as they probably will—a large proportion of the revenues from congestion tolls, charges and parking taxes will go to the Treasury, at least in the form of VAT. If that is to be denied, why do they not put that provision in the Bill?
  Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it was a Conservative Government who made it possible for the European Commission to talk about VAT in that way? Before the Conservatives took that action, it would not have been possible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating that subject. We should return to London.
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall carry on with my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Parking levies and congestion charges are just another tax. Tube financing is in a mess. There is no certainty or time scale, there are no deadlines and the money will run out in 2000, so the new taxes are the only option. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will guarantee at the Dispatch Box that none of the new revenues will be used to finance the tube, which has always been the responsibility of central Government. I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she would like to give that guarantee. No, it appears she will not take up that offer.
  That is why the new taxes are destined to be unpopular. In Oslo—
  Ms Buck: I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the new taxes but, as I said earlier,
  724
  Westminster Conservatives want their right to introduce a congestion tax to be considered urgently. Does that make them old or new Labour?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am not responsible for Westminster council. Given the way in which the Government have ripped the grant away from that council, totally unjustifiably, it is understandable that it should want to raise resources elsewhere. The hon. Lady should be under no illusions: it is the loot that the council wants to get its hands on. That is its main priority.
  The new taxes are destined to be unpopular. In Oslo, road charges were introduced with a clear and visible link, so that those paying them could see the benefits that they were gaining. When Austria attempted to introduce road pricing without such a clear link, a successful campaign called "Road pricing? Nein danke!" stopped the proposals in their tracks.
  The real question is how much will be paid in London. The Leicester experiment suggested that motorists would have to pay £6 a day to be sufficiently deterred in order to get out of their cars and use public transport. In London, the figure would have to be higher because the distances are greater; everything is on a greater scale. That underlines that this is just another tax.
  It adds insult to those who have to travel by car that fuel duties have been increased by £9 billion on top of Conservative plans over the lifetime of this Parliament. The motorist already pays £31 billion in motoring taxation, and hardly one fifth is spent on transport. That proportion is set to fall. Now the Government produce yet more taxes and burdens on the motorist. This would truly be a poll tax on wheels—but to call it that is unfair, because at least the primary legislation gave the poor an exemption from the poll tax. The increased costs of motoring hit the most vulnerable driver groups the hardest. Those are also the fastest growing driver groups: low-paid workers; women with second cars; disabled people; and pensioners, for whom a car is one of the last luxuries that they want to have to give up.
  By tackling urban congestion, the Government are tackling the wrong target. To reduce traffic growth, they would need to tackle inter-urban congestion. Inner urban traffic is hardly growing and suburban traffic is growing a bit. The main growth is inter-urban traffic, from where the main increase in pollution and congestion will come. The proposals hardly bother with that.
  The problem with London traffic, especially in central London, is that it has long been at saturation point. To a certain extent, congestion is self-regulating. Charges can change its nature—there would be fewer Metros and Citroen 2CVs for the convenience of people who can pay with impunity, and more Jaguars and Rolls-Royces—but it is most likely that there would still be saturation. That may mean that congestion in Hampstead high street remains much the same.
  The charges are simply new taxes. They have nothing to do with congestion or the environment and everything to do with politicians wanting to get their hands on the loot. In the Secretary of State's case, it is about rescuing him from his own incompetence in his negotiations on the tube and with the Treasury in the public spending round.
  The solution to the problem of the tube is to privatise it, which would raise serious capital. Instead, the Government are going in for the most desperate sort of

  725
  briefing. The Sunday Telegraph suggested that the Secretary of State is planning a £5 billion integration of the tube and the railways. What an irony it would be if the most hotly disputed privatisation of all, rail privatisation, ended up with the newly privatised Railtrack riding to the rescue of a Government who oppose privatisation in principle and continue to oppose it for London Underground.
  Where are the plans really coming from? Are the Government just kite-flying so as to distract attention from their own mess? What studies have been carried out into the proposals? What is the real feasibility of running British Rail trains through parts of the circle line? What is the time scale for the introduction of the proposals? What are the implications for the crossrail project? Is crossrail now dead? Has the City been told that the Government have abandoned crossrail? What are the costs of the proposals? Whence is the funding to come? What does Railtrack get in return? The public-private partnership for the tube has no timetable. Tube policy has become a train that lacks even a time for departure, let alone a clear destination.
  The Bill does nothing for transport in London. It fiddles with structures and bodies instead of policy. It pays off the ransoms of past political hostages to fortune, instead of laying real plans for the benefit of Londoners. The Bill will not generate one extra penny for transport in London, except by placing extra burdens on motorists. The Government will learn, once again, that it is one thing to raise expectations, but quite another to fulfil them. The Scotland Act 1998 raised huge expectations, but in the end it only increased the nationalist vote. The Government of Wales Act 1998 has set members of the Labour party at each other's throats. In London, the ghosts of the GLC will return to haunt the Labour Government.
  11.20 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke at great length about strategy, but if we accept his definition of what constitutes "strategic"—a lack of policies—we can see that he is a member of a comprehensively strategic party. He went on to give the House the most fantastic interpretation of Government policy, but I shall concentrate on the two issues to which he attached enormous importance in the course of weaving his web—talk about smoke and glass!
  Let me nail the fallacy that the Government have reduced investment in London Underground. It was the previous Administration who, in the 1996 Budget, made cuts to London Underground funding of £130 million. They proposed, on the basis of their remaining in office, to increase that cut in the 1998–99 Budget to £248 million; and in the 1999–2000 Budget, to increase it yet again, to a total of £378 million. The Labour Government found, in one Budget, an additional £365 million for investment in London Underground, thus ensuring that, over two years, London Underground had £1 billion for investment. The hon. Gentleman appears to be unclear about the purpose of Government investment in the underground, thinking that it is for revenue; in fact, it is, as it has always been, essentially for capital investment.
  The hon. Gentleman moved on to the public-private partnership—a phrase he had some difficulty in remembering and saying. There has been no Government
  726
  U-turn. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it abundantly clear this afternoon that we have learnt the appalling lesson of rail privatisation and that we have no intention of going down that track, which caused such a vast waste of public money—millions and millions of pounds. Vast amounts of public money still have to be poured into the privatised rail service, yet the service still fails to meet the high standards that the people of this country expect.
  A public-private partnership is on track—I hate to use that phrase. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, he is not offering any opportunities—we are talking about competitive bids. Unlike the previous Government in respect of rail privatisation, we shall not be tied to or driven by a date or timetable that brings in its train an appalling level of service and vast sums of public money having to be poured into our railways.
  The hon. Member for North Essex referred to a story in The Sunday Telegraph of 13 December. The suggestion that Railtrack has been chosen as the sole bidder for a project of the sort described is entirely untrue. The Government have no plans whatsoever to privatise the underground. We made it abundantly clear in our manifesto that that was not our way forward. Our way forward is a public-private partnership. If the hon. Gentleman has serious questions to ask—judging by his speech this evening, he has neither serious thoughts nor serious questions—they would be better addressed to the journalists of The Sunday Telegraph who wrote that piece of fantasy.
  I share with many of my hon. Friends—I am sure that those who did not say so feel it too—a sense of pride in the fact that the Bill has been delivered to the Floor of the House. It is another example of the Government keeping their promises—and in this instance, they made a promise to Londoners. The official Opposition have made several U-turns on this policy. They heralded it initially as an appalling idea. However, when they saw how popular it was with Londoners, they decided that it was not so appalling after all. Some Conservative Members have claimed tonight that the mayor will have too many powers, while others have claimed that he or she will have too few. Conservative Members are clearly not committed to restoring a democratic voice for London—but that is hardly surprising since the Conservatives took that voice away in the first place.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) spoke at great length about her concerns regarding the assembly's lack of accountability, transparency and powers. She was concerned about a proliferation of bodies and she dubbed Londoners "guinea pigs". Londoners voted overwhelmingly for the proposals that we are debating this evening. It is entirely typical of the Conservatives—who have little respect for Londoners—that, when Londoners get what they have argued and campaigned for, the shadow spokesperson should dub them "guinea pigs".
  The right hon. Lady expressed concern about environmental targets. The mayor will have a responsibility in that area, and I direct the right hon. Lady's attention to part IX, clause 242 onwards, of the Bill. She was not the only Member to argue this evening that the mayor should be removed by some means other than the vote of the electorate. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the

  727
  hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also expressed that view. We believe in the intelligence, perspicacity and political sophistication of the people of London and we believe that they should decide when to remove the mayor.
  Several themes surfaced this evening from all sides—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Jackson: I regret that I will not give way as we are rather pressed for time. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had more than his fair share of interventions.
  Several themes recurred throughout the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East referred to tax-varying powers. We have made it abundantly clear that there will be no such powers as far as the London mayor and assembly are concerned. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made exactly the same reference, and I reiterate my previous point.
  Taxation was a particular concern to several hon. Members on both sides of the House, so I shall take this opportunity to reassert our position and, I hope, calm the fears of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)— who I regret is not in her place. She was particularly concerned about taxation, which she said would inevitably increase. I can well understand her point of view, as the previous Conservative Administration raised taxes 22 times after giving a clear commitment before the general election that they would not do so.
  As I have said already this evening, approximately 3p a week will be added to band D council tax. The contribution that Londoners will make towards the cost of the mayor and the assembly is about one fifth of the £20 million a year that we estimate the mayor, the assembly and its staff will cost. Council tax payers will continue to contribute to the cost of policing, fire services and other Londonwide services when the GLA takes over.
  There are proposals in the Local Government Bill for reserve powers to limit excessive council tax increases. That was referred to by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who reiterated the fear that Londoners would be asked to pay more and more for the GLA. The Local Government Bill will prevent the GLA's precept from increasing unacceptably. That was one of the issues that was raised with what I shall not go so far as to call boring regularity by Conservative Members, and I hope that my remarks will calm their fears.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady paid tribute to Londoners' perspicacity, wisdom, political sophistication and sagacity, which will allow them to choose a mayor who would not ever be in danger of being recalled. If they are so wise, why cannot they have an authority with powers that they can vary, rather that one that is controlled by the Secretary of State?
  Ms Jackson: They voted overwhelmingly for our proposals for a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. It would be wrong twice to overturn the democratic decision of Londoners, which the hon. Gentleman's proposals would undoubtedly do.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) all raised in their individual
  728
  ways issues that they and their constituents believe are particularly important—deprivation, unemployment, the environment and crime. They spoke of issues that matter to the people of London and which the authority will be empowered to begin to tackle strategically for the whole of London. The Bill contains powers on the environment, biodiversity and other issues mentioned by—I have to say, in fairness—hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Conservative Members have raised the issue of how much of the revenue raised by congestion charging and the levy on private non-residential parking will be spent by the mayor and the assembly, and the boroughs when they have those powers, on improving transport in London. I repeat, for what must be the fifth time, that every penny raised by those levies will be spent where it is raised to improve transport. The money will be used to implement the mayor's integrated transport strategy. That will be the case outside London when powers for the remainder of the country are introduced.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I respect and admire the way in which the hon. Lady has made that commitment. Would she be prepared to move an amendment in Committee to remove paragraph 15(5) of schedule 13, which says:
  "Any sums received by the Secretary of State under the regulations or a charging scheme shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund"?
  Ms Jackson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I dealt with that issue.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I was.
  Ms Jackson: I believe that he was not. I dealt with that issue when the point was made about the number of times that that suggestion has been put to the House. I made it clear that we are listening to what he and other hon. Members have said. I repeat: every penny raised will be spent on improving transport in the area where it is raised.
  I refute the other canard, which emanated from the hon. Member for North Essex, who wound up for the Opposition, that there was a battle with the Treasury which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State lost. The Government—a united Government—have broken the barrier of hypothecation. The Conservatives did propose this kind of tax-raising powers in their transport paper, but there was never any mention of hypothecation in this connection. We have broken that particular barrier, as we are breaking so many other barriers which the Conservatives may have talked about but on which they significantly failed to act.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: No, I will not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North shared my pride in the Bill. She spoke of the cultural dimension that can be introduced by the strategic authority. The House would have been amazed if she had not raised the

  729
  issue of black cabs, but she did. Again, she welcomed the wider transport strategy that the mayor and the assembly will introduce.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Would she recommend that a Labour mayoral candidate stood for election on the platform of introducing congestion charges?
  Ms Jackson: If I understood the question correctly, clearly my answer would be yes. It was part of our White Paper that such charges would be introduced; the Prime Minister said in a statement at our conference in Blackpool that the mayor would have the necessary powers; and I have outlined six times tonight precisely how the moneys will be spent. I have made it abundantly clear that it is one of the modernising successes of the Government that we have broken the shibboleth of hypothecation and that a united Government will ensure that this particular revenue stream will be directed to improving transport in London. Improving transport in London will inevitably and invariably improve the environment in London.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. Will she go further than the guarantee about hypothecation and say that the Government will guarantee that the moneys raised through user charges for transport will be additional moneys?
  Ms Jackson: Yes, we have always made it abundantly clear that that is the case. It is one way of accurately directing moneys raised from a specific source to make improvements for everyone in that particular area. I would like the record to show that when Opposition Members ask such questions, the answers that I give clearly do not meet with their approval, so they are clearly opposed to congestion charges and even more opposed to the moneys raised being spent where they are raised to improve transport, reduce congestion and improve the environment. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, "Speak for the Conservatives." I am of course excluding the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from that particular criticism. There are other criticisms that I could and would make of them, but the hour is getting late.
  Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to say that Conservative Members disagreed that these moneys should be additional, when none of us was expressing such a view?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These matters are points of debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can at some point rebut the case that the hon. Lady is making, but the hon. Lady is perfectly in order.
  Ms Jackson: If I misread the hon. Gentleman's face, I apologise, but he looked very disappointed by my answer.
  730
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who I regret is not in his place, made a point that underlined the need for a strategic mayor and assembly. Other hon. Members made the point in their own way and asked that the 33 London boroughs be represented on the assembly, arguing that the boroughs represented exclusively the interests of Londoners. The hon. Gentleman highlighted that because he was not especially excited about the link between Hillingdon and Ealing. He referred to a partiality for or commitment to a particular area, but we believe—the people of London have supported us in this belief—that one can live in Hillingdon, Ealing, Hampstead and Highgate or Greenwich and have a strong commitment to one's own area but undoubtedly also have the sense of being a Londoner. That point was made cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). It is important to have a strategic authority so that we may reflect the sense of what it means to have a commitment to London and to be a Londoner. A strategic authority will lift us out of the undoubted requirement for the boroughs to fight their own corners.
  In a very detailed, interesting and cogently worked speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) welcomed the Bill and paid a generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction, for which I—and I am sure they—would wish to thank him.
  I have touched on the issue of taxation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham. She also raised the issue of the power to create a police authority, which is of course of particular importance. Every other metropolitan authority in the country has such an authority, yet London has been deprived of one. The proposed police authority has been very much welcomed by Londoners.
  Points were made on police funding. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said that we had cut it. On 21 July, the Home Secretary announced that the police service will receive an additional £1.24 billion over three years from 1999–2000. That is in addition to the £7 billion a year already spent on policing. Our plans are to allow for police expenditure to increase by 2.7 per cent. in 1999 to 2000, a further 2.8 per cent. in 2000 to 2001 and an extra 4 per cent. in 2001 to 2002. Of course, police authorities will be able to increase spending by delivering services more efficiently. I hope that that sets at rest any fears that hon. Members may have had about our proposals for a police authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke of her pride in this Government delivering our promises to London. She highlighted the importance of a strategic approach to transport for pensioners and people with disabilities, and raised the issues of those who have an orange badge. As I am sure she is aware, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is the statutory body that advises the Government on that matter. She also raised the issue of minicabs and taxis. She welcomed the Bill not least for the very important mayoral powers on the environment and waste management.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made a point about constituency ties. He missed the point that I made earlier that, although all Londoners have strong ties to their own areas, they also have a strong sense of what it is to be a Londoner. He found my post-referendum

  731
  statements that Londoners had voted overwhelmingly for a mayor and an assembly curious. I did not find them quite as curious as the previous Conservative Government's view, under the Housing Act 1988, that those who fail to vote should be counted as a vote against. That is a rather curious way of supporting those who exercise a sense of civic duty in voting in elections.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North highlighted the fact that we have kept our promise. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), she made the point that we are not looking back. This is not the GLC mark II. We are moving forward; this is a modern form of government to welcome the millennium.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) welcomed the Bill. He highlighted what he regarded as a rather small figure in the referendum, saying that there had been no excitement about it on the doorsteps in his constituency. A recurring theme that I heard on the doorsteps was, "Who in their right mind would want to vote against a mayor and assembly?" London has been arguing for it ever since its democratic voice was so spitefully taken away. He referred to "Prescott capping", which of course equates with best value—best value in every sense of the word. [Interruption.] I rather think that they do, but the hour is getting late, and as we have already had an example of how dangerous it is to attempt to read facial expressions, I shall move on to the next point. I hope that I have managed to calm the hon. Gentleman's fears regarding congestion charging.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On the point that the hon. Lady has just made about those who have voted in the referendum for the Greater London authority, will she undertake, on behalf of the Government, to protect those people—such as my constituents—who depend on London services such as the underground, who did not have a vote in the referendum and will not have a vote for the Greater London authority or for the mayor, but who will depend entirely on decisions taken by the Greater London authority?
  Ms Jackson: I shall forgive the hon. Lady her audacity in asking for the protection of underground services, given that she represents a party that had 18 years in which to improve those services, significantly failed so to do, and would have been, had it been returned at the last general election, engaged in a process of running down those services so that they could be sold off. I shall forgive her on that level.
  However, let me assure—indeed, reassure—the hon. Lady that our public-private partnership is a way of attracting into the underground vast amounts of money which could not possibly come from the public purse, to ensure that it is not only maintained, but modernised. I am speaking of the whole underground network. We have no plans—as, I believe, the Conservative party had in its previous Administration—to close a third of the lines before attempting to sell the underground.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made three points. He said that he did not perceive that London had any particular political identity. I am prepared to forgive him for that remark, which is insulting to Londoners. They are clear in their minds that London does have a political identity. For a long time, they have been arguing for their voice to be restored to them.
  732
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of lack of clarity on planning. Given the failure of previous Administrations to do anything other than regard planning as a dirty word, and given the absurd, ad hoc nature of planning in London—Canary wharf is a prime example—I believe that what we are proposing, strategically, is precisely what London wants. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the business community does welcome the GLA, not least to provide a strategic voice to sort out London's transport problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster spoke of the sense of being a Londoner. He too congratulated our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was especially interested that he shared the Government's commitment to ensuring that the River Thames—that vast natural resource, which runs through this great capital city—is brought back to life and plays its proper part.
  I mentioned the contribution by the hon. Member for Orpington, especially on the subject of crime and the police. We absolutely share his commitment to the idea of world squares.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) also welcomed the Bill. I tell him, and other hon. Members who were concerned about the proposed threshold, that the level of the threshold will be decided by a statutory instrument via an affirmative resolution. That is clearly something that must be discussed in detail, and that is what we are committed to doing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) spoke of the Transport Committee for London. I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue when he referred to the vulnerability of concessionary fares. There is no possibility of concessionary fares becoming vulnerable either before or after the creation of the GLA. My hon. Friend spoke of the importance of the London lorry ban. It was something for which Londoners had argued for a considerable time, which they eventually won.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) spoke of joined-up transport, which will undoubtedly be part of what the mayor will be approaching. We welcomed my hon. Friend's acknowledgement that our proposals for a police authority will introduce transparency and accountability into an area of London where they have not been present before. I have spoken of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East underlining that the Bill is not the Greater London council mark II, that we are looking forward, that we are moving forward, that the Bill is modern and that it is a new concept of government.
  In the main, it is true to say that what we have proposed and brought to the Floor of the House has been welcomed by everyone on the Government Benches and not welcomed at all by the official Opposition. In the main, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill and say that they will work with us.
  Many issues have been raised tonight and we shall have an opportunity to address them all in Committee. I shall end as I began. I and my hon. Friends take great pride in keeping our promise to Londoners. This is another example of the Government keeping their promises. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now call the Government Whip to move—
  Sir Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Government Whip. Is it not right to say that the debate can continue until midnight, and that if anyone wishes to seek to catch your eye, the debate can so continue? In the event of no one else wishing to speak, can a Member who has already spoken be regarded as having the right to speak again?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is debating the Question. I have caught the eye of the Government Whip and invited him to put a motion. It is for the House to decide whether it wishes to divide on the motion. If the motion were defeated, the debate could continue until midnight.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Hill.]
  To be resumed tomorrow.

  FISHERIES
  Ordered,
  That the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 7th December 1998 relating to Fisheries: TACs and quotas for 1999 shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Hill.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    HOUSING
    That the draft Government of Wales Act 1998 (Housing) (Amendments) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
    Question agreed to.

    INCOME SUPPORT
    Ordered,
    That the Income Support (General) (Standard Interest Rate Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2878), dated 23rd November 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Hill.]

  COMMITTEES
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together motions 6 and 7.
  Ordered,

  That Helen Jones be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr. Gerry Steinberg be added to the Committee.
  INFORMATION
  That Mr. Jon Owen Jones be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Ian Stewart be added to the Committee.—[Ms Karen Buck, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Strokes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
11.53 pm
Mr. David Amess: Christmas is a particularly good time of year to consider the state of the nation's health, for obvious reasons. I suppose that I am looking to the Minister to show charity in redressing what I am sure was the unintentional omission of no longer having stroke as a national priority.
Since it was announced that we would have the debate this evening, I have been contacted by a number of hon. Members. I know that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) wanted to be in her place and that for various reasons, she is unable to be present. She is very interested in the subject. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in his place. He is a regular attender in the Chamber and I had not realised that he was the victim of a stroke this summer. Having read the newspaper cuttings, I pay tribute to him on the remarkable recovery that he has made. He is in a good position to speak about the Government's decision not to continue with stroke as a national priority.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on raising this subject. I also thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for assisting me when I had a stroke, which happened on the Bench in front of me. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and an Attendant serving the House also assisted. The events were of great personal importance and give me some insight into this issue. I am keen that the Government should pay proper attention to the interests of bodies such as the Stroke Association.
Mr. Amess: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. Although it may be slightly embarrassing that you are in the Chair at the moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that had it not been for your good self and others, the hon. Gentleman might not be with us today.
I note that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is in his place and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is also here. She knows how important the subject is. I am even more delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is to reply to the debate. He is a product of Westcliff grammar school in my constituency. We are proud that a product of a local selective secondary school has become a Minister. I am not so delighted about his politics, but I do not think that it is churlish to hope that in the coming year when we debate the future of grammar schools, he will bear in mind the great debt that he owes to Westcliff high school for boys. It is barmy to deny future generations the opportunity of the education that he had without putting something better in its place.
I regret the removal of stroke as a priority. The Conservatives' "The Health of the Nation" White Paper set two targets for stroke: one for those under 65 and another for those between 65 and 74. For whatever
736
reason—no doubt the Minister will enlighten me—there is now just one target for heart disease and stroke combined for the under-65s only. I regret that.
Each year, more than 100,000 people in England and Wales have a first stroke. It is a little like Members of Parliament saying that they are experts because they are a father or a mother, but my father died following a number of strokes. He was a good age and his strokes went on over five years. He liked the occasional drink. The first time that it happened, as I remember only too well, my mother thought that he might have had a little bit too much to drink. We realised that something had happened to him—my nephew was present at the time—when he lost his speech. I have not had the same experience as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, but I have seen my mother, who was nearly 80, caring for my father for five years. She kept him alive, but he lost a great deal of his dignity. He went to a speech therapist, but he never really regained his speech. I have witnessed at close quarters what stroke means for many people.
There are more than 60,000 deaths each year due to stroke. It is the third most common cause of death, after heart problems and cancer. Stroke is the largest single cause of severe disability in England and Wales. The estimated cost to the national health service is £2.3 billion a year. The cost of stroke care will rise in real terms by about 30 per cent. by 2023. As we all know, stroke is blockage of the supply of blood to the brain. The effects of stroke can be mild or severe. Who is at risk? There seems to be a misunderstanding that only elderly people are at risk, but young people can suffer from strokes. It has been estimated that about 40 per cent. of strokes could be prevented by regular blood pressure checks.
I pay tribute to the Stroke Association, which has been quite magnificent in briefing me closely. It is a national charity which provides practical support to people who have had strokes, their families and carers. I was privileged to be present, by sheer coincidence, at my local stroke Christmas dinner on Saturday evening and I spoke to a number of people who have suffered strokes and their carers.
I am delighted that stroke services in Southend are first class. I have no complaints about our local services and we have an excellent unit at the hospital, which takes patients in the acute phase and works through the rehabilitation process with them. After discharge, essential follow-up rehabilitation is provided by community-based speech and language therapists. Neuro-physiotherapists and occupational therapists also help, and funding is provided for a Stroke Association dysphasia support officer who, together with a team of volunteers, provides continuing support for those who have communication problems after strokes.
The service in Southend is first class, but, without being dishonourable to the Minister, I want to articulate and share with him my concerns and tackle the ministerial responses, which I do not accept. "Modernising Health and Social Services: National Priorities Guidance 1999/00–2001/02" has at page 10—for all to see, so I am not imagining it—waiting list times, primary care, coronary care, heart disease and cancer, but there is no mention of stroke.
At page 20, although the Minister will argue that it is included under coronary heart disease, it is not at all clear that stroke is accepted as a priority. That important

737
document will direct the work of health and social services for three years from April next year, which is why I am very concerned. Stroke is the single largest cause of disability.
The Government's decision contradicts the long-term health strategy proposed in "Our Healthier Nation" earlier this year. "Clinical effectiveness using stroke care as an example" is a report by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, an independent body which advises Ministers. The Government have drawn upon the variations in treatment and care revealed in it to support their general approach to quality in the NHS, but I believe that they have failed to address stroke-specific aspects of the report, some of which are extremely worrying.
Probably the most serious finding relates to carotid endarterectomies. Despite clear guidelines that such operations should be carried out only if complication rates are under 10 per cent., the majority of clinicians were not aware of complication rates. I am not trying to trick the Minister, but his boss, the Secretary of State for Health, described the situation as "particularly alarming" in early June. However, in a response to a parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was told that
"the Secretary of State will not be making any additional response to the specific recommendations regarding strokes."—[Official Report, 30 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 514.]
The national service frameworks are aimed at major disease groups and care areas where national consistency in services is desirable; my concern is that that is not being properly tackled.
I shall be brief, as I want to give the Minister time to respond. I expect him to say that making everything a priority in the national priorities guidance would mean that nothing is a priority. However, the Stroke Association is not asking the Government to step outside the priorities identified in "Our Healthier Nation"; it wants the labelling of stroke as a priority to be followed through with action. The rhetoric of Her Majesty's Government—I speak, of course, as a critic—is wonderful, but action is lacking.
I expect that the Minister will also say that stroke has not been excluded from the national priorities guidance. The section of "Our Healthier Nation" that it is claimed covers heart disease and the stroke target is, in fact, entitled "Coronary Heart Disease"—I cannot for the life of me understand why no one had the common sense to retain stroke in that section.
The Minister will say, I am sure, that the national service frameworks on heart disease and older people will deal with many issues relating to stroke. Apart from the target for accidents, however, stroke is the only target in "Our Healthier Nation" for which a national service framework is not being developed.
I commend stroke units to the Minister; excellent work has been done in Glasgow in particular. It has been shown that the chances of a patient dying can be reduced by 18 per cent., that the chances of a patient dying or requiring institutional care can be reduced by 25 per cent. and that the chances of a patient remaining physically dependent can be reduced by 29 per cent. Those results suggested that approximately 22 patients would need to be treated in a stroke unit to ensure that an extra patient survived, that 14 would need to be treated to ensure that an extra
738
patient returned home and that 16 would need to be treated to ensure that an extra patient regained physical independence. I suspect that the vertical structure of the Department of Health has led to the downgrading of stroke.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton) indicated dissent.
Mr. Amess: The Minister shakes his head but that is my suspicion. I have been advised that no one in the Department any longer takes an overall view of matters relating to stroke. As I said, we are approaching Christmas, so I hope that he has some good news for me.
12.9 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for giving the House the opportunity, even at this late hour, to debate this important issue. He asked me a number of questions, to which I hope to respond; in doing so, I shall correct some of his misunderstandings of Government policy.
I was very sorry to hear of the death of the hon. Gentleman's father from stroke. I was not aware of that fact. He said that his mother cared for his father for some time, so I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the Government's initiative in setting up a national strategy for carers—it is important that we deal with the needs of carers in a co-ordinated way. I join him in congratulating the professionalism and dedication of national health service staff in his constituency, where, as he will know, I lived for many years—I retain great affection for that part of the country, where many members of my family still live. I am very glad also that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has made a full recovery from his stroke.
The hon. Member for Southend, West was right that, as the UK's third-biggest killer is stroke, and as it is the largest cause of serious disability in the UK, it is a subject that affects us all. We all need to know what the risk factors are for stroke. Through the NHS and other agencies, we need well-integrated services to help care for, treat and rehabilitate patients following a stroke.
As the hon. Member for Southend, West knows from his personal experience in his family, a stroke can be a catastrophe for patients and their families. Each year, 110,000 people in the UK experience their first stroke and 30,000 have recurrences. It is estimated that about 350,000 people are severely disabled at any one time because of stroke. It is the third most common cause of death in the UK, and an important cause of severe disability. Although the majority of strokes affect older people, anyone can have a stroke at any age. The devastation that an unexpected stroke brings to the life of a younger person in particular—and to their family—can be barely imagined.
I reassure the hon. Member for Southend, West that we take the issues very seriously. The Government are committed to reducing the numbers dying from stroke, and the numbers of those suffering disability as a result of stroke.

739
There are three key areas where we can influence things: first, through prevention and education about risk factors; secondly, through the care that people receive—normally in hospital—immediately following a stroke; and thirdly, through rehabilitation services, which ensure that patients and their families can return, as far as possible, to the life style that they enjoyed prior to a stroke.
Strokes are a major cause of disability, and we must do everything possible to prevent and limit the burden that they impose on both stroke victims and on those who care for them. In the consultation paper, "Our Healthier Nation"—to which the hon. Member for Southend, West referred—we have selected heart disease and stroke as a priority for action, and we are proposing a target reduction in stroke mortality of at least a further third by 2010. This target is taken from a 1996 baseline.
What can people do to modify the risk of getting a stroke? Modifiable risk factors include smoking, raised blood pressure, raised plasma cholesterol and physical inactivity. Other contributory factors are excessive alcohol intake, obesity, excess salt in the diet and diabetes. Inactive people face three times the risk of stroke that people who are active face, and smokers face twice the risk. The Department of Health has been funding a major physical activity campaign called "Active for Life". This campaign highlights the relatively simple forms of physical activity—for example, a brisk walk for 30 minutes, five times a week—that can help to protect against stroke. We are spending £9 million on the campaign.
The Government have just published our White Paper, "Smoking Kills", which sets out our new proposals for implementing a ban on tobacco advertising. Together with other measures, we believe that that will be a significant step towards tackling one of the major risk factors for stroke. The commitment in the White Paper is clear evidence of our determination to address the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he did not mention the White Paper.
What about people who suffer a stroke? The needs of stroke patients span a wide variety of services. Patients who suffer a stroke will need acute care immediately following their stroke and, depending on the severity of the stroke, a programme of rehabilitation to help them optimise their independence afterwards. Stroke is a medical emergency, and the majority of patients are admitted to acute medical wards from accident and emergency departments. The aim of initial treatment is to stabilise the patient, and to reduce fatality, to reduce major disability and to prevent secondary stroke.
We are starting to see some evidence that new clot-buster drugs may improve the treatment of acute stroke. However, we need to look at further research before those drugs enter mainstream use. Nevertheless, there is a growing view that early admission of stroke cases to hospital is beneficial to ensure the patient's oxygen supply remains unimpaired and that blood glucose levels, and other aspects of metabolism, can be controlled.
The pattern of care for stroke patients is varied in England. Following the acute phase, patients may remain in acute medical wards or transfer to a stroke unit or rehabilitation facility, or have a package of rehabilitative care in their own home. The Stroke Association's recent good practice resource document, which it issued to health
740
authorities and community health councils in September, provides practical examples of local stroke services, delivered in a range of different settings. I would certainly join the hon. Gentleman in praising the good work of the Stroke Association.
Stroke units have brought about an enormous change in the care of stroke patients. There is evidence that dedicated stroke care greatly improves outcome and reduces mortality. Specialisation of nursing staff is a key factor in a successful stroke unit. The characteristics of a stroke unit include a multi-disciplinary team; co-ordination of rehabilitation, started early; nursing integration with multi-disciplinary teams; active involvement of carers provided with the right information; discharge planning and early social work involvement; and, often, the support of a Stroke Association family support worker.
We are aware that there are different types of stroke units. They may be bricks and mortar units, in the sense that they are based in the same hospital, or they may be established through working protocols that provide care pathways for patients with stroke. We stressed the importance of care pathways in the recent guidance document, "Commissioning in the New NHS", in October. Our proposals for pathways of care will link primary, secondary and social care, where appropriate. We emphasised in the guidance that care pathways should be developed to cover a range of preventive, diagnostic, palliative, rehabilitative and other care components in an integrated programme of care.
Rehabilitation is a crucial service that gives people who have had a stroke the time and opportunity to recover properly following any treatment that they have received in hospital. We emphasised the need for rehabilitation and recovery in "Better Services for Vulnerable People", which we issued last year. Health authorities will review and propose changes to their policies for rehabilitation and recovery for older people.
Evidence from clinical trials suggests that early rehabilitation intervention leads to improved physical and functional outcomes. The first three months are the most critical period when the greatest recovery is thought to occur. In November, my Department, together with the relevant professional organisations, issued a directory of developments in occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech and language therapy, to share and promote good practice in the development of rehabilitation and recovery services generally.
The directory contains a section on stroke that sets out working examples of the delivery of stroke services in a multi-disciplinary environment: that is real partnership in action. We issued a rehabilitation handbook in 1997, aimed at health service commissioners, giving details of good practice and quality measures for rehabilitation services.
Many of those examples illustrate another important strand in the modern, new NHS: working in partnership. This autumn, we issued landmark guidance: the national priorities guidance. For the first time, we have issued joint priorities guidance to health and social services that sets challenging targets for the next three years that all parts of the NHS and social services will be expected to meet. We are focusing on the targets that make a difference to patients. It provides the NHS and social services with a

741
three-year planning framework, backed by the largest ever increase in resources in the history of the national health service.
Promoting independence is one of our key priorities in the national priorities guidance. The priority stresses that the partnership of timely health and social services in the community can make a crucial difference to the ability of older people to maintain or achieve independence and maintain a healthy life style.
I know that there has been some disappointment that stroke has not been included specifically as a priority. Demanding decisions will always need to be made in priority setting, but stroke has not been omitted from the national priorities guidance: it is covered under the coronary heart disease priority, which emphasises the importance of the "Our Healthier Nation" target for heart disease and stroke and the role of the national service framework for coronary heart disease in delivering national priority guidance objectives to meet that target.
We do not discount the difficulties that are often encountered by younger people who suffer a stroke. I have already mentioned the national priorities guidance priority for promoting independence. As well as applying to older people, for whom we are developing the latest national service framework, it contains a reminder that
"For adults of working age, statutory agencies have a responsibility to help service users and their carers of working age to stay in or regain employment where possible."
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the Clinical Standards Advisory Group. He will know that in 1997 the Government asked the group to investigate clinical effectiveness in the NHS, using stroke as a marker condition. Its report had relevance to stroke care as well as messages about generic approaches to effectiveness.
The Clinical Standards Advisory Group made three recommendations in its report. First, it said that there should be more rigorous central collection and review of evidence, and clearer central direction as to the changes in clinical practice required. That recommendation is more than met by the proposals for a new national institute for clinical excellence, which will mean that, for
742
the first time, patients and NHS staff will be able to turn to a single authoritative source of clinical and cost-effectiveness advice.
Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend has made many interesting points, but why is the Stroke Association, which does such fantastic work, so upset by the failure to have specific targets for stroke? Specific targets should be ones that the Government are able to deliver easily and well, and the exercise, diet and other recommendations, which my hon. Friend mentioned and which should be undertaken to improve health, can be delivered through a good publicity campaign.
Mr. Hutton: We have set a clear target, to which I referred in my opening remarks, for reducing mortality rates from stroke by a third by 2010. We are clear about the importance that we attach to tackling instances of stroke, and we are determined to take the agenda forward positively. We are addressing the issues responsibly and setting the right priorities.
The second issue raised by the CSAG was that the implementation of centrally supported guidelines should be better co-ordinated. That recommendation is more than met by the proposals for clinical governance which will provide the local infrastructure, and national service frameworks, which will provide the national drive for selected topics. We announced last month that the next national service framework would be on services for older people. We are still considering the arrangements for taking forward the framework, but we are very aware of the increased risk to older people of suffering a stroke. The incidence of stroke rises from three people per 1,000 per year in the age group 55–64 to 20 per 1,000 people per year for those aged over 85.
I would like to make more points about the issue of stroke, how we manage the incidence of that illness and the positive approaches that the Government want to take. I reassure the hon. Member for Southend, West that we take the issues seriously and we are developing policies that we believe will address the concerns that he has raised tonight. I hope that we can work with others in the national health service and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Health Committee to take that important work forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library a table showing the Band D council tax increase for each (i) billing authority and (ii) notifiable authority in England,(a) in cash terms and (b) in percentage terms, based on the assumption that all councils apply his 1998–99 capping principles and spend up to the limit that would imply; [62853]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a table showing the Band D council tax increase for each (i) billing authority and (ii) notifiable authority in England, (1) without applying council tax benefit limitation and (2) showing the extra increase that would arise from council tax benefit limitation (a) in cash terms and (b) in percentage terms, based on the assumption that all councils apply his 1998–99 capping principles and spend up to the limit that would imply. [62854]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: I have today placed in the Library of the House tables showing the information requested. The figures are entirely speculative. Councils will each take their own decision about their budget requirements for 1999–2000, in the light of the substantial increases in funding announced on 2 December 1998, Official Report, columns 883–86. Each will look at its own circumstances and consider very hard the need for any council tax increase at all. There is no reason for the capping principles used in 1998–99 to be part of a council's budgeting decisions. The figures for some councils are particularly distorted by an assumption that they would increase their spending up to SSA even where they have in the past consistently spent below that level.

  Local Government Finance (Essex)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons Government grant support for Brentwood Borough and Epping Forest District Councils is to decline in the next financial year. [63041]

  Ms Armstrong
  Brentwood Borough Council and Epping Forest District Councils will receive central support reduction grant for 1999–2000. This ensures that their income from redistributed non-domestic rates and central government support under various grants to be paid for 1999–2000 will not be less than the income from redistributed non-domestic rates and various grants payable to them for 1998–99.

  Both local authorities will, however, face a reduction in revenue support grant (RSG) for 1999–2000.
  308
  The main reason for the reduction is RSG for Brentwood Borough Council in 1999–2000 is the change to the method of calculating the element of the Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) for local authorities' own expenditure on Flood Defence. The calculation is to be based on outturn expenditure instead of budgeted expenditure. Brentwood's budgeted expenditure has been substantially greater than what it has actually spent on flood defence. Other reasons include the adjustment of Capital Financing national totals to allow for the effect of reserved receipts on financing costs and a decrease in the values of some of the indicators used in the calculation of the 'District services' element of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA.

  The main reason for the reduction in RSG for Epping Forest District Council in 1999–2000 is the adjustment of Capital Financing national totals to allow for the effect of reserved receipts on financing costs. Other reasons include a decline in its assumed level of debt, and a decrease in the values of some of the indicators used in the calculation of the 'District services' element of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA.

  Road Accidents (Tranquillisers)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the number of road (i) deaths and (ii) accidents each year which would not occur if people taking tranquillisers did not drive. [62685]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is presently conducting a three-year survey, which started in October 1996, into the incidence of drugs (legal or illegal) in fatal road accident victims. A report on interim results to 7 January 1998 was published on 11 February 1998. My written answer of that date,Official Report, column 233, explained that a copy was being placed in the Library.

  This survey will not provide evidence of accident causation but it will help to establish the extent of drug use among road users. the interim results show that medicinal drugs were present in some 6 per cent. of road accident fatalities (drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists).

  Retail Outlets
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to county councils on the setting up of retail outlets; and if he will make a statement. [63315]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Government policy on town centres and retail development is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 6.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the percentage of night flights at Gatwick by QC4 and QC8 aircraft(a) between October 1993 and September 1994 and (b) for the latest available 12 month period. [63456]
  309
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  8,651 night flights were counted against the noise quotas and movement limits in the period 24 October 1993 to 23 October 1994, of which 4 were by aircraft classified QC/8 and 420 (4.85 per cent.) were by aircraft classified QC/4.

  11,470 night flights were counted against the noise quotas and movement limits in the period 26 October 1997 to 24 October 1998, of which one was by an aircraft classified QC/8 and 731 (6.37 per cent.) were by aircraft classified QC/4. The figures included in the above for the summer 1998 season are provisional.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many night flights were permitted at Heathrow and Gatwick airports in the year October 1992 to September 1993; and how many are due to be permitted in the year October 1998 to September 1999. [63454]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Prior to 24 October 1993, night flights at Heathrow and Gatwick were restricted on the basis of movements quotas. Since then, the night restrictions have been based on a system of movements limits and noise quotas. The night restrictions have always been set on a seasonal basis and details are available on that basis. The seasons change with the clocks.

  The number of night flights permitted under the relevant restrictions in Winter 1992–93 (October-March) and Summer 1993 (March-October) were as follows:

  Airport

  Winter 1992–93

  Summer 1993

  Total

  Gatwick

  Delayed Departures1

  20

  30

  50

  NN/B2

  815

  1,780

  2,595

  NN/C

  1,542

  3,410

  4,952

  Total

  2,377

  5,220

  7,597

  Heathrow

  Delayed Departures

  30

  60

  90

  NN/B and NN/C

  3,000

  2,750

  5,750

  Total

  3,030

  2,810

  5,840

  1 Prior to October 1993, aircraft were classified into four groups depending on their noise performance on take-off. The noisiest types, NN/A, could not normally operate at night, apart from a small quota for delayed aircraft.

  2 At Gatwick, the movement quotas were subdivided between NN/B and NN/C aircraft as a further control on the number of take-offs and landings by the next noisiest types of aircraft. The movement quotas at Heathrow were not subdivided in this way but NN/B aircraft were barred from taking off between 0030–0500.

  The number of night flights permitted under the relevant restrictions in Winter 1998–99 (October-March) and Summer 1999 (March-October) are as follows:

  Season

  Airport

  Winter 1998–99

  Summer 1999

  Total

  Gatwick

  Movements Limit

  5,250

  11,200

  16,450

  Noise Quota

  6,820

  9,550

  16,370

  Heathrow

  Movements Limit

  2,550

  3,250

  5,800

  Noise Quota

  5,000

  7,000

  12,000

  310
  The current restrictions comprise a maximum number of movements which can be made each season with a quota, related to an aircraft's noise classification on take-off or landing, as a supplementary measure designed to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. Each aircraft (landing or take-off) counts as one against the movement limit; it also counts against the noise quota according to its noise quota classification.

  Both night restrictions regimes additionally permit movements by exempt types of aircraft, although far fewer types of aircraft are exempt under the present regime than previously. Both night restrictions regimes also include provisions for some movements to be given dispensations. The latest guidelines on dispensations were published in the second stage consultation paper on Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, which was announced on 17 November 1998, Official Report, columns 492–93.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the night flight noise point quota system at Gatwick in encouraging the use of quieter aircraft. [63457]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is considered in the second stage of the consultation on Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted issued on 17 November 1998,Official Report, columns 492–93.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the number of night noise quota points used at Gatwick Airport(a) between October 1993 and September 1994 and (b) in the latest available 12 month period; and to what extent the number of noise quota points used is proportional to the volume of noise at night. [63455]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since October 1993 the night noise quotas set for Gatwick Airport have been 6,820 quota count (QC) points for each winter season and 9,550 QC points for each summer season, making an annual total of 16,370 QC points. The usage made of these quotas in the periods 24 October 1993 and 23 October 1994 inclusive was 8963.5 points; and that in the period 26 October 1997 and 25 October 1998 inclusive was 12413 points.

  The figures included in the above for the summer 1998 season are provisional.

  For the purposes of the night restrictions, aircraft are classified into seven QC bands, in most cases according to the noise certification data collected when the aircraft was tested to show that it met the internationally agreed noise levels. The metric EPNL (Effective Perceived Noise Level) is used for noise certification purposes, and each aircraft, depending on the engines fitted, is classified into one of seven 3EPNdB-wide QC bands. They are classified separately for take-off and landing. Therefore, the number of quota points used is proportional to the volume of noise according to the following scale.

  311

  Quota Count

  Noise Classification

  QC/0

  less than 87 EPNdB, but in the case of jet aircraft, those having a maximum certificate take-off weight not exceeding 11,600kg.

  QC/0.5

  90–92.9 EPNdB

  QC/1

  90–92.9 EPNdB

  QC/2

  93–95.9 EPNdB

  QC/4

  96–98.9 EPNdB

  QC/8

  99–101.9 EPNdB

  QC/16

  Greater than 101.9 EPNdB

  Aircraft (Disabled Access)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to ensure that all aircraft in public service are accessible to people with disabilities. [63397]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is leading discussions at European level to draw up common standards of access to air services for disabled people. We are also involved in similar discussions at the International level.

  With our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and the Access to the Skies Committee, we are working too with the air industry in this country, to improve their understanding of the needs of disabled people and to encourage better provision of facilities to meet those needs.

  Channel Tunnel—Liverpool Link
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the new proposals from Central Railway for opening a railway line between Liverpool and the Channel Tunnel. [63475]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers have seen only the consultation documents which Central Railway recently issued. We have therefore not taken a view on the scheme.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's definition of brown-field sites. [63615]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no specific definition of "brownfield" land. However, it is usually taken to mean land previously developed for 'urban' uses. For statistical purposes, as defined by the Department's Land Use Change Statistics, 'previously-developed urban' uses include residential, transport and utilities, industry and commerce, community services, previously-developed vacant land and derelict land. Land is classified according to its use and not its location, therefore the 'urban' use can occur in rural areas.

  Information on land that may be available for redevelopment is currently being collected in order to compile the first phase of the National Land Use Database. The scope of this is wider than the definition of previously-developed land used in Land Use Change Statistics.

  Open-top Sightseeing Buses (London)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of open-top sightseeing buses operating in London per day and of the average payload per bus in each of the last 12 months. [63682]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the changes to the criteria for calculating the other education SSA block in the local government settlements for 1999–2000. [63830]

  Ms Armstrong
  The national total for the Other Education SSA for 1999–2000 has been decided in consultation with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The same indicators are used to distribute the other education SSA in 1999–2000 as were used in 1998–99. The unit costs for each indicator have been adjusted to take account of rescaling the unit costs to reflect the overall total of other education SSA for 1999–2000 and any updating of the data used in the calculations. In addition, a small correction has been made to the population data for 1991 used in the underlying statistical analyses.

  A14 (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from national motorway and road haulage organisations concerning the A14 in Cambridgeshire; and if he will make a statement. [63527]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We consulted very widely on our Integrated Transport Policy and Review of Trunk Roads and received a large number of comments. Organisations at national, regional and local level made it clear the problems in the Cambridge-Huntingdon area were very severe and the need for solutions was seen as a very high priority.

  John Bridge, Chairman of the Road Haulage Association, met with the Highways Agency's Chief Executive, Lawrie Haynes, and John Pearman, the Area Manager, on 8 September to press the case for an early start to the multi-modal A14 study.

  Improvements to the A14 north of Cambridge were withdrawn by the previous administration and proposed improvements between the M11, Junction 14 and the A1/A14 junction had not even reached public consultation stage so they were not contenders for the Targeted Investment Programme that we announced in July. We are proposing to carry out a multi-modal study of the Cambridge-Huntingdon Corridor to bring forward a comprehensive solution to the problems including looking at the potential for transfer of traffic on to other modes. Confirmation of this study was given last week and a provisional date for its start is 2000–01; this timing, as with the timing of all multi-modal studies arising from the roads review, is subject to progress on consultation with the regional planning conference.
  313
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Highways Agency concerning recent fatal accidents on the A14 in Cambridgeshire; and if he will make a statement. [63529]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency has the facts available on all personal injury accidents. There is in place a system of reporting the most serious incidents to Ministers. The recent fatal accident reported on this basis covers the accident at Lolworth on 18 November.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will institute contingency plans for the design and routing of an upgrade of the A14 in Cambridgeshire, pending the outcome of multi-modal study for that traffic corridor. [63526]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the needs of the network. We have already identified a number of safety related improvements for the Huntingdon to Cambridge section of the A14 which stem from a specific earlier study exercise. The Highways Agency will be implementing these measures by the Spring of 1999.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with the standing conference of East Anglian local authorities on terms of reference for a multi-modal study of the A14 corridor in Cambridgeshire. [63530]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government Office of the Eastern Region is working closely with the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities (SCEALA) on the technical work leading to the public exhibition of the Draft Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia, which takes place in February. On 10 December we published our formal consultation with the Regional planning conference on the study programme announced in 'A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England'. This consultation seeks the Conference's views on the timing, coverage, and scope of the studies. The consultation paper proposes that the Cambridge-Huntingdon study should fall in the second tranche of multi-modal studies. There is a wide range of issues in the corridor including congestion, safety, environment, possible road, bus and rail proposals as well as proposals for significant development that will have to form part of any broad assessment of potential transport solutions.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safety improvements on the A14 in Cambridgeshire have been commissioned by the Highways Agency. [63535]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The whole of the A14 (from M6 to Felixstowe) is being considered as an integral route. As part of that a package of measures along the length of the A14 in Cambridgeshire is being progressed:West of A1 conversion of four existing single level junctions to two level;
  Between Huntingdon and Cambridge—package of safety measures as described in my answer today to PQ63531, at column 314;
  between Cambridge and Newmarket—package of safety measures as described in my answer today to PQ63531, at column 314.
  314
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has evaluated concerning the potential for improvements in safety on the A14 in Cambridgeshire; and what action he proposes to take on those studies. [63531]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Studies and improvements can be broken down into three distinct lengths, working from east to west as follows:

  (a) The Highways Agency is carrying out studies to identify what safety improvements can be made to the Histon (B1049) and Milton (A10) interchanges north of Cambridge. As an interim measure, the Agency is providing 'queue warning signs' on both carriageways of the trunk road approaching each junction. The signs will be in place by the end of January 1999.

  (b) In 1995 a study was commissioned from consulting engineers, Thorburn Colquhoun, to investigate accidents and congestion on the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge. This study suggested measures that could be taken to improve safety on the A14. The first stage of these improvements was carried out in 1995–96 when speed cameras were provided to help reduce traffic speeds. Since that time, and from that study, the Highways Agency has further developed a strategy of safety related improvement measures which will shortly be implemented. These focus on particular problems at specific locations which will be carried out by Spring 1999:

  (i) Improvement to various junctions by small scale widening, replacing existing chevrons with yellow backed signs, install bend warning signs with advisory speed limits, laying anti-skid at the ends of the diverge tapers and providing countdown markers on the approaches to the diverge tapers;

  (ii) Improvements within Girton Interchange to improve lane discipline and the flow of traffic;

  (iii) The construction of an acceleration lane to Hemingford Abbots eastbound carriageway.

  (c) Further studies are already in place to look at additional safety improvements at various locations;

  (d) Schemes are being prepared to change four existing single level junctions to two level between Thrapston and Brampton. They comprise the provision of bridges with full connections to the A14 at Polopit Road, the B663, Leighton Bromswold and Wooley/Easton junctions together with an overbridge at Chainbridge Lane. The Little Meadow crossing will be closed and alternative access arrangements for land and property owners made. All other central reserve gaps will be closed and the present footpath/bridleway crossing diverted to the proposed structures. All direct access points will be closed and alternative means of access put in place.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what increase in(a) noise and (b) pollutant emissions has occurred along the A14 in the last five years. [63528]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No readings are available to determine the increase in noise and pollution.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the growth of(a) HGV traffic and (b) all road traffic on the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge in the last three years. [63533]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Over the last three years the total growth in traffic on this section of the A14 has been recorded as follows:

  (a) HGV traffic—approximately 7.5 per cent.

  (b) All vehicles—approximately 9.0 per cent.

  Dual Carriageways (Traffic Levels)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which two-lane dual carriageways in England, not of motorway standard, currently carry the highest levels of road traffic. [63532]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1997 the highest level of road traffic on non-motorway, two lane dual carriageways, in England, recorded as an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow was 84,000 vehicles on the A1. From readily available records, the ten busiest sections are listed. Lengths of two lane dual carriageway less than 2.5km, which predominantly occur in Urban areas, have been excluded:

  Road

  Location

  Road class

  AADT

  A1

  Gateshead Western By-pass

  Trunk

  84,000

  A1

  Newcastle Western By-pass

  Trunk

  79,000

  A27

  Havant-Chichester

  Trunk

  75,000

  A127

  M25-Southend

  Principal

  72,000

  A45

  M1-Northampton

  Principal

  71,000

  A66

  Darlington-Middlesborough

  Principal

  67,000

  A14

  Hungtingdon-Cambridge

  Trunk

  66,000

  A23

  Brighton-Crawley

  Trunk

  65,000

  A312

  Hayes By-pass

  Principal

  61,000

  A34

  Oxford-Abingdon

  Trunk

  61,000

  Public Refuse Incinerators
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued to local authorities regarding the siting of public refuse incinerators. [63410]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Government guidance on the siting of incinerators is included in Planning Policy Guidance note 23 'Planning and Pollution Control'. This will be updated soon when Planning Policy Guidance note 10 'Planning and Waste Management' is published. the Department also issued a guidance note to local authorities in August, 1997, on the provision of incinerators in connection with the slaughter of cattle under the 'Over Thirty Months Scheme'.

  Rail Services (Punctuality)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each train operating company the number of days in the last 12 months which the company excluded from its calculation of punctuality statistics on the ground that there was no effective service. [63419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No days are excluded from the OPRAF incentive schemes on the grounds of failure to provide an effective service. Neither are days taken out of the OPRAF contractual enforcement regime governing the relationship with operators on these grounds.

  However, the Passengers Charter allows for days to be declared 'Void' in a particular Charter Group if no effective service is provided on a particular day. If this happens, season tickets of one month or more will be extended or similar compensation arranged. The OPRAF Bulletin includes punctuality statistics based on the Passenger Charter and from the next edition will include
  316
  details of the number of void days. Currently void days are generally listed at stations on the Charter Performance Posters.

  For the 12 months up to the end of Period 8 (14 November) the following days have been declared void.

  Total

  Anglia Railways

  Mainline

  5

  Felixstowe

  1

  Cardiff Railway

  17

  Central Trains

  East Midlands

  16

  Inter-Urban

  16

  Mid Wales and Marches

  16

  Virgin Cross Country

  28

  Gatwick Express

  11

  Great Eastern

  1

  Great North Eastern Railway

  5

  Great Western Trains

  27

  Midland Mainline

  6

  North Western Trains (Inter-Urban only)

  1

  Silverlink (still subject to confirmation)

  County

  20

  Metro NLL

  11

  Metro Watford

  8

  South West Trains

  Main Line

  6

  Suburban

  4

  Thameslink

  2

  Wales and West

  Cornwall

  2

  Devon

  2

  South Cotswolds

  2

  West and Central Wales

  2

  Western Express

  2

  Avon

  2

  Virgin West Coast

  West Midlands

  36

  North West

  37

  Scotland

  47

  Notes:

  Italic Type—Operator

  Normal Type—Service Group

  Local Authority Housing (Resource Accounting)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to consult on the introduction of resource accounting for local authority housing. [64079]

  Ms Armstrong
  We will be publishing a consultation paper 'A New Financial Framework for Local Authority Housing: Resource Accounting in the Housing Revenue Account' on 15 December, allowing until 19 March for comments. The statement on Housing and Regeneration Policy following the Comprehensive Spending Review, on 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 468, made clear our intention that local authorities should take a more business-like approach to managing their housing. Local authority housing is a valuable asset. Introducing new-style housing revenue accounts based on a form of resource accounting is one of a number of proposals, including our plans to introduce a Best Value regime for local authorities, to modernise the approach to housing management and encourage greater tenant involvement.

  317
  The proposed new financial framework will show clearly the value of housing, the expenditure needed to maintain it and the subsidy required to keep rents below market levels.

  Countryside (Public Access)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place copies of the responses to his consultation document on Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales in the Library. [63784]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 27 October 1998,Official Report, column 103.

  Rail Passengers (Illness)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, 'Transport and the Regions how many incidents of passengers being taken seriously ill on train journeys have occurred in each of the past five years. [63810]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not collected by train operating companies.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for further public consultation on the application by BNFL to operate its MOX plant at Sellafield. [63904]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 454.

  Oil Production (Safety)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relative risk of oil spillage from a production and distribution system using(a) floating production storage and offloading facilities and tankers to transport oil and (b) fixed production platforms and pipelines. [63087]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Licensing conditions and the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention) Regulations which were implemented earlier this year require a risk-based assessment to be made of each offshore production facility prior to production taking place.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what ways the emergency infrastructure is being modified to deal with a potential pollution incident in the Atlantic Frontier Region following the granting of licences for oil production there. [63053]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention) Regulations implemented in May this year require a risk-based
  318
  assessment of any potential pollution incident before the operation can be carried out, regardless of where the operation is taking place.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make an announcement about the membership of the boards of the regional development agencies. [64082]

  Mr. Prescott
  The board members of the eight Regional Development Agencies outside London will be as follows:

  Eastern RDA

  Vincent Watts (Chairman)

  Sal Brinton

  Alan Cherry

  Peter Dawe

  Greg Grant

  Ken Lewis

  Peter Martin

  Chris Mole

  Richard Powell

  Neville Reyner

  Jacqueline Russell

  Marie Skinner

  Stelio Stefanou

  East Midlands RDA

  Derek Mapp (Chairman)

  Jane Bradford

  Ted Cassidy

  Graham Chapman

  Martin Doughty

  Peter Gadsby

  Gillian Gardiner

  Len Jackson

  Bob Middleton

  Peter Moore

  Pat Morgan-Webb

  Christine Wood

  North East RDA

  Dr. John Bridge (Chairman)

  Alistair Arkley

  Kevin Curran

  Barbara Dennis

  Professor Derek Fraser

  Phillip Hughes

  Richard Maudslay

  John McCormack

  Hugh Morgan-Williams

  Miles Middleton

  Rita Stringfellow

  Sue Wilson

  John Williams

  North West RDA

  Lord Thomas of Macclesfield (Chairman)

  Maggie Chadwick

  Mike Doyle

  John Dunning

  319

  Felicity Goodey

  Clive Jeanes

  Richard Leese

  Alan Manning

  Dennis Mendoros

  Kath Reade

  Dr. Fred Ridley

  Judy Robinson

  James Ross

  South East RDA

  Allan Willett (Chairman)

  Jim Baker

  Ken Bodfish

  Professor Clive Booth

  Barry Camfield

  Bryan Davies

  Janis Kong

  Russ Nathan

  Winifred Oliver

  David Rogers

  Sarah Ward

  Caroline Williams

  Kevin Wilson

  South West RDA

  Sir Michael Lickiss (Chairman)

  Doris Ansari

  Cairns Boston

  Ewen Cameron

  Peter Chalke

  Nigel Costley

  Tudor Evans

  Helen Holland

  Michael Leece

  Alfred Morris

  Tim Parker

  Stella Pirie

  Jeremy Pope

  West Midlands RDA

  Alex Stephenson (Chairman)

  Richard Barnes

  Professor Kumar Bhattacharyya CBE

  Michael Bird

  Albert Bore

  Sue Davis

  Dr. Anthony Harris OBE

  James Hunt

  Professor Christine King

  David Sparks

  Sukvinder Stubbs

  David Thompson

  Brian Woods-Scawen

  Yorkshire and Humber RDA

  Graham Hall (Chairman)

  Muriel Barker

  Julian Cummins

  Brian Greenwood

  Richard Gregory

  Lord Haskins

  320

  Stephen Houghton

  Paul Jagger

  Michael Johnston

  Adeeba Malik

  Sir Gareth Roberts

  Paul Shepherd

  Pamela Warhurst.

  These boards fulfil the commitment we gave in our White Paper 'Building Partnerships for Prosperity' to reflect an appropriate balance of regional interests. We have already announced that the boards will be led by chairmen with solid business backgrounds. As regards the main regional stakeholders, within each board business experience dominates; four members are drawn from local government reflecting a balance between type and size of authority, geographical spread and party balance; and at least one member on each board can offer a strong rural perspective together with others who have relevant rural experience. Each board also offers expertise from the field of education and the trades union movement and, across the country as a whole, the boards offer significant experience of the voluntary sector. The White Paper had envisaged boards of twelve but, while it has proved possible to constrain the potential size of the board by choosing members who can offer a range of expertise, we have decided that the full range of expertise necessary can only be achieved, at this stage, with boards of thirteen.

  All boards will have at least three women—women represent about a quarter of the membership overall. This compares well with other business focused NDPBs. Ethnic minorities make up about 5 per cent. of the board membership.

  I have today published a Departmental press release which gives biographical details of the board members. Copies have been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Holding Centres (Lay Visitors)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she received a report on the outcome of consultations between the Police Authority and the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres on the role of lay visitors' access to suspects detained under emergency legislation; and if she will make a statement. [62263]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State has received no such report. The Government did however consult on the Independent Commissioner's recommendation that Lay Visitors should have their sphere of operation extended to include the Holding Centres. It concluded that no change should be made to the remit of the Lay Visitors, not least because an extension of their role of the nature proposed might leave them open to duress and intimidation.

  The Government look forward to the day when the Holding Centres are no longer needed. Meanwhile the Government do not envisage any merging of the roles of the Independent Commissioner and the Lay Visitors.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the prisoners who have been released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 by(a) name, (b) organisation, (c) length of sentence actually served and (d) category of offence. [62941]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 8 December 1998 the total of prisoners who have been released under the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 has reached 221. Of those released, 68 are life sentence prisoners (36 loyalist, 29 republican and 3 others) and 153 fixed term prisoners (64 loyalist, 84 republican and 5 others).

  The Northern Ireland Prison Service does not release the names or the perceived affiliation of individual prisoners. The category of offences committed could only be given at disproportionate cost.

  Football
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations her Department has

  Number

  Company

  Current responsibilities within government

  2

  British Telecom

  Development of Electronic Service delivery

  —

  —

  Special Adviser on Software Development

  1

  Capita Business Consultants

  Industrial Accountancy

  1

  Helm Corporation Moore Stevens (Accountants)

  Assisting Local Government Audit Branch with the completion of the statutory audits of local authority

  1

  Manufacturing and Technology Partnership

  Green Economy—grant applications in Environmental Management Audit Scheme

  2

  Short Brothers PLC

  Enhancing the continuous improvement unit's expertise in the drive to improve the level of take-up across the NICS and other customer organisations of self-assessment under the Business Excellence Model

  —

  —

  Local Sourcing consultant

  Victims of Violence
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government will be taking to implement Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's recommendation that effective targeting of the special needs of victims of violence forms part of the Targeting Social Need objective (para. 5.17). [62686]

  Mr. Ingram
  As Minister with responsibility for Victims, I have established the Victims Liaison Unit to take forward implementation of the recommendations in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report. The Unit has just concluded a period of extensive consultation with victims, their families and their representatives on Sir Kenneth's recommendations. The responses to that consultation are now being considered and will inform the process of prioritising the next steps in addressing the needs identified in the report. I intend to make further announcements on the way forward in the New Year, once the outcome of the consultation exercise is known.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the review of compensation arrangements will cover the treatment of relatives of people who were not financially contributing to a household. [62677]
  322
  received from (a) the Association of Football Premier League and (b) Premier League clubs about basing a Premier League club in Belfast. [62693]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No representations have been received by my Department from either organisation.

  Discussions are ongoing between officials and a private sector consortium, on the consortium's proposal to build a new sports stadium in Belfast, which could host a Premier League club. There has been no direct contact between officials and either the football authorities in England or any Premier League club.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in her Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if she will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62819]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The Review has been asked to advise the Government on the fitness for purpose of the criminal injuries compensation arrangements in Northern Ireland. It is for Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, who is chairing the Review, to decide precisely what needs to be examined to fulfil this wide-ranging remit. I understand, however, that the whole question of compensation for the relatives of victims is being looked at as part of the Review Body's deliberations on the future of criminal injuries compensation arrangements in Northern Ireland.

  Housing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the assessment of the responses to the housing policy review consultative document, Building on Success, has been completed; what further provision will be made relating to the safety and quality of houses in multiple occupancy in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [63238]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The assessment of the responses to the Housing Policy Review conducted under the previous Government, was completed in early 1996. Decisions based on that assessment were published in July]996, in
  323
  a document 'Building on Success—the Way Ahead'. With one exception, the decisions were subsequently endorsed by the present Government.

  With specific reference to Houses in Multiple Occupation, it was proposed to monitor the introduction of the proposals in England and Wales, before considering the implications for Northern Ireland. That remains the case, in order to inform decision making by the Assembly, which will have responsibility for housing matters in future.

  Mixed-sex Hospital Wards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mental health hospitals or psychiatric units in Northern Ireland have mixed-sex wards; and if she will list them. [63788]

  Mr. McFall
  The following mental health hospitals and psychiatric units have mixed sex wards:

  Hospitals

  Units

  Holywell, Antrim

  Whiteabbey Hospital, Whiteabbey

  Gransha, Londonderry

  Ross Thompson Unit, Ballymoney

  Tyrone and Fermanagh, Omagh

  Ards Hospital, Newtownards

  Downshire, Downpatrick

  Belfast City Hospital, Belfast

  St. Lukes, Armagh

  Lagan Valley Hospital, Lisburn

  Mater Hospital, Belfast

  Craigavon Area Hospital, Craigavon

  Northern Ireland Compact
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the launch of the Northern Ireland Compact. [64124]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Compact between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector in Northern Ireland will be laid before the House on Monday 14 December and launched the same day. It is a jointly-prepared, agreed statement of the general principles and

  Name of secondee: (in alphabetical order)

  Name of private company from which seconded

  Responsibilities on secondment

  Mr. Brian Bowden

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Calibration Technician, DERA

  Mr. David Bridge

  Tarmac ServiceMaster Ltd.

  Management of non-clinical services for The Health Alliance British Forces Germany

  Mr. Stephen Cobb

  British Aerospace plc

  Supporting project work in the Directorate of Future Systems (Air)

  Mr. Leslie Cooke

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Calibration Technician, DERA

  Mr. Stanley Dawes

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Calibration Technician, DERA

  Mr. Tony Edwards

  TI Group plc

  Head of Defence Export Services

  Mr. James Evans

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Manager and Head of Laboratory, DERA

  Mr. Peter Farmer

  British Aerospace plc

  To assist with the development of the MOD's Continuous Acquisition & Life Cycle Support) (CALS) policy for the PE

  Mr. Bruce Harmsworth

  PA Consulting

  Financial and Commercial adviser to the Procurement Executive Private Finance Unit

  Mr. Steven Jones

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Calibration Technician, DERA

  Mr. Stephen Kenny

  Wragge & Co.

  Banking adviser to the Procurement Executive Private Finance Unit

  Mr. Andrew Maltby

  Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd.

  Project Manager in the Directorate of Nuclear Propulsion

  Mr. John Martlew

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Calibration Technician, DERA

  324
  the shared values which will govern the further development of the relationship between Government and the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland.

  The Northern Ireland Compact complements recently launched sister Compacts in England, Scotland and Wales and fulfils another of the Government's pre-election commitments. It will cement a partnership based on shared values and mutual respect, enabling us better to identify and tackle needs, to strengthen communities and to build a more tolerant, participative, inclusive and peaceful society in Northern Ireland.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Land, Lymington
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of his Department's land at Beckley Marsh, Lymington. [62774]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department has no record of any land holdings at Beckley Marsh and cannot identify the piece of land in question.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62822]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department is keen to build links with industry and commerce and believes the Whitehall-wide Interchange programme which encourages outward and inward secondment can assist this process. We encourage a range of options including non-executive advisory appointments to MOD boards, joint training, short attachments and secondments of three months or more. As at 1 December the MOD has twenty-one inward secondees from private companies as follows:
  325

  Name of secondee: (in alphabetical order)

  Name of private company from which seconded

  Responsibilities on secondment

  Sir Charles Masefield

  British Aerospace plc

  Head of Defence Export Services1

  Mr. Christopher Miller

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Technical Manager, DERA

  Mr. Moolamkuhzhiel Nair

  Post Office Support Services, Concept 2000

  To deal with the advise on Intellectual Property Rights issues

  Mr. Robert Potts

  Rolls Royce Ltd.

  To assist with the maintenance and monitoring of the Electric Ship Programme in the Ship Support Agency

  Mr. David Scargill

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Head of Laboratory, DERA

  Mr. Paul Sharman

  Johnson Controls Calibration

  Technical Manager, DERA

  Mr. Colin Shead

  GEC Marconi Radar and Defence Systems

  To develop and assist in the implementation of MOD's Continuous Acquisition & Life Cycle Support (CALS) Policy

  Ms Miranda Voyle

  Simmons & Simmons

  To provide legal advice in the Commercial and Legal Section of the Procurement Executive's Private Finance Unit

  1 Sir Charles Masefield's appointment is due to end on 13 December 1998

  Scammel Commander Tank Transporter
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum number of axles permitted for United Kingdom civilian use under Category 3 of the authorisation of Special (General) Orders; if the Scammel Commander Military Transporter complies; and if Scammel Commander transporters carrying(a) Challenger I tanks and (b) Challenger II tanks are permitted to use public highways in the United Kingdom. [62083]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: The minimum number of axles permitted for United Kingdom civilian use under Category 3, Article 18, of the authorisation of Special (General) Orders is currently 6. The Scammel Commander Military Transporter has 5 axles but under the military exemption granted by Special Types (General) Orders Article 6, schedule 1, is permitted to carry challenger tanks on public highways in the United Kingdom.

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the number of complaints from members of the public about low-flying military aircraft in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [63241]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of inquiries and complaints received from addresses in England and Wales about aircraft operating within the UK Low Flying System and recorded centrally are shown in the table.

  Year

  England

  Wales

  1996

  4,290

  908

  1997

  3,714

  617

  1998 (January-November)

  3,512

  545

  Danish Tour Guide (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the British soldiers convicted of causing the death of the Danish tour guide in Cyprus have been dismissed from the Army; and if he will make a statement. [63264]
  326
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The three soldiers convicted of causing the death of the Danish Tour Guide in Cyprus were discharged on 22 April 1996 under paragraph 9.404 of Queen's Regulations for the Army for misconduct, having been sentenced by a Cypriot civilian court to imprisonment.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to involve the National Regional Poison Centres in the medical assessments of veterans of the Gulf War and their families. [62957]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]: Physicians at the MOD's Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) conduct a full medical examination, including a standard range of physical tests, on Gulf veterans who are referred there. Additional tests or referrals to other consultants or specialists may be required on a case by case basis. In these circumstances, MAP patients are sent for further tests or referrals according to the clinical judgment of the examining physician. Accordingly, the MAP may make use of the National Poisons Information Service (also known as National Regional Poison Centres) in the medical assessment of Gulf veterans as appropriate but has no plans to do so as a matter of routine.

  The MAP was established in July 1993 to examine UK Gulf veterans who were concerned that their health had been adversely affected by service in the Gulf conflict. It is open to all Service personnel and MOD civilians who served in the Gulf region at any time between August 1990 and July 1991. Individuals who worked for contractors providing direct support to UK operations during the Gulf conflict may also attend the MAP. The vast majority of those who have attended the MAP are Gulf veterans themselves. However, where medically appropriate, veterans' partners are also welcome to attend and a small number have done so.

  Applications (Armed Services)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with(a) ministerial colleagues and (b) others on reforming the entry requirements for the armed services. [63160]
  327
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Eligibility criteria for entry into the Armed Forces are kept under constant review. A review of all nationality eligibility rules was carried out at the beginning of this year, during which officials in my Department consulted with their counterparts in the Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office. The results of the review were conveyed to the House on 18 February 1998,Official Report, columns 665–66.

  A review of all other basic eligibility criteria is nearing completion. The aim of this review has been to determine whether any eligibility criteria are unnecessarily restrictive, and could therefore be relaxed.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications to join the armed services have been refused in each of the last five years. [63161]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Details of the number of applicants who were refused entry into the Armed Forces are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the numbers of applicants and enlistments for each Service in the last five financial years were as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Naval Service

  Applications

  1—

  1—

  9,696

  12,879

  14,252

  Enlistments

  1,535

  1,301

  2,337

  3,959

  4,600

  Army

  Applications

  36,388

  53,333

  43,491

  40,491

  42,247

  Enlistments

  9,576

  10,684

  12,911

  15,522

  15,379

  RAF

  Applications

  13,304

  15,398

  17,213

  15,510

  12,767

  Enlistments

  841

  1,022

  2,424

  2,684

  3,526

  Note:

  1 Details of number of Naval Service applicants not available

  Applicants may not subsequently be enlisted for a variety of reasons. For example, they may be ineligible under one or more of the basic eligibility criteria, have criminal convictions that are not acceptable, may fail the recruiting test, prove unsuitable at interview, or perhaps fail their medical. Additionally, a number of applicants for each Service voluntarily withdraw their applications before they are enlisted.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the salary, pension entitlement and present compensation rights for early termination of contract of the new head of the Defence Export Services Organisation from the Government, what top-ups to those provisions have been made by external sources; and which external sources are providing the top-ups. [62922]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Mr. Tony Edwards, the new Head of Defence Export Services, will receive a salary from the Ministry of Defence of £165,000 a year, plus an annual performance related bonus of up to £15,000. In addition, the Department will contribute towards his superannuation up to a maximum of 28 per cent. of the Ministry of Defence salary element.
  328
  The Defence Industries Council, acting on behalf of the defence industry as a whole, are providing a top-up element so that his basic remuneration package will remain on a par with what he was receiving from TI Group plc.

  Mr. Edwards is on loan to the Department from TI Group plc. for the duration his appointment as Head of Defence Export Services; under the terms of the secondment agreement, compensation rights for early termination of the agreement do not apply.

  REME (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what day and by whom the decision was taken to move 101 Battalion REME from Chorley Barracks to Queensferry. [63650]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced his decision on the future structure of the Territorial Army to the House on 17 November 1998,Official Report, columns 749–52.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alternative attachments he proposes for 101 REME army cadets, Chorley, following the transfer of 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry. [63616]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  New sponsorship and affiliation arrangements for the Chorley Cadets will be arranged with Territorial and Regular Army units in the area.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has received from Land Command that the decision to move 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry will bring value for money. [63651]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As my hon. Friend will be aware from our previous correspondence concerning Territorial Army restructuring, the decision to move 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry was not financially motivated. An assessment has nevertheless been made that the move should provide value for money.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the REME cadets based at the Devonshire Road Barracks, Chorley, will continue to operate from that barracks; [63625]

  (2) what are his plans for the future army cadet presence at the Devonshire Road Barracks in Chorley. [63626]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Plans for the future of the cadets currently housed at the Devonshire Road Barracks in Chorley are being developed at present. I will write to my hon. Friend when the plans are complete, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Defence Medical Services. [63988]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review, SDR, acknowledged the importance of medical support for defence, and identified a number of shortfalls, both in peacetime care and in operational medical support.
  329
  As a result of the SDR, I announced plans for significant investment in additional medical personnel and equipment of about £140 million over the next four years.

  Although the SDR provided funding for substantial improvements to our medical capabilities, this did not by itself solve all the immediate problems. The Defence Medical Services, DMS, organisation continues to suffer from a number of interrelated difficulties which are hindering it in fulfilling its objectives and which are also affecting morale. In particular, serious staffing shortages combined with a high level of operational deployment have led to increased turbulence for DMS staff and their families. There is also serious concern about the continued viability of the Royal Hospital, Haslar.

  I therefore set work in hand in July with the aim of producing a strategy for the resolution of these problems and to give DMS personnel a clear and positive vision of the future. I will today be publishing a summary of our findings in a booklet 'The Defence Medical Services—A Strategy for the Future', copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The key proposals include:
  A major recruiting campaign, properly co-ordinated and targeted, aimed at both new entry Regulars and Reserves, and at a small number of direct entry ready-trained personnel to fill the most pressing shortfalls.
  Tackling a range of key personnel issues to address the main problems felt by people in the DMS, including identifying the causes of overstretch and more effective ways of reducing it, harmonising different conditions of service within the DMS and addressing concerns about the need to maintain military standards and ethos while working in NHS hospitals.
  Restructured Secondary Care arrangements including: a new Centre for Defence Medicine to act as a focal point for the DMS and a centre of excellence for training and research; a new Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit in Portsmouth; the eventual closure of the Royal Hospital Haslar once these new arrangements are in place; and a clearer responsibility for the Defence Secondary Care Agency to co-ordinate treatment for Service personnel.
  A reorganisation of the DMS to improve management and financial co-ordination, including the creation of a new Chief of Staff post on the Surgeon General's staff to co-ordinate planning, personnel management, training, finance and the implementation of change.
  Developing closer relations with the NHS, including NHS representation on the two key DMS management boards, and improved arrangements at local level.

  These proposals will have a significant impact both within the DMS and outside Defence, particularly in the Portsmouth area. We will immediately begin a period of consultation on our proposals and will listen closely to the views of others, including the local community around Gosport, and the Trade Unions that represent our civilian staff. We will be working closely with the National Health Service in taking our proposals forward.

  Together the proposals represent a new strategy for the DMS which addresses the very difficult problems being experienced at the moment and looks ahead to the future. We value the DMS, and we plan to rebuild it to meet the needs of our Armed Forces both on operations and in peacetime. It will provide a more attractive and rewarding career not only for those already serving but also for those thinking of joining. Above all, it will be a service in which all concerned can have confidence for the future.

  Research Fellowship Scheme
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's new post-doctoral research fellowship scheme. [63989]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am pleased to announce the launch of the MOD's new Post-Doctoral Research Fellowships. The aims of this scheme are to encourage new talent in the defence field; maintain interest in defence studies in the academic community; and encourage informed debate on defence issues. Each fellowship is awarded for a three-year period and funded jointly by the MOD and the academic institution at which the fellow is based. The cost to the MOD is £15,000 per annum for each fellow.

  From a strong field, we have been able to select three outstanding fellows. A dedicated Defence Diplomacy Fellowship has been awarded to Dr. Irene Isakova, a Russian national. Dr. Isakova will undertake her research with the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College London, where she will focus on the impact and effectiveness of our Defence Diplomacy initiative in and with Russia. A further two fellowships have been awarded to Dr. Asifa Hussain from the Scottish Centre for War Studies at Glasgow University, and Dr. Tanya Ogilvie-White from the Mountbatten Centre at Southampton University. Dr. Hussain's research will focus on the recruitment of ethnic minorities, race relations and equal opportunities in the Armed Forces, and Dr. Ogilvie-White will undertake research into nuclear proliferation issues. Each of these candidates is ideally placed to provide the MOD with a broader, alternative perspective on these key issues.

  It is our intention that additional fellowships will now be awarded on an annual basis.

  Phoenix Programme
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current status of the PHOENIX programme. [64001]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to announce that the PHOENIX Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system has now entered service with the Army, following successful conversion training by both 32 and 39 Regiments Royal Artillery and use of the system in exercises, where it performed well. PHOENIX will provide an important new surveillance and target acquisition system for the British Army.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the periodic review of the Defence Bills Agency. [64087]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Periodic Review showed that the Defence Bills Agency, DBA, had performed well against the targets set in the initial Service Level Agreement between the Agency and its MOD customers. The Agency has contained its operating costs with an increased volume of business, achieved higher standards of quality and responded to considerable challenges in the development of Resource Accounting and Budgeting. Following initial operating cost savings of 25 per cent. in the first year, the
  331
  Agency has realised further efficiencies and is now focusing on transaction costs as the key benchmark for future operations. A summary of this report is being placed in the Library of the House.

  The Review was carried out in accordance with the Government's policy of securing best value for money in the provision of Services. We have concluded that this aim can best be achieved by extending Agency status for DBA for a further five years from 1 April 1999. The Agency will be given new and more challenging targets to make progressive reductions in transaction costs, while maintaining and further improving the quality of service, and meeting the Government's commitment to the prompt payment of bills. These targets will be included in a revised Framework Document which will be published in due course.

  Chile
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of each Royal Navy vessel which has visited Chile in the last five years and the dates and duration of the visits; and what future visits to Chile by Royal Navy vessels are planned. [63409]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The following visits have been made to Chile by Royal Navy vessels in the last five years:

  Royal Navy Vessels

  Dates

  1998

  HMS Sutherland

  21–24 November 1998

  HMS Edinburgh

  11–13 October 1998

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  17–21 September 1998

  HMS Montrose

  19–20 June 1998

  HMS Montrose

  9–13 June 1998

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  23–27 April 1998

  HMS Montrose

  1–4 April 1998

  RFA Grey Rover

  11–16 March 1998

  HMS Brave

  23–27 January 1998

  HMS Endurance

  2–7 January 1998

  1997

  HMS Somerset

  7–10 October 1997

  HMS Endurance

  27 March-1 April 1997

  HMS Lancaster

  10–14 February 1997

  1996

  HMS Leeds Castle

  20–26 October 1996

  HMS Montrose

  11–14 June 1996

  HMS Leeds Castle

  20–24 April 1996

  RFA Gold Rover

  13–19 February 1996

  HMS Endurance

  4–7 January 1996

  1995

  HMS Westminster

  21–27 November 1995

  HMS Leeds Castle

  1–6 June 1995

  RFA Diligence

  24–29 March 1995

  HMS Endurance

  3–6 February 1995

  1994

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  2–6 December 1994

  HMS Iron Duke

  15–19 September 1994

  HMS Brazen

  10–15 August 1994

  HMS Endurance

  31 March-5 April 1994

  HMS Norfolk

  10–14 March 1994

  HMS Newcastle

  23–28 February 1994

  RFA Gold Rover

  23–28 February 1994

  Note:

  HMS Endurance, the Ice Patrol Ship, is programmed to visit Chile in Spring 1999.

SCOTLAND

  Driving (Tranquillisers)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research the Government have evaluated into driving whilst prescribed(a) anxiolytic benzodiazepines and (b) the sleeping tablet Zopiclone. [62682]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have not commissioned specific research about the drugs mentioned, but a full evaluation of relevant research is being undertaken by the Medicines Control Agency.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is presently conducting a three-year survey, which started in October 1996, into the incidence of drugs (legal or illegal) in fatal road accident victims. A report on interim results to 7 January 1998 was published on 11 February 1998. My written answer of that date, Official Report, column 306, explained that a copy was being placed in the Library.

  This survey will not provide evidence of accident causation but it will help to establish the extent of drug use among road users. The interim results show that medicinal drugs were present in some 6 per cent. of road accident fatalities (drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists).

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Government have taken to encourage GPs to issue warnings concerning the danger of driving when using(a) Valium, (b) Librium, (c) Ativan and (d) other types of tranquilliser. [62683]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Where there is the possibility that certain medicinal products may cause deterioration of the skills required for driving, the product information provided to doctors and pharmacists recommends that patients should be warned that they may suffer side-effects which may impair their ability to drive. Although these side-effects may wear off, the patient should ensure that they are not affected before driving.

  In addition, the British National Formulary (BNF), which provides doctors, pharmacists and other health-care professionals with sound up-to-date information about the use of medicines, advises prescribers to warn patients if treatment is likely to affect their ability to drive. It also recommends that pharmacists provide cautionary and advisory labels with certain medicinal products.

  The Medicines Control Agency is aware of public concern that the side-effects of some medicines may be causing road traffic accidents. In response to recent publications they are currently reviewing all available evidence to determine whether there may be a case for strengthening product information, ensuring that Patient Information Leaflets and packaging are updated if necessary.

  Registers of Scotland
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Registers of Scotland are
  333
  prohibited from providing copies of documents relating to registered interests other than those referred to in the title sheet; if he plans to reform the Land Register so that land certificates disclose information about previous proprietors and the prices paid by them; if the rights of access of members of the public and firms of private searchers to all information contained in the Land Register of Scotland, the Register of Sasines and the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications are to be maintained; and if he will make a statement. [63117]

  Mr. McLeish
  Section 6(5) of the Land Register (Scotland) Act 1979 requires the Keeper to issue to any person applying, a copy, authenticated or otherwise, of any Title Sheet or part thereof or of any document referred to in a Title Sheet. There are no plans at present to reform the Land Register so that Land Certificates disclose information about previous proprietors and the prices paid by them.

  The existing statutory rights of access to the Land Register, the Register of Sasines and the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications will continue to be maintained. The ability to exercise these rights will be enhanced by remote electronic access to be provided early in 1999.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations the Scottish Law Commission has made regarding the abolition of the diligence of inhibitions on the dependence of Court actions; what was the total sum(a) paid by Registers of Scotland in respect of legal expenses of the petitioners and (b) incurred by Registers of Scotland to the Scottish Officer in relation to the action of Judicial Review raised by Millar & Bryce Ltd. and two other firms against Registers of Scotland. [63118]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Law Commission recently published its Report on Diligence on the Dependence and Admiralty Arrestments (Scot. Law Com. No. 164). This Report contains the Commission's recommendations for reform of the diligence of inhibition on the dependence of actions.

  The total sums paid by Registers of Scotland in relation to the action of Judicial Review raised by Millar & Bryce Ltd. and 2 other firms of private searchers were as follows: (a) an agreed settlement of £25,000 in respect of the judicially awarded expenses of the petitioners and (b) £36,807.21 in respect of Registers of Scotland expenses.

  Name

  Company

  Current responsibilities

  Barrie Allison

  Balfour and Manson Solicitors

  Solicitors Office

  Lorna Fleming

  Balfour and Manson Solicitors

  Solicitors Office

  Julia Jamieson

  Fife Careers Ltd.

  Education Department—Skills and Life Long Learning

  Valerie Mathieson

  Shepherd and Wedderburn Solicitors

  Solicitors Office—participating in reciprocal trainee scheme

  Douglas Middleton

  Bank of Scotland

  Department of Health—Private Finance Unit

  Martin Mustard

  Project Management International PLC

  Parliament Building Division

  Terry Kirchin

  British Petroleum PLC

  Personnel Division—Devolution Planning

  The Scottish Office is committed to increasing the quality and quantity of it interchange activity, in all its
  334
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the registration counties in Scotland for the purpose of registration of deeds are currently operational; and when the remainder are to become operational. [63119]

  Mr. McLeish
  There are currently 14 countries operational under the Land Register of Scotland. These are: Renfrew, Dumbarton, Lanark, Glasgow, Clackmannan, West Lothian, Stirling, Fife, Aberdeen, Kincardine, Ayr, Dumfries, Wigtown and Kirkcudbright. The programme for the completion of the extension of the Land Register programme is as follows:

  1 April 1999: Perth, Angus, Kinross

  1 October 1999: Berwick, East Lothian, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Peebles

  1 April 2000: Argyll and Bute

  1 April 2001: Midlothian

  1 April 2002: Inverness and Nairn

  1 April 2003: Banff, Moray, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney, Zetland.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial return is required to be made by the executive agency Registers of Scotland in terms of percentage return on capital, taking account of the average cost of first registration under the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 and the average income for registration due in respect of each transaction; if the report of the quinquennial review currently being carried out by KPMG Consultants will be made available for consultation with those interests affected by its conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [63120]

  Mr. McLeish
  In terms of its status as a Trading Fund under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, the Agency is required to make a 6 per cent. return on capital employed across the range of its activities. This target will be reviewed from time to time.

  The final report resulting from the Quinquennial Review of the Registers of Scotland Executive Agency will be made available to interested parties once the Secretary of State has announced the outcome of the review.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62823]

  Mr. Dewar
  There are currently seven people on secondment from private companies in The Scottish Office. Their names, companies and current responsibilities within government are detailed as follows:

  forms, and this year saw a good deal of activity, both at Senior Civil Servant level and below.

  Insurance (Genetics)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department will take to encourage the insurance industry to develop alternative options for those applicants whose genetic status makes it difficult to purchase standard products. [62684]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government recently published their response to the Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC) 'Report on the Implications of Genetic Testing for the Insurance Industry', and are currently in discussions with the insurance industry and others on the necessary follow-up action.

  It is already a requirement of the Code of Practice on Genetic Testing issued by the Association of British Insurers that insurance companies must consider whether constructive alternatives can be offered to an applicant where a genetic risk is too great to insure. It is sometimes possible for existing products to be adapted to suit individual circumstances and enable people with genetic disorders to obtain insurance. The Government believe it important that people with a family history of a genetic disorder discuss their insurance needs with insurance companies and do not assume they are uninsurable.

  Secondary School Pupils
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when advanced higher qualifications will be available to secondary school pupils in Scotland. [62980]

  NHS in Scotland: average available staffed beds in acute specialties as at 31 March2

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  11997–98

  Argyll & Clyde

  1,315

  1,286

  1,248

  1,204

  1,188

  1,140

  1,103

  1,108

  Ayrshire & Arran

  1,138

  1,152

  1,136

  1,107

  1,075

  971

  903

  900

  Borders

  349

  354

  354

  348

  335

  336

  346

  335

  Dumfries & Galloway

  447

  435

  419

  406

  405

  416

  389

  395

  Fife

  863

  851

  800

  791

  774

  754

  737

  712

  Forth Valley

  625

  605

  600

  588

  592

  573

  556

  560

  Grampian

  1,618

  1,640

  1,918

  1,885

  1,843

  1,804

  1,791

  1,788

  Greater Glasgow

  4,615

  4,194

  4,036

  3,899

  3,651

  3,581

  3,518

  3,446

  Highland

  736

  740

  743

  729

  724

  796

  798

  804

  Lanarkshire

  1,691

  1,665

  1,632

  1,592

  1,550

  1,526

  1,496

  1,462

  Lothian

  2,855

  2,659

  2,577

  2,455

  2,397

  2,300

  2,198

  1,983

  Orkney

  62

  62

  62

  97

  91

  85

  89

  3139

  Shetland

  53

  49

  46

  46

  46

  46

  50

  54

  Tayside

  1,862

  1,801

  1,748

  1,622

  1,589

  1,540

  1,459

  1,443

  Western Isles

  87

  85

  97

  103

  100

  95

  106

  117

  Scotland

  18,317

  17,580

  17,414

  16,873

  16,360

  15,963

  15,549

  15,246

  1 Provisional

  2 Includes Acute, Supra-area and Special Categories speciality groups. Excludes Obstetrics

  3 Reclassification of beds, from geriatric medicine to general practice, between 1996–97 and 1997–98

  Criminal Records
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for implementing Part V of the Police Act 1997 in Scotland providing for extended access to criminal record checks for employment vetting and other purposes. [64214]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is announcing today that in order to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997 in England and Wales the Home Office will set up a Criminal Records Bureau. In
  336
  Mrs. Liddell
  The first Advanced Higher courses will run in the 2000–01 session, leading to awards in 2001.

  Coalfield Regeneration
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the sums available for the regeneration of former coalfields; and if he will make a statement. [62679]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering how best to support the regeneration of former coalfields in Scotland, including the resources to be made available for this, and will make a further announcement shortly.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to recruit additional civil servants to service the demands of the Scottish Parliament. [62680]

  Mr. Dewar
  Action is in hand by The Scottish Office to recruit around 170 staff to service the Scottish Parliament. After devolution, staff carrying out these duties will be employees of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acute beds were available in each health board area in Scotland in each year since 1990–91. [63131]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is set out in the table:

  Scotland the work of disclosing criminal record information will be carried out by the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO), which is already well established as a central vetting authority.

  The Government's main objective in introducing these arrangements is to strengthen the safeguards for the protection of children. In line with this and to ensure a smooth transition from the current arrangements for employment vetting checks, the SCRO will phase in the issue of three new types of certificates provided for under the Act. Top priority will be given to the issue of

  337
  certificates for those seeking positions that will involve regular unsupervised access to children. The scheme is to be self-financing with all applicants for certificates being charged a fee which, depending on the level of certificate sought, is currently estimated at being between £5 and £10.

  We expect that it will take some two years to equip the SCRO for the new much expanded system of checks. In this time we intend to consult widely in order to ensure that the system will meet the needs of the community it serves.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a monthly breakdown of the outbreaks of food poisoning in each of the last five years. [63331]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information about numbers of outbreaks is not collected centrally. The tables show the numbers of notified cases of food poisoning by four-week period.

  Notifications of food poisoning 1. Four-weekly totals, 1993–98

  Week ending

  Total

  1993

  1–22 January

  349

  29 January-19 February

  383

  26 February-19 March

  369

  26 March-16 April

  312

  23 April-14 May

  396

  21 May-11 June

  657

  18 June-9 July

  816

  16 July-6 August

  917

  13 August-3 September

  837

  10 September-1 October

  760

  8–29 October

  569

  5–26 November

  413

  3–31 December

  2379

  1994

  7–28 January

  361

  4–25 February

  377

  4–25 March

  386

  1–22 April

  385

  29 April-20 May

  607

  27 May-17 June

  888

  24 June-15 July

  772

  22 July-12 August

  1,005

  19 August-9 September

  935

  16 September-7 October

  823

  14 October-4 November

  685

  11 November-2 December

  574

  9–30 December

  449

  1995

  6–27 January

  457

  3–24 February

  436

  3–24 March

  512

  31 March-21 April

  418

  28 April-19 May

  623

  26 May-16 June

  854

  23 June-14 July

  923

  21 July-11 August

  1,078

  18 August-8 September

  1,069

  15 September-6 October

  905

  13 October-3 November

  805

  10 November-1 December

  634

  8–29 December

  529

  338

  Notifications of food poisoning1. Four-weekly totals, 1993-98

  Week ending

  Total

  1996

  5–26 January

  547

  2–23 February

  578

  1–22 March

  528

  29 March-19 April

  625

  26 April-17 May

  670

  24 May-14 June

  895

  21 June-12 July

  890

  19 July-9 August

  1,032

  16 August-6 September

  1,007

  13 September-4 October

  867

  11 October-1 November

  763

  8–29 November

  896

  6–27 December

  808

  1997

  3–24 January

  473

  31 January-21 February

  582

  28 February-21 March

  652

  28 March-18 April

  644

  25 April-16 May

  736

  23 May-13 June

  1,129

  20 June-11 July

  1,095

  18 July-8 August

  979

  15 August-5 September

  1,109

  12 September-3 October

  871

  10–31 October

  715

  7–28 November

  673

  5–26 December

  491

  1998

  2–23 January

  516

  30 January-20 February

  515

  27 February-20 March

  446

  27 March-17 April

  442

  24 April-15 May

  654

  22 May-12 June

  1,066

  19 June-10 July

  985

  17 July-7 August

  909

  14 August-4 September

  1,016

  11 September-2 October

  756

  9–30 October

  733

  6–27 November

  619

  1 Annual totals are revised to take account of laboratory test results confirming that illness was or was not due to food poisoning. These monthly figures have not been adjusted in that way and are therefore provisional.

  2 Comprises totals for a five-week period.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outbreaks of food poisoning there were in each county in each of the last five years. [63518]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information about numbers of outbreaks is not collected centrally. Nor is information about numbers of cases of food poisoning collected by county. The following table shows the numbers of notified cases of food poisoning by Health Board area.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  11998

  Scotland

  7,170

  8,291

  9,297

  10,234

  10,144

  8,622

  Argyll and Clyde

  326

  566

  634

  736

  696

  668

  Ayrshire and Arran

  411

  385

  446

  393

  431

  377

  Borders

  175

  236

  238

  284

  358

  154

  Dumfries and Galloway

  313

  338

  343

  303

  288

  268

  Fife

  549

  560

  634

  579

  652

  503

  Forth Valley

  365

  491

  411

  529

  610

  548

  Grampian

  1,150

  1,103

  1,771

  1,585

  1,448

  1,245

  Greater Glasgow

  732

  1,174

  1,293

  1,367

  1,493

  1,491

  Highland

  342

  329

  328

  364

  425

  334

  Lanarkshire

  742

  862

  952

  1,376

  1,103

  960

  339

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  11998

  Lothian

  1,394

  1,531

  1,630

  1,984

  1,814

  1,519

  Orkney

  29

  8

  15

  23

  13

  11

  Shetland

  46

  45

  25

  57

  74

  39

  Tayside

  570

  627

  548

  608

  690

  471

  Western Isles

  26

  36

  29

  46

  49

  34

  1 Provisional notifications, subject to revision

  Mixed-sex Hospital Wards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mental health hospitals or psychiatric units in Scotland have mixed-sex wards; and if he will list them. [63787]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Arms Exports
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department was given new powers to object to proposed arms exports; what these powers entail; and if she will make a statement. [63846]

  Clare Short
  Licences to export arms are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (DTI). The Export Control Organisation of the DTI is the licensing authority. A number of Departments provide advice; DFID has done so since September 1997. The Department for International Development's (DFID) interest in export licence applications is primarily that the proposed export does not seriously undermine the economy of the recipient country; and also that the equipment is not used for purposes of internal repression or external aggression. We focus our efforts on examining applications to poor countries.

  World Disability Report
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department will provide financial assistance to the International Disability Foundation to disseminate their world disability report. [63693]

  Clare Short
  Yes. A grant of £15,000, the sum requested by the International Disability Foundation was approved on 3 December, the World Day of Disabled People.

  Good Governance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the basic principles of good governance required by her Department of a country in which she is considering aid provision. [63790]

  Clare Short
  Our commitment is to reduce poverty through sustainable development. We work with governments who have a commitment to working for the elimination of poverty. This requires effective economic management, efficient government systems, the reduction of corruption, and investment in human development. We engage in dialogue with government where possible.
  340
  Where we cannot work with government we will find other channels including parts of government, local government and NGOs which share our commitment.

  Trade
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on promotion of United Kingdom trade in developing countries. [63849]

  Clare Short
  We believe that increasing trade in the poorest countries will contribute to economic growth and poverty elimination. The Department for International Development (DFID) works to improve the trading environment by encouraging open markets, good regulation, reduced corruption and strong education and health systems.

  We support specific trade and investment initiatives where there is a clear development outcome. For example DFID is promoting links between UK small and medium enterprises and small businesses in South Africa.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she has taken to work with British business to strengthen support for investment and trade which contributes to sustainable development. [63646]

  Clare Short
  We have greatly strengthened the links between the department and British business since May 1997. We have established a Business Partnership Unit for this purpose and now consult with Business when preparing our strategies for working with individual countries or multilateral development agencies: we also seek to improve the operating environment for investment and trade (for example, through consultative forums on regulatory constraints); help business meet their corporate responsibility objectives (for example, through joint projects to tackle social and environmental issues and invest in the health and education of the workforce) and through partnerships which deepen the impact of business on the local economy (for example, through projects to help large business source from local suppliers). These initiatives all contribute to sustainable development and assist British businesses to invest and trade with the poorest countries.

  China
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on concessional financing in China. [63847]

  Clare Short
  The White Paper on International Development (Cm 3789), published in November of last year, announced the abolition of the Aid and Trade Provision (ATP) and set out our policy on possible assistance to the private sector in paragraph 2.35. Any potential assistance would be subject to the strategy and sectoral focus agreed for each country and the standard procedures for quality control. We also made clear that all ATP projects previously agreed and still under implementation would be completed. This policy applies in China and elsewhere.
  341
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she has made in promotion of human rights in China; and if she will make a statement. [63845]

  Clare Short
  The Government seek to support all the human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in China and elsewhere, which means that we are concerned with economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights. We are engaged in dialogue with the Chinese authorities and have increased the frequency of formal talks. These have provided the opportunity for us to raise concerns about issues such as China's one child policy, imprisonment without trial, freedom of religion and executions.

  As an additional means to addressing the economic and social rights of poor people in China, we are currently designing a range of projects (in basic health, education and water development) with a probable value of some £ 40 million. Meanwhile, we have approved a £670,000 project to help improve the lives of orphaned children in Shanghai through the introduction of a foster care system and are exploring the scope for further co-operation in the field of prison management reform and measures to combat corruption.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations she carried out with the private sector when preparing her country strategy for China. [63544]

  Clare Short
  In preparing the China country strategy, my officials sought the views of companies with interests in China through the China Britain Trade Group and the British Chamber of Commerce in Beijing. Views were also sought from institutions, including the International Finance corporation and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which have strong private sector interests. In addition to the private sector, officials consulted civil society organisations, the academic community and a wide range of Chinese interlocutors.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the Commonwealth Development Corporation's investments in China. [63848]

  Clare Short
  At present the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) does not have any investments in China.

  Country Strategies
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations she has carried out with the private sector when preparing her country strategies. [63545]

  Clare Short
  Consultations with the private sector and other elements of civil society have been part of the process of developing country strategies since May 1997. The channels used vary depending on country circumstances. Country strategy papers which have been finalised since the Government's White Paper on Development contain an annexe which sets out the process of consultation, including consultation that has taken place with the private sector. The papers are published and are also available in the Libraries of the House. They are also available to the public.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries in which the Commonwealth Development Corporation currently invests. [63791]

  Clare Short
  Commonwealth Development Corporation currently has investment in the following countries:

  Anguilla

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  British Virgin Islands

  Cameron

  Cayman Islands

  Costa Rica

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Cuba

  Dominica

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  El Salvador

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Hoduras

  India

  Indonesia

  Jamaica

  Kenya

  Laos

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Malawai

  Malaysia

  Maritius

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nicaragua

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Papua New Guinea

  Philippines

  St. Lucia

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  343

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Vanuatu

  Vietnam

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in her Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63919]

  Clare Short
  Since May 1997 the Department for International Development has spent:

  (a) around £43,000 on public opinion research; and

  (b) around £1.2 million on recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals.

  (c) No expenditure on direct mail.

  Multilateral Development Projects
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to ensure that multilateral development projects make full use of the skills of United Kingdom business. [63543]

  Clare Short
  We work with the Department of Trade and Industry's Development Business Team, which has specific responsibility to help UK business secure trade opportunities from multilateral development projects. DFID staff ensure that DTI has access to good information about the pipeline and strategies of the multilateral organisations.

  British firms do well from multilateral procurement. For example, in fiscal year 1996, British firms secured contracts worth around £458 million from the World Bank, over twice the amount of the British government's annual contribution to the Bank in that year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Devolution
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister where responsibility will lie for determining what programmes and bodies will be ultra-vires for the purpose of UK-wide funding after the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [63659]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998, Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales will assume responsibility for a range of functions which will depend, in part, on secondary legislation which has yet to be passed.

  In the case of Scotland, Government Departments are reviewing their programmes in the light of the Scotland Act to determine the extent of programme expenditure which may relate to functions which will transfer to Scottish Ministers.
  344
  In the case of the National Assembly for Wales, the Transfer of Functions Order, which was published in draft form for public consultation on 12 November, will transfer certain ministerial functions to the National Assembly for Wales. Work continues on finalising the draft Order and determining the programme expenditure which relates to those functions which will transfer.

  Following devolution, the question of whether or not expenditure by UK Ministers is ultra vires will rest primarily with those Ministers acting on the advice of their Accounting Officers. In the unlikely even that there is a disagreement over whether such funding is ultra vires for UK Ministers, as defined by both primary and secondary legislation, the disagreement would usually be resolved through discussion between the relevant administrations. Failing this, the final arbiter would be the courts.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the criteria used in formulating advice on appointments to the Privy Council. [62165]

  The Prime Minister
  Membership of the Privy Council is normally reserved for those who are involved in affairs of State and who have a close and confidential relationship with the Crown. In practice, this means those who have obtained high office in the executive or the judicial branches of the State either in this country or in one of the countries of which The Queen is Head of State. It follows that most new Privy Councillors are serving Ministers, Judges or Commonwealth appointments. I have no plans to review the criteria.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Chile
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General which law officers have met the Foreign Minister of Chile in the past two months; and for what purpose. [63524]

  The Attorney-General
  Neither.

TREASURY

  Fuel Duty (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what schemes he has evaluated to assist petrol retailers in Northern Ireland to cope with differential rates of excise duty in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. [62236]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: The lead on this is being taken by HM Customs & Excise which, in conjunction with other authorities, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, is acting to counter the threat posed to legitimate petrol retailers, the wider business community and the collection of revenue. While my right hon. Friend sees no grounds for specific assistance to Northern Ireland petrol retailers, some of the measures in the £315 million Economic Initiative he announced last May are likely to be directly beneficial to Northern Ireland petrol retailers. The measures included the extension of 100 per cent. capital

  345
  allowances on expenditure by small and medium enterprises on machinery or plant used in Northern Ireland and a substantial and extensive capital investment in Northern Ireland's road network.

  Economic Cycle
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the length of the current economic cycle. [62439]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: The Pre-Budget Report (cm. 4076) reported that the economy is estimated to have been on trend in the first half of 1997 (paragraph A39), and is not assumed to reach an equivalent point until 2002 (paragraph A54, chart A4 refers).

  Abortion
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what area of residence, other than health authorities, statistics are collected on abortions performed by the NHS. [63606]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 14 December 1998:
  As Director of the Office of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the areas for which abortion statistics are collected.
  Under Section 2(2) of the Abortion Act 1967, registered medical practitioners must notify the Chief Medical Officer of every completed termination of pregnancy, and the ONS undertakes the statistical processing of the abortions data. Data is currently published at NHS Executive Regional Office level and health authority level.

  Wages
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were in April the number and proportion of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all (i) full-time manual, (ii) full-time non-manual and (iii) full-time employees on adult rates earning less than (1) £181.40, (2) £241.86 and (3) £261.46 per week excluding overtime in (A) each county and unitary authority in England, (B) each unitary authority in Wales, (C) each London borough, (D) each unitary authority in Scotland, (E) Great Britain as a whole, (F) England as a whole and (G) each Government office region. [63496]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply. A copy of the tables referred to will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 14 December 1998:
  As the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS),I have been asked to reply to your recent question requesting earnings information for a range of geographical areas.
  The latest available information, from New Earnings Survey (NES) April 1998, is contained in the attached tables.
  I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library.

  Paymaster General
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the areas of tax policy in which the Paymaster General has been involved since 2 May 1997; and if he will make a statement; [63498]

  (2) which Minister is responsible for the review of corporate taxation; and if he will make a statement; [63499]

  (3) what are the reasons for changes in the policy responsibilities of the Paymaster General in relation to tax matters in the last eight months; and if he will make a statement. [63497]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I am responsible for all decisions on matters of tax policy.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he plans in the responsibilities of the Paymaster General. [63511]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Modernisation of the House
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what progress she has made in modernising the procedures of the House. [62170]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The House recently approved the Modernisation Committee's proposals on the scrutiny of European documents and will consider its report on the parliamentary calendar this Wednesday.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Council when she intends to publish the next quarterly return on the progress of Government Departments towards millennium compliance. [62167]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I announced the results of the latest quarterly review in a statement to the House on 2 December 1998,Official Report, columns 902–05. Copies of the individual return from Departments and agencies have been placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the progress being made in terms of the preparedness of the national infrastructure to cope with the millennium date change. [62169]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Responsible departments and regulators are working with the major infrastructure providers to ensure that they are taking proper steps to tackle the Millennium bug.

  We have also set up through Action 2000 a National Infrastructure Forum. The Forum brings together the main providers and users of infrastructure services to share best practice and information about their state of preparedness.
  347
  A key part of the Forum's work is an Independent Assessment Project to assess the state of preparedness of key infrastructure services, including the electricity, water, fuels, telecommunications and financial sectors. The results of the first assessment of the water industry were announced by OFWAT on 22 October. The first results for the other key sectors should be available early in the New Year.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plan he has to ensure that digital television will be available to the most remote communities in Britain. [62142]

  Janet Anderson
  Digital terrestrial television services began on 15 November and will reach 90 per cent. of the UK population by the end of next year. Digital satellite services currently reach much of the UK and digital cable services are likely to begin next year. Extending digital services beyond the terrestrial launch phase to other parts of the UK, including remote communities, was one of the issues raised in our consultation paper 'Television: the Digital Future'. The responses to that paper are currently being evaluated. Once that process is complete the Government will be in a position to consider with the broadcasters the next steps towards extending digital services across the UK.

  Millennium Fund
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contribution the millennium fund will make to tackling social exclusion. [62143]

  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contribution the millennium fund plans to make to projects to tackle social exclusion. [62154]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government have sought to ensure that the Millennium celebrations will be inclusive, involving people from all religious and cultural backgrounds, all social groups and all areas of the United Kingdom. We also want to see a lasting legacy from the celebrations. Many of the projects funded by the Millennium Commission—particularly through their Awards scheme—will strengthen local community infrastructure and encourage active citizenship in both urban and rural areas.

  Strategic Authority for Tourism
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the role of a strategic authority for tourism in England. [62144]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department launched a consultation exercise on 24 July which sought views on a variety of issues, including a strategic authority for English tourism. (The main conclusions of the consultation were made public this morning). A majority 348
  of the responses we received confirmed my view that there is a need for a national body of this type to support the new tourism strategy.

  Broadcasting Standards
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he is taking to reduce the number of profane and lewd broadcasts on television. [62146]

  Janet Anderson
  Broadcasters are subject to the general law and are required to comply with the regulators' guidelines on programme content. It is a long-standing and, I believe, a fundamental principle that Government do not intervene directly in issues of broadcasting content. Responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the regulators, who are charged with safeguarding the public interest.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the funding of the new opportunities fund between 1997 and 2005. [62147]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have announced New Opportunities Fund programmes of £1.4 billion to date. I have made no estimate of the Fund's income beyond the life of the current licence, which expires in September 2001.

  Culture (Devolved Responsibility)
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to devolve responsibility for culture to the regions. [62148]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A new body will be established in each region to provide a strong, strategic voice for all cultural interests. A number of the public bodies sponsored by my Department are also delegating more responsibility to the regions. Further details are contained in the announcement which my right hon. Friend made earlier today on the results of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for the selection procedures for an operator for the national lottery when Camelot's licence expires. [62149]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The selection procedures for the next Lottery operator will be determined by the National Lottery Commission, which will take over the functions of the Director General of the National Lottery next year. The Commission will make its decision in line with its statutory responsibilities and my directions.

  Lottery Awards (Distribution)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the equality of distribution of lottery awards. [62150]
  349
  Mr. Chris Smith
  I frequently receive representations about different aspects of the National Lottery, including the equality of the distribution of awards.

  We are determined to ensure that Lottery money is allocated more fairly and equitably in the light of need across the whole of the United Kingdom and between different groups in society. The National Lottery Act 1998 requires distributors to show how they will achieve this in their strategic plans.

  Performing Arts (Social Exclusion)
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the contribution the performing arts can make to reducing social exclusion. [62151]

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the contribution of the performing arts to measures to reduce social exclusion. [62156]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  One of my Department's principal objectives is to promote the role of the Department's sectors, including the performing arts, in combating social exclusion. The New Audiences Fund will continue to support projects which broaden access for young people and others who would not normally have an opportunity to experience the arts. Furthermore, as part of our contribution to the Government's forthcoming strategy for neighbourhood renewal, my Department is chairing an action team which will report on best practice in using the arts and sport to combat social exclusion.

  Good Causes (Distribution of Funds)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the amount of money available to be distributed for each of the good causes for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–2001 and the percentages these represent of total funds available for distribution by the good causes. [62152]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Lottery is now set to raise £10.6 billion for good causes over the licence period, £600 million above previous forecasts.

  As I have explained to the hon. Member previously, we are currently discussing with the distributing bodies how best to adjust their percentage shares in order to achieve the intended allocation of the extra £600 million. Until these discussions are complete, the annual income assumptions for the good causes cannot be finalised. We plan to lay an Order as soon as possible giving effect to these adjustments.

  Arts (Public Funding)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will take steps to ensure the more equitable geographical distribution of public funding for arts. [62153]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend announced this morning an extra £123 million for the Arts Council of England over the next three years. The Arts Council will be announcing later this week how they propose to allocate these extra funds among the Regional Arts Board.

  International Sports
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy for promoting success for Britain in international sports competitions. [62155]

  Mr. Banks
  The package of reforms we announced in July to establish the Sports Cabinet and strengthen the United Kingdom Sports Council will ensure our top sportsmen and women receive the very best support which will enable them to continue competing successfully on the international stage.

  Writers (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to provide financial assistance to writers of works of non-fiction. [62158]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council of England, which my Department funds, supports writers of literature including writers of biography and autobiography.

  Television Coverage (Sports)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that a higher proportion of major sporting events, with particular reference to rugby union, is accessible to all television licence payers. [62159]

  Janet Anderson
  Following my Department's review of listed events earlier this year, we revised the list to allow the ITC to protect free-to-air coverage of more events than ever before. The list now includes international rugby union for the first time. Matches involving the home countries in the Five Nations tournament and the whole of the Rugby Union World Cup finals tournament were included in the new list which my right hon. Friend announced on 25 June 1998,Official Report, columns 600–01.

  Football Regulator
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will appoint a football regulator. [62160]

  Mr. Banks
  The management and development of individual sports is the responsibility of the appropriate governing bodies. We have recognised the special role football plays in this country by establishing the Football Task Force to investigate issues of concern to all those involved with the game. The Task Force is currently considering the complex issues associated with the commercial aspects of the game, which may include whether some kind of football regulator is required. I look forward to receiving the Task Force's commercial report.

  Sponsorship (Sports)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with sporting governing bodies about sponsorship. [62127]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I held meetings last year with sports likely to be affected by the ban on tobacco sponsorship. Since then
  351
  my officials have been in regular contact with them. We have been seeking detailed background information on the sports and current contracts with the tobacco companies, so the expert group I have set up can judge how best to help the sports attract alternative sponsors.

  Industrial Heritage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent steps he has taken to support Britain's industrial heritage. [62139]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I was very pleased to be able to announce to the House on 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 59, that my Department will pay an annual revenue subsidy grant to the National Coal Mining Museum for England from next year. The Museum, based at the former Caphouse Colliery near Wakefield, has a fascinating story to tell about an industry which, both economically and socially, has been of enormous importance to this country.

  Hinduja
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grant applications his Department has received from the Hinduja group of companies since 1 May 1997; and what grants have been paid. [62240]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: I am not aware that any grant applications to my Department have been submitted by the Hinduja group of companies. However, to confirm that there have been no such applications would entail disproportionate cost to the Department, given the number of Grant Schemes administered by the Department and the fact that the Hinduja Group consists of a large number of companies with different names.

  Television Licences
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of units of accommodation for which there should be a television licence; how many licences were issued for(a) monochrome and (b) colour receivers; and how many people were reported for failing to possess a television licence in the last year for which figures are available. [63314]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimated number of premises requiring a television licence as at 31 March 1998 was 23.6 million. At that date, there were 21.3 million colour television licences and 379,000 black and white television licences in force. During the year to 31 March 1998, 364,000 prosecution statements were taken in respect of television licence fee evasion and there were 112,000 prosecutions.

  Scottish Devolution
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list(a) by programme over £50,000 and (b) the total of spending by his Department in Scotland on the identifiable spending areas detailed in Table 7.6A of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1997–98 (Cmnd 3601); which of these programmes will fall solely or jointly under the responsibility of the Scottish
  352
  Parliament; and what arrangements are in place to transfer control of funds for these projects to the Scottish Executive or Parliament; [63288]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the programmes which it will be ultra vires for this Department to fund or have sole responsibility for after devolution; if he will list these programmes; and if he will make a statement. [63289]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Ministers will assume responsibility for a range of devolved functions which will in part depend on secondary legislation which has yet to be passed. My Department is reviewing its programmes in the light of the Scotland Act. It is too early to say to what extent programme expenditure which is currently administered by the Department may relate to functions which will transfer to Scottish Ministers. Work is taking place to establish the extent of any such expenditure and to assess the need for any consequential transfer of funds to the Scottish Ministers. For the total spending by the Department in Scotland I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on 4 November 1998, Official Report, column 615.

  "A New Approach to Investment in Culture"
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to publish his conclusions on the matters raised in his consultation paper, "A New Approach to Investment in Culture", of 24 July 1998. [63668]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The consultation paper which I issued in July contained a number of proposals for change in sectors for which my Department is responsible. At the same time I was able to announce an extra £290 million for those sectors over the next three years. Today I am publishing the conclusions I have reached in the light of the consultation, together with the detailed allocation of funding to sponsored bodies.

  Some of the main conclusions from the document are:
  a new watchdog to monitor and improve standards of efficiency and financial management and promote quality across all our sectors;
  streamlining of national bodies in the arts and crafts, the built heritage, film and museums and libraries to improve the delivery of services across these sectors
  a more effective, slimmer national strategic body for tourism in England
  a new national body to champion architecture
  a stronger voice for culture in the English regions, and a DCMS presence in all Government Offices
  new three year funding agreements with DCMS's sponsored bodies, placing clear responsibilities on those bodies to deliver our objectives against demanding targets.

  Copies of the document—"A New Cultural Framework"—have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Coalfield Communities
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he has taken to increase access to Lottery funds for former coalfield communities in the East Midlands. [62157]

  Mr. Banks
  I recognise that certain areas, including coalfields communities, have done less well than others from Lottery funding. My Department hosted a conference in Barnsley on 10 November to discuss how the Lottery can assist in the regeneration of the coalfields. In addition, we are working with the distributors to investigate the reasons for the low take-up of funds in many coalfield areas.

  The National Lottery Act 1998 contains a number of measures designed to bring about a fairer and more equitable distribution of funds across all regions and parts of the UK. It requires distributors to examine the needs of their sectors systematically and to draw up strategic plans which reflect those needs and their proposals for addressing them; it gives distributors new powers to encourage specific applications which do not come forward spontaneously; and it enables them to delegate decision-making closer to the grass roots and to enter into joint schemes.

  All of these measures will help to deliver more Lottery money to coalfield areas.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for establishing a centre of excellence for Rugby League. [62137]

  Mr. Banks
  It is the responsibility of the Rugby Football League to consider whether they wish to establish a centre of excellence and, if so, to come forward with proposals on how they might link this into the facilities and services of the UK Sports Institute.

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his efforts to bring top-class sporting events to the UK. [62145]

  Mr. Banks
  This Government are committed to providing the strongest possible promotional and diplomatic support for the bidding and staging of major sporting events in the UK. We are already providing strong support for the bids for the 2003 World Athletics Championships and the 2006 World Cup. In addition, I am working closely with the British Olympic Association to ensure that all the ingredients are in place to mount a winnable bid for the Olympic Games at the earliest possible date.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the procedure on public interest disclosure operated by Rebound for staff at the Medway Secure Training Centre. [63173]
  354
  Mr. Boateng
  I am not aware of any such document. Clause 68 of the contract with Rebound for the provision of the Medway Secure Training centre deals with confidential information and use of documents. A copy of the contract was placed in the Library on 11 March 1997.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62827]

  Mr. Straw
  At present, two people in the Home Office are recorded centrally as being on secondment from private companies. One is from Barclays Bank plc and is working in the Home Office Strategy Unit as part of a Home Office team advising on internal management issues, such as finance, Information Technology, and business change. The other is from the Refugee Council and is working in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, assisting on reviewing the level of asylum seeker support arrangements.

  Shapurji Saklatvala
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1998,Official Report, columns 251–52, on Shapurji Saklatvala, when the security service expects to begin its review of its inter—war records in preparation for further releases. [63236]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service plans to begin releasing material from World War Two in January 1999. The process of reviewing for release its quite extensive stock of records for that period will take some time to complete. Under current plans, I do not expect the Service to begin reviewing its inter—war records before the year 2000.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to uprate the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme tariff for inflation; and if he will make a statement; [63389]

  (2) what representations he has received about changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [63390]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received representations and inquiries about changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme from a number of bodies, including the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Law Society, the Victim Support National Office and local victim support schemes, and the Trades Union Congress. Individual members of the public have also put their views to us. We have been considering these, along with the findings which emerged from the Comprehensive Spending Review. We hope to be able to announce fairly early in the New Year how we intend to take matters forward.

  Public Service Vehicles Regulations
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in
  355
  each of the last five years for contravention of paragraph 4 of the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990. [63679]

  Mr. Boateng
  Unfortunately, information collected centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not distinguish offences committed under paragraph 4 of the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 from other summary offences.

  However, I understand that since February 1996, when computerised records began, the Vehicle Inspectorate has recorded no prosecutions in England and Wales under the provisions of paragraph 4.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was notified by the Department for Education and Employment of cases in which convicted sex offenders have been offered placements working with children under the new deal programme. [63889]

  Mr. Boateng
  These allegations were brought to my Department's attention by officials in the Department for Education and Employment on 8 December.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of neighbourhood watch schemes. [63420]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most recent research was a survey of 120 neighbourhood watch co-ordinators from a representative range of police force areas in England and Wales carried out in 1997. This concluded that neighbourhood watches could be a useful aid to the police but also identified areas of potential improvement, for example, the need to involve young people more in neighbourhood watch work. The Home Office and the National Neighbourhood Watch Association are working jointly to achieve these improvements.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of neighbourhood watch schemes, with particular reference to security for the elderly. [63421]

  Mr. Boateng
  A survey of 120 neighbourhood watch scheme co-ordinators from a representative range of police force areas in England and Wales was carried out in 1997. Guidance subsequently issued to neighbourhood watch co-ordinators emphasises the need to address personal safety issues, including those of the elderly.

  I recently attended the National Neighbourhood Watch and was pleased to see that the National award was won by Wrexham Neighbourhood Watch Action and Advice Unit. As one of its diverse activities, it gives special help to the elderly and its example will be used to promote good practice within the neighbourhood watch movement.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to date to public funds is for the extradition proceedings against Senator Pinochet; and if he will make a statement. [63833]
  356
  Mr. Straw
  Figures are not yet available. Costs in extradition proceedings are generally treated on a reciprocal basis. In this case, the United Kingdom is responsible for the costs of processing extradition requests made from Spain. In return, Spain is responsible for the costs of processing extradition requests made from the United Kingdom.

  The House of Lords awarded costs against Senator Pinochet for proceedings before the House of Lords and the Divisional Court. I was awarded costs against Senator Pinochet in the Divisional Court.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide for criminal record checks by implementing Part V of the Police Act 1997. [64102]

  Mr. Straw
  In order to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997, we will set up the Criminal Records Bureau. The Bureau will be established in Merseyside under the management of the United Kingdom Passport Agency, which has a proven track record of discreet delivery of a large application driven service. Appropriate use will be made of public private partnerships to contain set up and running costs, but the core work of examining records and issuing certificates will be handled by civil servants within the Bureau. Once established, it will be self financing through charging for each certificate to be issued as provided for under the 1997 Act. All applicants for certificates will be required to pay a fee which, depending on the level of certificate sought, we estimate will cost between five and ten pounds.

  The Government's main objective in introducing these arrangements is to strengthen the safeguards for the protection of children. In line with this, and to ensure a smooth transition from the current arrangements for employment vetting checks of police records, the Bureau will phase in the issue of the three types of certificate provided for under the Act. Top priority will be given to the issue of certificates for those seeking positions which involve regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons aged under 18. The Government are no less concerned about the need for similar safeguards to protect vulnerable adults; extending these arrangements to this area will require careful consideration and consultation.

  We estimate that it will take some two years to establish the Bureau. In this time, we intend to consult widely on all aspects of the Bureau's operation to ensure that it meets the needs of the community.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors (Convictions)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure that solicitors convicted of a crime are struck off. [62850]

  Mr. Hoon
  Section 47 of the Solicitors Act 1974 gives the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal the power to strike a solicitor off the roll if it thinks fit. The Government have no plans to amend this provision.

  Legal Aid (Reform)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if additional resources will accompany reform of the legal aid system to assist those who cannot afford basic legal services. [62910]

  Mr. Hoon
  We will be spending £248 million more on legal aid over the next three years than the previous Government intended. In addition, we will refocus those resources on areas of greatest need, such as social welfare and public interest work, and will achieve the maximum value for the resources available. Removing legal aid where a suitable alternative exists, and the greater control of cost that the reforms will bring, will enable us to devote more funds to these areas. As a first step, the Lord Chancellor recently announced the allocation of a minimum of £20m for the expansion of advice and assistance services provided by the not-for-profit sector. In addition, more people in future will be able to get advice and assistance, by allowing in people who can afford to pay a contribution but who are entirely excluded now on financial grounds. The extension in July of conditional fee agreements to all civil cases will also greatly improve access to justice for people who cannot themselves afford legal help and do not qualify for legal aid.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62835]

  Mr. Hoon
  Garry Hart is the only special adviser in this Department. He advises on the full range of issues for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, with the explicit exception of the following areas:the appointment, deployment and terms and conditions of individual judges (and papers relating to these matters); and
  Departmental staff matters.

  Garry Hart's appointment is subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a)the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62802]

  Mr. Hoon
  A list has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62828]

  Mr. Hoon
  No one within the Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters is currently on secondment from a private company.

  Legal Education and Conduct
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct intends to publish its Seventh Annual report. [64007]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct has today published its seventh annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  ENT Clinics
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for routine appointments at ENT clinics in(a) England and Wales and (b) Portsmouth. [62489]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on average waiting times for an outpatient appointment are not collected centrally. However, in England during the second quarter of 1998–99, 72 per cent. of patients were seen within 13 weeks of a general practitioner written referral for a first outpatient appointment at an ear nose and throat clinic, with 95 per cent. of patients seen within 26 weeks.

  During the same period, in Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority 93 per cent. of patients were seen within 13 weeks of a GP written referral for a first outpatient appointment at an ENT clinic, with 97 per cent. seen within 26 weeks.

  Waiting times at ENT clinics in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his e-mail address. [62555]

  Ms Jowell
  The Secretary of State for Health does not currently have an e-mail address.

  Aromatherapy
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to regulate the practice of aromatherapy. [63043]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department does not directly regulate any professional practice. Our policy is to encourage responsible, accountable self-regulation. Our main concern is to help health care professions who have statutory basis for their self-regulation to modernise and strengthen it. Other professions may want to put their self-regulation onto a statutory basis. This is a laudable ambition, but there is much to be done and we must give priority to the professions which provide the majority of services to National Health Service patients.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of aromatherapists who are currently practising in the UK. [63086]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department does not routinely collect statistics on the number of complementary therapy practitioners in the United Kingdom. A survey
  359
  carried out for the Department by the University of Exeter in 1997 estimated that there were approximately 5,900 aromatherapists practising in the UK at that time.

  Herbal Remedies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Medical Control Agency has to review the status of soft licence herbal remedies. [63085]

  Ms Jowell
  There is no category of soft licensed herbal remedies in the United Kingdom. Herbal remedies require marketing authorisation, unless exempted from the requirement for a product licence under the terms of Section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made with the independent and fundamental review of the current operations of the five statutory bodies created by the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979. [62689]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are considering the report of the review. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Funeral Costs
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken by his Department on the effects of recent changes to Social Security Fund payments on the numbers of section 46 funerals. [62790]

  Ms Jowell
  None. Payments have been made from the Social Fund for some years for a funeral service and burial or cremation. Certain additional expenses have been met since 1997, but these are unlikely to affect the number of funerals paid for by local authorities.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to local authorities regarding the manner in which section 46 funerals should be conducted. [62791]

  Ms Jowell
  Guidance on the detailed interpretation of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, including guidance on section 46, was issued by the Public Health Legal Information Unit in 1994.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost is of a section 46 funeral; and what is the average level of payment made by the Social Fund. [62789]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department does not record local authority payments for funerals carried out under section 46 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Questions on payments from the Social Fund are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many funerals were provided by local authorities in England and Wales under section 46 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 in each year since 1990. [62792]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Emergency Treatment Fees (Road Accidents)
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on emergency treatment fees in the NHS for road accidents. [63163]

  Mr. Hutton
  We intend to end collection of the Emergency Treatment Fee by National Health Service trusts. An amendment to section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, removing the right of NHS trusts to the Fee, is contained in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill which was introduced in the House on 27 November 1998.

  Clinical Waste Disposal
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of making rigid containers for clinical waste mandatory. [63162]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is not possible to estimate the cost to the National Health Service of making rigid containers for clinical waste mandatory.

  The requirement to provide rigid containers for clinical waste results from a European Community Directive. The Directive only applies where clinical waste is transported on public road or rail. This is then the responsibility of the waste contractor. However, if the contractor is faced with increased costs to replace containers, this is likely to be reflected in the contract price charged to the trust. Industry is looking into whether their existing systems meet these requirements. The outcome of this is awaited.

  ME Specialist Consultants
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to increase the number of qualified ME specialist consultants in the NHS. [63229]

  Mr. Milburn
  Consultants from a number of different specialties are involved in the care of patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Since February 1995, the Specialty Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG) has been advising the Government about the numbers of doctors in higher specialist training needed in all Hospital and Community Health Service specialties to meet estimated requirements for consultants four to six years hence. SWAG's planning process takes account of the views of the National Health Service and the medical profession about service needs. It is for NHS trusts and health authorities to determine locally how the consultants, produced following national workforce planning, are deployed.

  Scottish Devolution
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list(a) by programme over £50,000 and (b) the total spending by his Department in Scotland on the identifiable spending areas detailed in Table 7.6A of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1997–98 (Cmnd 3601); which of these programmes will fall solely or jointly under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament; and what arrangements are in place to transfer control of funds for these projects to the Scottish Executive or Parliament; [63294]
  361
  (2) what assessment he has made of the programmes which it will be ultra vires for his Department to fund or have sole responsibility for after devolution; if he will list these programmes; and if he will make a statement; [63295]

  (3) how much is spent annually by his Department on research programmes in Scotland; and what proportion of this funding will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament after devolution. [63293]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Ministers will assume responsibility for a range of devolved functions which will in part depend on secondary legislation which has yet to be passed. The Department is reviewing its programmes, including research components, in the light of the Scotland Act. It is too early to provide a clear picture of the extent to which programme expenditure which is currently administered by the Department may relate to functions which will transfer to Scottish Ministers. Work is taking place to establish the extent of any such expenditure and to assess the need for any consequential transfer of funds to the Scottish Ministers.

  Elderly Patients (Emergency Readmissions)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 210, concerning hospital readmissions, if he will list the figures for the total number of people aged over 75 years discharged in each quarter since emergency readmissions statistics were first collected, (a) in total and (b) by region. [63423]

  Mr. Milburn
  Copies of the information requested are available in Library.

  The number of patients who are readmitted to hospital is related to the number of patients who have been discharged. The number of patients aged over 75 and over discharged from hospital and the per cent. of patients aged over 75 and over readmitted to hospital within 28 days have also been provided.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many outbreaks of food poisoning there were in each county in each of the last five years; [63519]

  (2) if he will publish a monthly breakdown of outbreaks of food poisoning in each of the last five years. [63333]

  Ms Jowell
  Data on general outbreaks of foodborne illness, broken down by health authority, are published on a monthly basis in the Public Health Laboratory Service's Communicable Disease Report (CDR), copies of which are available in the Library. CDR also publishes quarterly data by local authority. Copies of CDR and data for specific food poisoning organisms can be found on PHLS' website; the address is www.phls.co.uk.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library all guidance given to health 362
  authorities on (a) methods of recruitment and (b) criteria for recruitment of lay members of primary care groups. [63179]

  Mr. Milburn
  Copies of all guidance on Primary Care Groups are available in the Library.

  Mixed-sex Hospital Wards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health hospitals or psychiatric units in England have mixed-sex wards; and if he will list them. [63789]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, the hon. Member may wish to consult the 'Report of Review of Health Authorities' Target Dates for Meeting Three Objectives to Eliminate Mixed Sex Hospital Accommodation', which was published in February 1998.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium (Emergency Cover)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to contract with the armed services to provide emergency cover over the millennium period; and what estimate he has made of the cost of that cover. [62578]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) on 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 20.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the fees charged by the Insolvency Service. [63095]

  Dr. Howells
  Insolvency legislation provides for fees to be charged by Official Receivers in connection with the administration of bankruptcies and compulsory liquidations. Fees are also charged in relation to the operation of the Insolvency Services Account, for the authorisation of insolvency practitioners and for the performance by the Secretary of State of his general duties under the Insolvency Act 1986.

  The Insolvency Service publishes an annual report and accounts which includes information about its fee income, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Millennium Dome (Sponsors)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much has(a) been paid or (b) been agreed to be paid by the New Millennium Experience Company to IMG; [62779]

  (2) what is the value of sponsorship money for the Millennium Exhibition raised by IMG. [62703]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given below to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
  363
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which sponsors of the Millennium Dome have been recruited through the services of the International Management Group; [63113]

  (2) on what date and for what reason the contract between the New Millennium Experience Company and the International Management Group was terminated; [63114]

  (3) in respect of which of the sponsoring companies of the Millennium Dome a success fee has been paid to the International Management Group. [63115]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: During the development of the Millennium Experience project, prior to the establishment of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), the Millennium Commission invited companies to tender to provide independent consultancy advice on the achievability of the sponsorship target and to quote their rates for raising sponsorship. IMG were the lowest bidder on both counts. Subsequent negotiations of the detail of the contract for raising sponsorship were conducted from late February 1997, by Millennium Central (the previous name of the NMEC). The key terms of the contract were reported to the House in my answers to the hon. Member for Herstmere (Mr. Clappison) on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 324 and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 327. At that stage both the NMEC and the Millennium Experience project were still in development—the sponsorship task; the nature of the offer to potential sponsors; and the overall sponsorship strategy had yet to be finally decided. Subsequent refinements of the task impacted on the nature of the work IMG were required to undertake. At the same time, NMEC's own in—house Commercial Department grew in expertise and strength. They are now well placed to deliver the remaining sponsorship necessary to meet the target of £150 million.

  In light of these developments, the NMEC and IMG have over the last few months been considering the terms of their original agreement. The parties have decided to terminate the arrangement by mutual agreement and NMEC have recorded their appreciation for the considerable contribution IMG has made to the project. The Legal documentation is currently being concluded. Details of the termination are commercially confidential. However, the fee payable to IMG represents the value of their support for, and assistance with, the NMEC's sponsorship work to date and is significantly less than the prospective fee of £9 million which I reported to the House on 17 July 1997, Official Report, column 324.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the sponsorship obtained for the Millennium Dome by(a) the International Management Group and (b) the New Millennium Experience Company by (i) name of sponsor and (ii) the amount secured. [62650]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given above to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that companies are able to ensure the millennium 364
  compliance of their computers; how much money he has spent on this; what percentage of the money has been given to Taskforce 2000; and if he will make a statement. [62412]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: The Department has set up Action 2000 to lead the work on behalf of Government in ensuring that businesses take effective measures to make their computer systems compliant with millennium date requirements. DTI has provided Action 2000 with £19.3 million of funding to support the work, of which some £9.0 million has been spent so far. Taskforce 2000 is a separate organisation which has received £0.35 million from the Department.

  Competitive Tendering (Departmental Projects)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons it is not normal departmental policy to disclose the names of firms participating in competitive tendering for departmental projects. [63493]

  Dr. Howells
  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information is the benchmark by which we make public details of competitive tendering. The Department would not normally make known the names of individual bidders participating in such an exercise. It would be generally considered to prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of such persons. However if we were asked to reveal the names we would consult each of the companies involved and ask whether they were content for their identity to be revealed. If the companies wished their names to remain confidential we could not release this information unless there were an overriding public interest.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to incorporate arms brokerage within arms trade regulations covering United Kingdom companies. [63434]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government do already impose controls on trafficking and brokering under the United Nations Act 1946 where this is necessary to implement a binding United Nations decision.

  Section 3.3 of the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, which was published on 1 July 1998, contains proposals to extend controls on trafficking and brokering to:
  countries subject to other types of embargo, whether as a result of non-binding decisions of the UN or decisions of the EU, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or the UK Government;
  certain types of equipment, the export from the UK of which, has been banned because of evidence that goods of the same type have been used in torture;
  missiles capable of a range of at least 300 km.

  The proposals in Section 3.1 of the White Paper, to extend current controls on weapons of mass destruction, also include trafficking and brokering activity.

  Now that the formal consultation process following publication of the White Paper has ended, we are reviewing all the proposals contained in the White Paper in the light of the responses received.

  Miller Civil Engineering Ltd.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the official trading status of Miller Civil Engineering Ltd. [63317]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: The latest accounts delivered by Miller Civil Engineering Limited and made up to 31 December 1997 include the following statement in the Directors' report.
  'The company did not trade on its own account during the year but acted as agent on behalf of The Miller Group Limited whose principal activities included civil engineering'.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it his policy that Ireland should retain its Objective I status when the zones for EU aid are re-drawn. [63178]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Decisions on EU Objective 1 funding for other member states are not a matter for the UK Government.

  Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many nine digit telephone numbers in the 0800 range have(a) been issued, (b) remain available to be issued and (c) are currently in use; and when the full range is expected to be in use. [63467]

  Mrs. Roche
  The 0800 nine-digit range was allocated by BT to itself in the time of its monopoly before 1984. When Oftel took over the administration of the Numbering Scheme from BT in 1994 unused portions ('blocks') of the 0800 nine digit range were recovered from BT and issued as ten digit numbers to other operators. BT has currently allocated over 80 per cent. of the 0800 nine digit capacity. No other operator has 0800 nine digit capacity.

  Because of BT's dominance in its holding of 0800 numbers BT was required to stop allocating new nine digit numbers to their customers from July 1997. Since that date BT has been issuing 0800 ten digit numbers out of allocations made to them by Oftel. The remaining unused 0800 nine digit numbers cannot be made available to other operators under current arrangements as they are in BT blocks. They therefore remain frozen pending the outcome of the current Oftel consultation on freephone numbers.

  The up to date figure for the quantity of 0800 nine digit numbers in use is not information held by Oftel as it relates to BT and its customers. However, it is generally recognised that between 80,000 and 100,000 such numbers are in use.

  It is the intention of the current consultation on freephone numbers to decide on an arrangement that will make available the full range of 0800.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many responses have been received to OFTEL's consultation document, Freephone Numbers: Options for the Future, from(a) businesses, (b) network
  366
  operators, (c) telecom advisory committees and (d) others; and how many responses from each group (i) supported and (ii) opposed options 1 and/or 2. [63522]

  Mrs. Roche
  Oftel has received submissions to its consultation document Freephone Numbers: Options for the Future from 168 respondees. Responses are divided into the following categories:a) Businesses—128 responses
  Consisting of 66 supporting the Freephone User Group (FUG) responses, 26 supporting the Direct Marketing Association responses and 36 other business responses.
  b) Network operators—8 responses
  c) Telecommunications Advisory Groups—21 responses
  d) Others—11 responses
  Consisting of 2 Consultants, 2 Consumer Groups, 5 Trade Bodies and 3 residential users. The numbers of responses that (i) supported and (ii) opposed options 1 and/or 2 are shown in the table below.

  Support

  Oppose

  Option 1

  Option 2

  Option 1

  Option 2

  (a) Businesses

  2

  3

  93

  97

  FUG

  0

  0

  66

  66

  DMA

  0

  0

  26

  26

  Others

  0

  3

  0

  5

  (b) Operators

  1

  6

  3

  0

  (c) TACs

  0

  19

  1

  0

  (d) Others

  2

  4

  2

  2

  Total

  5

  32

  98

  99

  Hallmarking
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on forthcoming changes to the Hallmarking Act 1973. [64080]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Regulations and the Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Order 1998 were laid in Parliament on Friday 4 December 1998.

  These will align UK law with EU single market rules whilst ensuring that UK manufacturers can remain competitive at home and in Europe. The specific changes are as follows:

  Section 2 of the Act is amended so as to recognise certain hallmarks from other European countries as "approved hallmarks". This follows a 1994 European Court of Justice Judgment in the case of Houtwipper (Case C-293/93) which ruled that Member States which prohibited the sale of articles of precious metal not hallmarked in accordance with national laws would not be in breach of single market rules provided that such articles did not already bear hallmarks struck by an independent body in accordance with the legislation of the exporting Member State, containing information which was equivalent to that provided by the hallmarks of the importing Member State and which was intelligible to consumers in that Member State. As a result, articles of precious metal bearing hallmarks which meet these criteria will be able to be offered for sale in the UK without, as previously, having to be re-hallmarked.
  367
  The distinction between UK manufactured articles and imports is to be ended so that the same marks will be struck on both UK and imported articles. This, also, is designed to align UK law with single market rules.

  The range of finenesses to which articles can be hallmarked in the UK is increased to include new standards (both higher and lower) in addition to those traditionally recognised in the UK. This will ensure that UK manufacturers can compete on an equal basis with European counterparts. Consumers also stand to benefit from being able to purchase a wider range of items of jewellery and other precious articles of a standard of purity which could not previously be sold as precious articles in the UK.

  The fineness of UK hallmarked articles will from now on be expressed millesimally. This means that the striking of traditional marks such as the crown for gold and the orb for platinum will become voluntary. This change will make hallmarks more readily understandable to consumers. This is especially important in view of the new increased range of finenesses.

  The requirement for the date letter to be struck alongside traditional UK hallmarks is ended although the date letter can continue to be struck on a voluntary basis. This change will place UK manufacturers on an equal footing with their European competitors.

  Finally, the date before which articles are exempt from hallmarking will be changed from 1900 to 1920 in response to concerns within the antiques trade about the inability to auction in the UK fine art works made between 1900 and 1920 which do not bear approved hallmarks.

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions he will take to ensure that Science and Technology issues are taken into account in the work of Government Departments. [64081]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I am today announcing a new group of Ministers who will have responsibility for supporting me in delivering my responsibility for science, engineering and technology across Government. I am looking to the new group to build on the work of the Ministerial Foresight Group—driving forward the Foresight Programme will be at the top of its agenda—and to ensure that the Government takes full advantage of UK scientific excellence in delivering its objectives.

  The new group, which will be chaired by the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, will have the following membership:

  Minister

  Lord Sainsbury

  DTI (Chairman)

  Jeff Rooker MP

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Peter Kilfoyle MP

  Cabinet Office

  Alan Howarth MP

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  George Mudie MP

  Department for Education and Employment

  Alan Meale MP

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Derek Fatchett MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  368

  Minister

  Lady Hayman

  Department of Health

  Paul Boateng MP

  Home Office

  George Foulkes MP

  Department for International Development

  Adam Ingram MP

  Northern Ireland Office

  John Denham MP

  Department of Social Security

  John Battle MP

  DTI

  Geoffrey Robinson MP

  HM Treasury

  Helen Liddell MP

  Scottish Office

  Peter Hain MP

  Welsh Office

  The Minister for Defence Procurement will receive the papers and attend for relevant items and other Ministers will be invited where issues cover their areas of responsibility.

  Post Office
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if responsibility for the Pathway project will be vested in the Post Office under his proposals for the future of the Post Office. [63702]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This project to automate the payment of social security benefit payments and a range of other services at post offices is being undertaken jointly by the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. under the Private Finance Initiative, with ICL Pathway as the private sector partner.

  The proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 7 December 1998, Official Report, columns 21–24, on the future of the Post Office do not affect existing responsibilities for this project.

  Wassenaar Arrangement
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if officials from his Department were present at the December meeting of the Wassenaar Arrangement in Vienna. [63523]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Department of Trade and Industry is regularly represented at meetings of participants in the Wassenaar Arrangement. Two officials of the DTI's Export Control Organisation attended the Plenary meeting of the Arrangement in Vienna on 2 and 3 December 1998.

  Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the range of training programmes designated as accredited training under the draft national minimum wage regulations; and if he will make a statement on the reasons which underlay the decision not to designate as accredited training programmes the full list of programmes recommended by the Low Pay Commission. [63701]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations dealing with the training programmes which might be designated as accredited training.

  The Low Pay Commission did not define accredited training and the programmes it should cover. It is important that the programmes to be designated as accredited training should be verifiable. The draft

  369
  Regulations, therefore, proposed that courses specified in Schedule 2(a) to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, training in Scotland leading to an award by the Scottish Qualifications Authority and equivalent vocational training in Northern Ireland might be defined as accredited training. The consultation exercise on the draft Regulations invited suggestions for alternative forms of training which might be included and these are being considered.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on the activity holiday industry; what representations he has received from the industry in relation to the draft national minimum wage regulations; and if he will make a statement. [63698]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government share the Low Pay Commission's view that the national minimum wage at the levels we propose is sensible and will not adversely affect business competitiveness or employment. We have received a number of representations from the activity holiday industry and others on the draft national minimum wage regulations. We are currently considering those representations and will present the regulations to Parliament for approval shortly.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department has conducted on the commercial cost of board and lodging; and if he will make a statement on the level to be included in the national minimum wage regulations for accommodation. [63780]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Low Pay Commission took evidence on current practice on the provision of board and lodging during its consultation exercise on the national minimum wage. It recommended that a maximum figure of £20 per week, which was not intended to be a commercial valuation, should be set for any deduction for the cost of accommodation provided by an employer. The draft national minimum wage regulations provide that, when assessing compliance with the national minimum wage, the maximum offset allowable for accommodation provided by the employer will be £2.85 per day.

  The Government accepted the Commission's recommendations, subject to consultation on the practicalities of implementation. We are currently considering the representations, including those on the level of the deduction for living accommodation and will present the regulations to Parliament for approval shortly.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has received on the amount that is deductible for meals provided by an employer under the draft national minimum wage regulations; and if he will make a statement. [63777]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations during the consultation exercise on the draft national minimum wage regulations on the amount that can be deducted for meals provided by an employer.
  370
  We are currently considering those representations and will present the regulations to the House for approval shortly.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63884]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have no plans to include Irish as a category in my Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  SERPS
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings which will result from the decision to halve SERPS for widowers and widows whose spouse dies on or after 6 April 2000. [61150]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: The estimated savings from the 1986 Social Security Act provisions which halve inherited SERPS from April 2000 are £60 million in 2000–2001, increasing to £2.3 billion by 2020.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Notes:

  1. Savings are gross of income related benefit changes.

  2. Figures are in 1998 prices and are rounded to the nearest £10 million (£100 million for the 2020 figure).

  3. The proposed new schemes for widows and widowers under State Pension age have not been taken into account.

  4. Cases where the widower is over State Pension age but the deceased partner is under State Pension age are included in the estimates.

  New Deal
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a breakdown of the £40 better off figures cited for lone parents who take paid employment as a result of the New Deal programme prototypes by amounts of(a) child benefit, (b) maintenance, (c) family credit, (d) net income from earnings, (e) housing benefit and (f) council tax benefit; and if he will break down the equivalent income figures which applied before paid employment was taken. [61840]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The information is set out in the table.

  Average amounts paid to new deal for lone parents sample cases (March 1998)

  £ per week

  Average amounts: (Income Support claim)

  Average amounts: (Family Creadit claim)

  Child Benefit

  22.35

  22.35

  Maintenance

  6.96

  6.96

  Family Credit

  n/a

  64.54

  371

  Average amounts paid to new deal for lone parents sample cases (March 1998)

  £ per week

  Average amounts: (Income Support claim)

  Average amounts: (Family Credit claim)

  Income Support

  67.72

  n/a

  Net income from earnings

  n/a

  78.49

  Housing Benefit

  54.10

  25.08

  Council Tax Benefit

  8.60

  2.10

  All Income

  159.72

  199.51

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest penny. As such totals may differ slightly from the sum of the component parts.

  2. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit amounts are calculated using an average amount of eligible rent and Council Tax Benefit appropriate to lone parents in Great Britain.

  3. It is assumed that claimants will take up their full entitlement to other benefits.

  4. Based on a sample of 296 claimants who have moved from Income Support to Family Credit, taken at the end of March 1998.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people leaving the New Deal to claim benefits other than jobseeker's allowance have made such claims(a) by month and (b) by type of benefit claim, from January up to the latest date for which figures are available. [63274]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The New Deal for unemployed people aged between 18 years and 24 years was launched in 12 Pathfinder areas on 5 January 1998 and introduced nationally on 6 April 1998.

  Numbers transferring from the New Deal for 18–24 year olds to other benefits

  1998

  Numbers transferred to other benefits

  Percentage of total leavers

  January-March

  200

  7.7

  April-June

  1,140

  6.9

  July-September

  3,010

  5.9

  Notes:

  1. Up to the end of September 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, 4,350 young people transferred from the New Deal to other benefits.

  2. The numbers leaving are collated on a quarterly rather than monthly basis.

  3. Information about which benefit they claimed is not currently collected.

  4. Data about the New Deal for the long term unemployed will be published early next year.

  Millennium (Emergency Cover)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to contract with the armed services to provide emergency cover over the millennium period; and what estimate he has made of the cost of that cover. [62577]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer that the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for 372
  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) gave the hon. Member on 7 December 1998, Official Report, column 20.

  Parenthood
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has introduced to assist with the additional costs faced during early years of parenthood. [63505]

  Angela Eagle
  Since November this year, an extra £2.50 a week has been made available to less well off families with children under age 11, through the income-related benefits. This is on top of the largest ever increase in Child Benefit for eldest or only children, up £2.95 a week from next April. A simultaneous increase in the family premium, from £11.05 to £13.90, will ensure that those on income-related benefits receive the full amount of the Child Benefit increase.

  In June 1998, two enhancements were introduced to the childcare disregard scheme in the in-work benefits (Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit). The maximum amount of weekly childcare costs allowed was increased from £60 to £100 for families who incur childcare costs for two or more children of qualifying age, and the age limit for children was extended by one year to the September following the child's 12th birthday. These families will receive further help next October through the introduction of Working Families Tax credit and associated childcare tax credit.

  Severely Disabled Children
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has introduced to increase the level of assistance made available to support severely disabled young children. [63510]

  Mr. Timms
  We have announced several significant improvements in support for disabled children. In our consultation document, 'A New Contract for Welfare-Support for Disabled People', we announced our intention to introduce a Disability Income Guarantee for families on income-related benefits with disabled children who have the highest care needs as well as the extension of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to children aged three and four. From 1 July 1998, payments awarded under the Vaccine Damages Payments Scheme were increased from £30,000 to £40,000.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the(a) numbers and (b) percentages of families claiming family credit where the family credit payment is equal to (i) up to 75 per cent. of the weekly wage, (ii) from 76 to 100 per cent. of the weekly wage and (iii) over 100 per cent. of the weekly wage; and if he will break down these figures between two parent and single parent families. [63501]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  373

  Family credit recipients at May 1998: weekly family credit (FC) as a proportion of gross weekly earnings

  All families

  Two parent families

  Lone parent families

  Number of cases (Thousand)

  Percentage of all FC claimants

  Number of cases (Thousand)

  Percentage of all two parent families receiving FC

  Number of cases (Thousand)

  Percentage of all lone parent families receiving FC

  All families receiving FC

  767

  100

  390

  100

  377

  100

  FC equals up to 75 per cent. of gross earnings

  433

  56.5

  236

  60.6

  197

  52.2

  FC equals 76 to 100 per cent. of gross earnings

  91

  11.9

  34

  8.6

  58

  15.3

  FC over 100 per cent. of gross earnings

  243

  31.6

  120

  30.8

  123

  32.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit awards and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error

  2. Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum to totals

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, on the basis of the Family Resources Survey, and pooling years of data, the number of benefit units which contain at least one employee and at least one dependent child, whose total income as measured for the purposes of the Working Families Tax Credit in each £5,000 band up to £30,000 and above, indicating separately the figures for (i) lone parent families, (ii) two parent families with one child, (iii) two parent families with two children and (iv) two parent families with three or more children, providing within each category separate figures for those in (A) firms of up to 25 employees and (B) firms of 25 employees or more. [63418]

  Angela Eagle
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which of the considerations which can affect child support maintenance payments under the current procedures will not come within the definition of exceptional expenses that tribunals will be allowed to take into account under the new proposals set out in 'Children First'; [63894]

  (2) if he will define the term, substantial change, used in Chapter 5, paragraph 18, of the Green Paper, Children First; what representations he has received concerning this term; and if he will publish those representations; [63890]

  (3) what plans he has to alter the amount by which a weekly maintenance payment must change before the maintenance liability is reset by the CSA. [63891]

  Angela Eagle
  A full analysis of responses to the Green Paper has not yet been completed. There have so far been over 1,500 written representations and comments are still being received. The outcome of the consultation process, together with our detailed proposals for reforming the child support system, will be published in due course.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the annual running costs of the proposed new Child Support Service outlined in the Green Paper, 'Children First'; and what plans he has for a new computer system to handle the new procedures. [63892]
  374
  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to produce accurate estimates of running costs until the shape of the new Child Support service is finalised.

  Support for a reformed Child Support service would be developed as a key part of the Department's wider plans for modernising its computer systems.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the NIRS II computer system is currently able to handle all inquiries about national insurance numbers. [63895]

  Mr. Timms
  The Contributions Agency is able to use the new National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2) to answer all inquiries about National Insurance numbers where National Insurance numbers are already held. This has been available to staff since the 23 July 1998.

  The NIRS2 facilities for issuing new National Insurance numbers for both adults and juveniles are being piloted currently, and should be implemented nationally in the near future.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Expenditure)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the net expenditure effects over the next four years of the New Deal for(a) youth and long-term unemployed, (b) lone parents and (c) people with disabilities. [63504]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government published their latest detailed estimates for the allocation of Windfall Tax receipts, which are being used to fund the Welfare to Work programme, in the pre-Budget report last month (Cm 4076—table 4.1).

  The Windfall Tax raised £5.2 billion. Half of this, or £2.6 billion, has been allocated to the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds. It has already given opportunities to 186,000 young people.

  £0.5 billion will be spent on the New Deal for long term unemployed people aged over 25 which started in June. From 30 November it has been extended in 28 pilots providing more intensive interventions.
  375
  £190 million has been allocated to the New Deal for Lone Parents which became available nationally to all lone parents on Income Support on 26 October. It was previously available in eight prototype areas from July 1997 and nationally to lone parents making new claims to Income Support from April 1998. During these two phases 87 per cent. of those attending initial interviews decided to participate in the programme.

  A further £210 million has been allocated to the New Deal for Disabled People. This includes £10 million additional funding announced on 28 October.

  All aspects of the New Deal programme are being comprehensively analysed. However, it is too early to make estimates of the net expenditure effects of these programmes, and it would be imprudent to make arbitrary reductions in our estimates of programme expenditure. The objective of our Welfare to Work programme is to increase the level of employment in the economy: doing so will benefit individuals in work, the wider economy, and the public finances.

  Education Channel
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the broadcasting companies with which he has had discussions over the establishment of a new education channel. [63319]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: The Department has had discussions with a number of broadcasting companies about a range of issues associated with educational broadcasting, including the possible future role of education channels in supporting teaching and learning.

  Enrolments by home domiciled higher education students in higher education institutions in the UK1 1997–98

  Ethnic group

  Full time (thousand)

  Percentage of total known

  Part time (thousand)

  Percentage of total known

  White

  763.4

  86.4

  385.6

  91.3

  Black Caribbean

  10.5

  1.2

  6.1

  1.5

  Black African

  15.5

  1.8

  7.0

  1.7

  Black Other

  4.6

  0.5

  2.9

  0.7

  Indian

  33.6

  3.8

  6.0

  1.4

  Pakistani

  17.3

  2.0

  2.7

  0.6

  Bangladeshi

  4.6

  0.5

  0.6

  0.2

  Chinese

  8.7

  1.0

  2.1

  0.5

  Asian Other

  10.2

  1.2

  4.2

  1.0

  Other

  15.0

  1.7

  5.2

  1.2

  Total known

  883.4

  100

  422.4

  100

  Ethnicity unknown2

  107.4

  —

  120.6

  —

  Total HE students

  990.8

  —

  543.0

  —

  1 Excluding HE students in FE institutions

  2 Including students for whom information was not provided or not collected

  University for Industry
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow the University for Industry to provide courses for students at levels 3 and 4; and how funding will be provided. [62549]

  Mr. Mudie
  There are no plans for the University for Industry to be a direct learning provider. It will rather act as a broker of learning opportunities at all levels. These will be provided in a variety of ways, including by further and higher education institutions.
  376
  A number of broadcasting companies have expressed interest in the provision of digital broadcasting services to support the GCSE curriculum. Following the recent technology exercise by my Department, it is expected that final decisions will be announced in the New Year.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with(a) the BBC, (b) Granada and (c) United News and Media over the establishment of a new education channel. [63318]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Discussions take place on a regular basis with broadcasting companies, including the BBC, Granada and United News and Media, about a range of issues associated with educational broadcasting. Companies with a broadcasting or transmission licence and experience in the provision of educational broadcast material have also been invited to submit expressions of interest in the provision of specific digital broadcasting services to support the GCSE curriculum, and a competitive tendering exercise for the provision of such services is now in progress.

  University Students (Ethnic Minorities)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of students attending university in the current academic year are from ethnic minority groups, broken down by individual ethnic group. [62036]

  Mr. Mudie
  The most recently available data on ethnicity of higher education students in higher education institutions in the UK are for 1997–98 and are given below:

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources, in addition to the announced start up costs, will be allocated to the University for Industry in each of the years 1999 to 2002; and from which budget head within his Department these resources will come. [62602]

  Mr. Mudie
  £40 million has been allocated to the University for Industry for 1999–2000. The Department plans to announce decisions on further funding in the Departmental Report which is due to be published in the spring. Any such resources will be allocated from the
  377
  Comprehensive Spending Review total for the Department for Education and Employment. Expenditure will be from a specific University for Industry subhead.

  EU Students (Undergraduate Courses)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many EU students commenced undergraduate courses at British universities in the academic year 1998–99; and what was the total projected income expected from their tuition fees. [62604]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 91, which gave our forecasts of the number of entrants from EU in 1998–99 and their expected contribution towards their tuition fees. Actual figures are not yet available.

  Dental Students
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will extend the scope of student loans for dental students and others who are required to undertake extended training. [62935]

  Mr. Mudie
  Under our new system of student support, dental and medical students in the first four years of their course will have access to the same loan, grant and fees support as all other students. In years five and beyond the Department of Health will meet their tuition fees and they will receive approximately half of their maintenance support through means tested NHS bursaries and the rest in non-means tested loans.

  Students on other long courses are entitled to the same loan, grant and fees support as all other students.

  Under our new system, students who have to study for more than a certain number of weeks in the academic year will be eligible, as now, for additional support for these extra weeks. This support will be in the form of an additional loan, repayable on the same terms as the basic maintenance loan.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to mitigate the effect of high debt levels on dental students incurred through the student loan scheme; and if he will make a statement. [63371]

  Mr. Mudie
  Under our new system of student support, dental and medical students in the first four years of their course will have access to the same loan, grant and fees support as all other students. In years five and beyond the Department of Health will meet their tuition fees and they will receive approximately half of their maintenance support through means tested NHS bursaries and the rest in non-means tested loans from the DfEE.

  Students on the new income contingent loans scheme will benefit from the fairer repayment system which links repayments directly to graduates' income. No repayments are made until their income reaches a threshold, initially set at £10,000, and thereafter they are calculated as a percentage of income above that level. This will ensure
  378
  that dental students, and others with larger loans to repay will have affordable repayments linked directly to their earnings.

  Dental and other students who entered higher education before 1998–99 and who take out five or more old style loans will repay these loans over a period of seven years compared to five years for borrowers with four or less loans. Borrowers may apply to defer repayment for a year at a time if their income does not exceed the earnings related threshold, which for 1998–99 is set at £17,784 per annum.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average level of debt incurred by dental students through the student loan scheme when they graduate. [63372]

  Mr. Mudie
  This information is not collected centrally. Data taken from 'Statistics of Education, Student Support for 1996–97', prepared by the Government Statistical Service and published by the Department for Education and Employment, show that borrowers entering repayment in 1997–98 owed an average of £2,180 to the Student Loans Company.

  Mature Students
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the problems facing mature students with family obligations who are not eligible for income support or housing benefit; and if he will review the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this issue. [62289]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations about the circumstances of individual mature students. The main source of support for full-time students is the student support system; mandatory awards, student loans and Access Funds. There are additional allowances as part of the mandatory award for students with dependants. These allowances are increased for single students with dependants and for students who have to maintain a second home whilst studying. They will be retained as supplementary grants when 100 per cent. loans for maintenance costs are introduced in 1999–2000.

  Most full-time students are excluded from entitlement to benefits such as Income Support and Housing Benefit. Some benefits continue to be made available to certain students in vulnerable groups, including students who are solely responsible for a child. Partners of students who are not full-time students themselves may claim benefits on behalf of the couple. In assessing entitlement to benefit, the Benefits Agency and/or the relevant local authority will take account of all income available to the student, including the maintenance grant and student loan.

  New Deal (East Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal Gateway in the East Hampshire District Council area since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [63031]
  379
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures for clients in the Mid Hants Unit of Delivery show that to the end of September 1998:(a) 206 young people had entered the Gateway and 41 have secured unsubsidised employment
  (b) 7 had joined one of the four options.
  This breaks down to: 2 on the Employment option; 3 on the Voluntary Sector option; and 12 on the Full-Time Education and Training option.

  Medical Students
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to monitor the impact of the new student funding system on recruitment to higher education institutions of students studying for professions allied to medicine and pre-clinical medicine. [62640]

  Mr. Mudie
  Responsibility for the support arrangements for new students on courses in the professions allied to medicine and for students on nursing and midwifery courses transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in September this year. I understand that his Department is monitoring the effectiveness of student support for the professions allied to medicine in safeguarding supply. Also from September 1998, arrangements for supporting new medical and dental students became a shared responsibility with the Department of Health. These students will be supported under the main student support system for the first four years of their course and by the Department of Health from year 5 onwards. Medicine has always been a popular subject which is heavily over-subscribed and the situation will continue to be closely monitored by the Department of Health.

  Extensive analysis is underway to assess and monitor the impact of our new higher education funding policies in general, using application and entrant data. A range of ongoing and planned research projects will also examine participation in higher education. A combination of internal and external studies will be undertaken.

  New Deal (Southampton)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal Gateway in the Southampton City Council area since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [63123]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures for clients in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire Unit of Delivery show that to the end of September 1998:(a) 751 young people had entered the Gateway and 97 have secured unsubsidised employment
  (b) 108 had joined one of the four options.
  This breaks down to: 29 on the Employment option; 7 on the Voluntary Sector option; 1 on Environment Task Force; and 71 on the Full-Time Education and Training option.

  I am encouraged by the positive start made in the Southampton and SW Hampshire Unit of Delivery, which reflects the encouraging start to the programme overall.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to ensure local co-ordination between the Single Regeneration Budget and the New Deal. [62343]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]: The guidelines for Round 5 of the Single Regeneration Budget required bidders to show how their proposals would support national policies and programmes to improve employability. Bidders should also clearly show how the SRB contribution will promote synergy by reinforcing or adding value to other publicly funded programmes.

  Government Offices for the Regions have been asked to consider with potential bidders how far their proposals can support and increase the effectiveness of the New Deals and other aspects of the Welfare to Work programme.

  Outline bids have now been received and Government Offices will be assessing the links with national programmes including New Deal. The Employment Service will be involved in the assessment of these bids.

  NVQs
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the take up by sector and subject of NVQ Level 4 in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and how many candidates were registered with the awarding bodies for NVQ Level 4. [63680]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information about take up of NVQ Level 4 by the 11 framework sectors, and by subjects is contained in the following tables.

  Candidates are not compelled to register with an awarding body to say they are working towards an NVQ. Their first contact with an awarding body may well be shortly before their assessment.

  1997–98 financial year

  NVQ framework sectors

  Level 4 awards

  1 Tending Animals, Plants and Land

  61

  2 Extracting and Providing Natural Resources

  0

  3 Constructing

  36

  4 Engineering

  222

  5 Manufacturing

  2

  6 Transporting

  9

  7 Providing Goods and Services

  157

  8 Providing Health, Social and Protective Service

  429

  9 Providing Business Services

  7,737

  10 Communicating

  164

  11 Developing and Extending Knowledge and Skills

  1,323

  Total

  10,140

  381

  Level 4 awards during financial year 1997–98 sorted in descending order

  Framework sector

  Title

  Level

  Total certificates

  9

  Management

  4

  3,739

  9

  Accounting

  4

  3,445

  11

  Training and Development (Learning Development)

  4

  996

  9

  Administration

  4

  386

  11

  Training and Development (Human Resource Development)

  4

  322

  8

  Guidance

  4

  113

  10

  Newspaper Journalism (Writing)

  4

  110

  8

  Managing Landfill Operations (Special Waste)

  4

  96

  9

  Business Counselling

  4

  81

  8

  Managing Transfer Operations (Special Waste)

  4

  76

  7

  Wholesaling, Warehousing and Stores

  4

  72

  4

  Engineering Manufacturing

  4

  66

  4

  Engineering Manufacture (Designing)

  4

  57

  8

  Occupational Health and Safety Practice

  4

  49

  4

  Engineering Manufacture (Production Planning)

  4

  41

  1

  Agriculture (Livestock Management)

  4

  34

  8

  Managing Landfill Operations (Biodegradable Waste)

  4

  32

  3

  Building Site Management

  4

  30

  4

  Engineering Manufacture (Testing)

  4

  29

  9

  Pensions Administration

  4

  29

  1

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture (Crop Management)

  4

  21

  7

  Travel Services (Management)

  4

  19

  8

  Care

  4

  16

  10

  Newspaper Journalism (Press photography)

  4

  16

  9

  Marketing Products and Services

  4

  13

  10

  Radio Production

  4

  13

  7

  On-Licensed Premises Management

  4

  12

  8

  Managing Treatment Operations (Special Waste)

  4

  12

  10

  Periodical Journalism (Writing)

  4

  12

  7

  Catering and Hospitality Management (Food Preparation and Cooking)

  4

  11

  7

  Travel Services (Leisure and Business Travel)

  4

  10

  9

  Procurement

  4

  10

  9

  School Administration

  4

  10

  4

  Engineering Manufacture

  4

  8

  4

  Engineering Manufacture (Designing and Testing)

  4

  7

  7

  Field Sales Management

  4

  7

  7

  Retail Operations

  4

  7

  10

  Newspaper Journalism (Production journalism)

  4

  7

  3

  Building Maintenance and Estates Service

  4

  6

  4

  Engineering Manufacture and Production Planning

  4

  6

  6

  Fishing Vessel Operations (Limited Area)

  4

  6

  8

  Advice

  4

  6

  8

  Managing Landfill Operations—Special Waste

  4

  6

  8

  Managing Transfer Operations—Clinical or Special Waste

  4

  6

  8

  Managing Incineration Operations (Special Waste)

  4

  5

  9

  International Trade and Services

  4

  5

  9

  Purchasing

  4

  5

  7

  Information Systems Development

  4

  4

  7

  Spectator Control

  4

  4

  1

  Amenity Horticulture (Designing Landscapes and Planning their Management)

  4

  3

  1

  Amenity Horticulture (Managing Landscape Construction and Maintenance)

  4

  3

  4

  Engineering Manufacture and Designing

  4

  3

  4

  Engineering Manufacture and Testing

  4

  3

  8

  Investigation

  4

  3

  8

  Occupational Health and Safety Regulation

  4

  3

  9

  Owner Management—Business Management and Development

  4

  3

  10

  Periodical Journalism (Subbing)

  4

  3

  11

  Training and Development (Design and Delivery)

  4

  3

  5

  Laboratory Operations

  4

  2

  7

  Catering and Hospitality Management (Housekeeping)

  4

  2

  7

  Distribution and Warehousing Operations

  4

  2

  7

  Information Systems Analysis

  4

  2

  7

  Playwork Development

  4

  2

  8

  Criminal Justice Services

  4

  2

  8

  Managing Treatment Operations—Clinical or Special Waste

  4

  2

  9

  Customer Implementation Support

  4

  2

  9

  Insurance (Intermediaries)

  4

  2

  9

  Marketing Research

  4

  2

  9

  Public Relations

  4

  2

  4

  Engineering Manufacture (Designing and Production Planning)

  4

  1

  4

  Merchant Vessel Engineering

  4

  1

  6

  Fishing Vessel Operations (Unlimited Area)

  4

  1

  6

  Merchant Vessel Operations

  4

  1

  382

  383

  Level 4 awards during financial year 1997–98 sorted in descending order

  Framework sector

  Title

  Level

  Total certificates

  6

  Piloting Transport Aircraft

  4

  1

  7

  Key Account Management

  4

  1

  7

  Kitchen Management

  4

  1

  7

  Sport and Recreation (Coaching)

  4

  1

  7

  Sport and Recreation Management (Sports Development)

  4

  1

  8

  Personnel Management

  4

  1

  8

  Special Needs Housing

  4

  1

  9

  Computer Network System Selection and Installation Supervision

  4

  1

  9

  Network Computer Services Management

  4

  1

  10

  Broadcast, Film, and Video Production

  4

  1

  10

  Camera Direction

  4

  1

  10

  Design

  4

  1

  11

  Information and Library Service

  4

  1

  11

  Training and Development

  4

  1

  Total Awards

  —

  10,140

  Level 4 NVQs for which there were no awards recorded financial year 1997–98

  Framework sector

  Title

  1

  Amenity Horticulture

  1

  Environmental Conservation (Archaeology)

  1

  Forestry

  3

  Building Control

  3

  Building Services Engineering—Design

  3

  Building Services Engineering—Service and Maintenance Management

  3

  Building Services Engineering—Site Management

  3

  Construction Plant and Equipment Management

  3

  Highways Maintenance

  3

  Owner Management, Business Management and Development

  3

  Property Management

  3

  Spatial Data Management

  3

  Traffic Management and Systems Engineering

  3

  Valuation

  4

  Engineering Manufacture (Testing and Production Planning)

  4

  Engineering Surveying of Equipment, Systems and Services

  4

  Engineering Technology Management

  4

  Project Control

  5

  Laboratory Operations (Chemical and Pharmaceutical)

  5

  Management (Meat Processing)

  5

  Meat Processing Management (Technical and Production)

  6

  Controlling Air Terminal Operations

  6

  Controlling Aircraft Operations

  6

  Controlling Airport Operations

  6

  Fishing Vessel Engineering

  6

  Piloting Rotary Wing Transport Aircraft

  7

  Accommodation Management

  7

  Catering and Hospitality Management (Food and Drink Service)

  7

  Catering and Hospitality Management (Reception)

  7

  Dairy Retailing

  7

  Front Office Management

  7

  Kitchen and Larder Specialist

  7

  Multi-Skilled Hospitality Management

  7

  Patisserie and Confectionery Specialist

  7

  Restaurant Management

  7

  Retailing

  7

  Sport and Recreation Management (Facilities)

  7

  Sports Administration

  7

  Travel Services (Environmental and Heritage Interpretation)

  7

  Travel Services (Guiding)

  7

  Travel Services (Tour Directing)

  384

  Level 4 NVQs for which there were no awards recorded financial year 1997–98

  Framework sector

  Title

  7

  Travel Services (Tour Operations)

  8

  Community Work

  8

  Environmental Conservation (Landscape and Ecosystems)

  8

  Forensic Science

  8

  Housing

  8

  Managing Incinerator Operations—Special Waste

  8

  Managing Landfill Operations—Biodegradable Waste

  8

  Managing Transfer Operations—Biodegradable Waste

  8

  Managing Treatment Operations—Biodegradable Waste

  8

  Providing Fingerprint Services

  8

  Regulating Waste Management

  9

  Advertising

  9

  Banking

  9

  Building Society Services

  9

  Building Society Services (Regulated)

  9

  Central Computer Services Management

  9

  Developing Union Organisation

  9

  Direct Marketing

  9

  Energy Management

  9

  Information Systems Production Supervision

  9

  Insurance (General)

  9

  Insurance (Life Offices)

  9

  Managing Residential Estate Agency

  9

  Multi-User Computer System Selection and Installation Supervision

  9

  Project Management

  9

  Quality Management

  10

  Animation Realisation

  10

  Archive Management

  10

  Art Direction

  10

  Book Commissioning

  10

  Book Contracts

  10

  Book Design

  10

  Book Editing

  10

  Book Editing (Editorial Management)

  10

  Book Production

  10

  Book Production and Publicity

  10

  Book Publishing Publicity and Promotion

  10

  Book Publishing Rights

  10

  Book Rights

  10

  Broadcast Journalism

  10

  Costume Design and Realisation

  10

  Delivering Artform Development Programmes

  10

  Developing and Delivering Cultural Products

  385

  Level 4 NVQs for which there were no awards recorded financial year 1997–98

  Framework sector

  Title

  10

  Editing

  10

  Graphic Design for the Moving Image

  10

  Journal Management and Programme Development

  10

  Lighting Direction

  10

  Lighting Provision and Co-ordination (Electrical)

  10

  Make-Up/Hair Design and Realisation

  10

  Music Performance

  10

  Newspaper Journalism (Production)

  10

  Periodical Journalism (Subbing with Layout)

  10

  Periodical Journalism (Writing Features)

  10

  Periodical Journalism (Writing News)

  10

  Periodical Production: Advertisement Production

  10

  Photography

  10

  Properties Management

  10

  Records Management

  10

  Sound Direction

  10

  Visual Arts Practice

  11

  Information and Library Services

  11

  Museums, Galleries and Heritage (Collection Management and Interpretation)

  11

  Museums, Galleries and Heritage (Conservation)

  11

  Training and Development (Flexible and Open Learning)

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage increase he expects in employer contributions to staff training for NVQs between December 1997 and December 1998. [63368]

  Mr. Mudie
  Many employers offer NVQs entirely at their own expense. We do not gather regular information on employers' expernditure on NVQs.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of, and how many primary school pupils were in classes of over (i) 30, (ii) 36 and (iii) 40 in September 1998 in each local education authority and in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in numbers compared with September(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 in each local education authority and in total. [63500]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the bids made by local education authorities before 20 November for capital expenditure to meet the Government's class size pledge. [63328]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Bids were received from the local education authorities listed below:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Bolton

  386

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell

  Brent

  Brighton and Hove

  Briston

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Camden

  Cheshire

  Cornwall

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Cumbria

  Darlington

  Derby

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Durham

  Ealing

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Gloucestershire

  Greenwich

  Halton

  Hampshire

  Hartlepool

  Havering

  Herefordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Isle of Wight

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kingston upon Thames

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Leicester City

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Manchester

  Medway

  Merton

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  387

  Newham

  Norkfolk

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottingham City

  Nottinghamshire

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Peterborough

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Reading

  Redbridge

  Redcar amd Cleveland

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  Shropshire

  Slough

  Solihull

  Somerset

  South Gloucestershire

  Southampton

  Southend on Sea

  Southwark

  St. Helens

  Staffordshire

  Stockport

  Stockton on Tees

  Stoke on Trent

  Suffolk

  Sunderland

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Tameside

  Telford and Wrekin

  Thurrock

  Torbay

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Warrington

  Warwickshire

  West Berkshire

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Wiltshire

  Windsor amd Maidenhead

  Wirral

  388

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Worcestershire

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many temporary classrooms(a) have been built and (b) are planned to be built to meet the Government's pledge on class sizes. [63329]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have made clear that where extra classrooms are needed to meet the class size limit, LEAs should provide permanent and not temporary classrooms. Plans will not be approved where these rely simply on the use of temporary accommodation.

  Specific Grants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each annual programme of specific grants for education since 1985(a) whether there was a period of consultation before a circular was issued, (b) which grants were included, (c) for how many grants competitive bidding was required and (d) what percentage of the funds were (i) directly available to schools, (ii) allocated through local education authorities and (iii) made available by other routes. [63514]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A reply to this question would involve disproportionate cost.

  University Teachers
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of university teachers are engaged purely in research and have no teaching responsibilities; and how this percentage compares with(a) 1997, (b) 1996, (c) 1995 and (d) 1990. [63366]

  Mr. Mudie
  The percentage of university academic staff engaged purely in research is shown in the table:

  Year

  Percentage

  1990–91

  134.4

  1994–95

  228.3

  1995–96

  329.5

  1996–97

  429.6

  1 Based on Universities Statistical Record (USR) data for UK universities formerly funded by Universities Funding Council (UFC)

  2 Based on Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data for UK universities and colleges of higher education

  3 Ibid

  4 Ibid

  Note:

  Figures for the academic year 1997–98 are not yet available

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given universities about the appropriate balance between research and teaching activities. [63367]

  Mr. Mudie
  In our response to the Dearing Report on Higher Education in February 1998 we said that a better balance is needed in higher education between teaching, research and scholarship. Guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council for England issued on 8 December said that we expect the Council to promote and enhance high quality teaching and learning and welcomed the Council's proposals to set aside £30m for promoting and rewarding high quality in teaching. It also welcomed the Council's involvement in the preparation for an
  389
  Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The guidance reflects our aim to promote effective learning and teaching, alongside our commitment to maintaining a world class science base.

  Free Milk
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy on the provision of free milk in schools. [63897]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  If local education authorities and grant-maintained schools choose to provide milk, they must, by law, supply it free to pupils whose parents receive income support or income based job-seekers allowance, but must charge other pupils.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he intends to carry out a full audit of how the funding under the Schools Access Initiative has been used throughout England and Wales. [63826]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Matters on expenditure in Wales are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Local education authorities (LEAs) in England are asked each year to return confirmation of their spending in the previous financial year on projects supported through the Schools Access Initiative and to identify individual projects which have been carried out. Expenditure on such projects by LEAs and by grant maintained schools in England is subject to their normal external audit arrangements.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total amount of public subsidy to United Kingdom higher education institutions resulting from means-testing student tuition fees under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998; and what is the total amount students and parents are expected to contribute under that Act. [63327]

  Mr. Mudie
  The estimated public contributions to tuition fees for home and other EU students entering full-time undergraduate courses in 1998–99 in United Kingdom higher education institutions under the new funding arrangements is £184 million. The estimated contribution by students and parents is £163 million, which after allowance for the costs of collection and any default, will be received as income by institutions.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish his current estimate of the revenue savings he expects to accrue as a result of the abolition of the assisted places scheme in the years(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if he will list the assumptions underlying his estimates. [63330]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 405.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for individual local authority spending in 1999–2000, for council tax damping and arrangements for council tax benefit subsidy. [64153]

  Mr. Michael
  I am consulting county and country borough councils on their provisional Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) for 1999–2000 as set out in the following table.

  The provisional SSAs have been calculated using the formula agreed with the Welsh Local Government Association. They are consistent with my proposal for total standard spending, net of specific grants, of £2,986 million which I announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 9 December 1998, Official Report, columns 229–30. The breakdown of total standard spending, net of specific grants, is:

  £ million

  Provisional SSAs for county and county borough councils

  2,806.3

  Provisional SSAs for police authorities1

  178.3

  Proposed payments to bodies specified under section 76 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988

  1.8

  Total standard spending net of specific grants

  2,986.4

  1Announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 2 December 1998, Official Report, column 212.

  The details of the council tax damping scheme which I announced on 9 December 1998, Official Report, columns 229–30, are as follows:
  I proposed to provide council tax reduction grant of £22.5 million to 8 councils;
  the grant will keep council tax increases, excluding community council precepts and discretionary non-domestic rate relief, to £70 at Band D in those councils' areas, or the parts of them that qualify for damping, as long as councils do not increase their budgets above the guideline figures that I am announcing for limiting council tax benefit subsidy payments.

  The provisional damping grant entitlement for each council is shown in the following table.

  I propose that the amount of revenue support grant (RSG) for 1999–2000 should be £1,891.5 million.

  The arrangements for council tax benefit subsidy are as follows:
  I propose to set guideline figures consistent with an average increase of 7.2 per cent. in council tax which, in broad terms, equates to a budget increase of 5.9 per cent. over this year for each council, subject to allowing each council to spend the increase in its SSA in full;
  on council tax above the guideline figure, subsidy would be withdrawn at the rate of 50 per cent.

  I have made one minor change to the figures that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) in my answer on 9 December 1998, Official Report, columns 229–30. I now propose that the amount of specific grants for 1999–2000 should be £258 million.
  391
  Consequently, my proposals for total standard spending and aggregate external finance are £3,244 million and £2,828 million respectively.

  My Department has written today to the Welsh Local Government Association and all local authorities in Wales to initiate a consultation on my proposals. Copies of the consultation letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  £ million

  Council

  Provisional SSA for 1999–2000

  Provisional entitlement to damping grant

  Provisional guideline figure

  Isle of Anglesey

  68.0

  —

  70.2

  Gwynedd

  118.9

  —

  126.8

  Conwy

  104.7

  —

  104.7

  Denbighshire

  91.8

  —

  97.1

  Flintshire

  134.9

  —

  140.7

  Wrexham

  112.7

  —

  118.4

  Powys

  131.4

  —

  134.1

  Ceredigion

  70.2

  0.2

  75.8

  Pembrokeshire

  114.5

  —

  116.9

  Carmarthenshire

  169.1

  —

  177.9

  Swansea

  214.2

  0.6

  226.7

  Neath Port Talbot

  133.5

  3.2

  148.4

  Bridgend

  123.6

  0.0

  131.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  110.1

  —

  112.0

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  230.6

  8.9

  254.1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  59.0

  3.9

  67.1

  Caerphilly

  164.2

  0.1

  172.8

  Blaenau Gwent

  70.4

  5.6

  79.4

  Torfaen

  89.8

  —

  92.1

  Monmouthshire

  75.5

  —

  75.4

  Newport

  130.8

  —

  134.2

  Cardiff

  288.1

  —

  299.3

  All county and county borough councils: total

  2,806.3

  22.5

  not applicable

  Budget Statistics
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for allocating the Welsh budget provision in 1999–2000, and provisionally for the years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [64154]

  Mr. Michael
  The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) settlement announced on 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 187–194, allocated a total Welsh budget of £7,812 million, £8,223 million and £8,666 million for 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively. This provides for an average annual increase of 5.3 per cent. over the three years. I have now reached my decisions on how the budget should be allocated. In reaching these decisions, I took into account the views we received on the CSR consultation paper issued in September, and I would like to thank those who responded to the paper.

  I have decided to allocate significant additional resources to health and education to deliver our Manifesto commitments on class sizes, education standards and health waiting lists. These are our priorities because they are the people's priorities. There are also real terms increases for key issues like tackling social exclusion, improving the economic prosperity of Wales and for other
  392
  important programmes. The allocations will provide an excellent start to the National Assembly for Wales.

  For the NHS, I have allocated the indicative cash sums announced at the time of the CSR settlement in July—an extra £1.030 billion over the next three years. This is an average increase of 6.4 per cent. (3.9 per cent. in real terms) each year. As well as enabling us to meet our manifesto commitments on reducing waiting lists, these allocations will also secure other important service improvements.

  For Education and Training, I am allocating more than the indicative figures announced at the time of the CSR. I am increasing the education and training budgets by £844 million over the three years, an extra £1,000 per pupil/student in Wales. This is an average annual increase of 7 per cent. (4.5 per cent. real) over the next three years. The increase fulfils our manifesto pledges to make education our first priority. Over £70 million of the local government revenue settlement will be for education and we will expect local authorities to increase education spending by at least this amount. The increase in resources will fund an additional 28,000 students in Further Education, and an extra 8,000 students in Higher Education, by 2001–02.

  I have already announced, at column 390, the provisional settlement for local government and the police. The settlement allows for an extra £868 million in extra spending on services by Welsh local authorities over the next 3 years, net of specific grants. In addition, Welsh councils will be able to invest some £1.2 billion in capital projects over the next 3 years.

  We have set ambitious targets for improving the economic prosperity of Wales in 'Pathway to Prosperity'. I have increased provision for economic measures by £134 million over the period. The new Welsh Development Agency will have a gross programme of over £200 million in 1999–2000. We are also increasing our support for small businesses. I am allocating an extra £1 million each year to the Wales Tourist Board to help promote tourism activities associated with the Rugby World Cup and Millennium promotions. On transport, we will begin to address the priorities on roads set out in 'Driving Wales Forward'. We will also be announcing substantially increased support for local authorities' Integrated Transport Packages.

  I am also setting up a special fund which will enable the Assembly to continue to improve Wales's economic prosperity.

  Social inclusion and tackling poverty is another of the Government's priorities and I am allocating an extra £87 million over the period to help regenerate the poorest communities and to help the most vulnerable members of society. I am allocating provision of £25 million for Sure Start to begin a major programme to improve the life chances of very young children, especially the children of families living in the more disadvantaged areas. We will be encouraging measures to promote access to education and 'second chance' opportunities for training. I also want to encourage joint working across a number of

  393
  programmes and organisations and I am setting aside funds for the Assembly to decide how it wishes to pursue these objectives.

  I have already announced resources to ensure that the new Tir Gofal agri-environmental scheme will be properly funded, thereby meeting another of our Manifesto Commitments. We are also putting extra money into the Welsh Food Strategy.

  Arts and sport in Wales is an area where provision in recent years has been cut in real terms. These programmes add to the economic and social well being of our community and I have allocated additional resources in each of the next 3 years to provide real growth.

  1999–2002 Welsh Office spending plans

  Spending plans (£ million)

  Programme

  1998–99 plans (£ million)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total change (£ million)

  Average annual change (%)

  Average annual real terms change (%)

  NHS

  2,480

  2,655

  2,825

  2,990

  1,030

  6.4

  3.9

  Education and Training1

  1,875

  2,008

  2,162

  2,299

  844

  7.0

  4.5

  Local Authority Revenue2

  2,842

  2,986

  3,128

  3,279

  868

  4.9

  2.4

  Local Authority Capital3

  426

  405

  395

  406

  -71

  -1.5

  -4.0

  Economic Prosperity4

  319

  335

  368

  388

  134

  6.7

  4.2

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation—to be wound up by 31 March 2000

  45

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Social Inclusion5

  90

  109

  114

  134

  87

  14.4

  12.0

  Agriculture and Environment6

  77

  83

  85

  88

  25

  4.6

  2.1

  Arts and Culture

  45

  47

  51

  52

  15

  5.0

  2.5

  Central Administration incl. Assembly

  94

  120

  124

  126

  88

  10.9

  8.4

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools7

  10

  8

  9

  9

  -4

  -4.0

  -6.5

  Other non-block and demand-led items8

  405

  390

  399

  423

  -4

  1.5

  -1.0

  Total budget9,10

  7,412

  7,812

  8.223

  8,666

  2,465

  5.3

  2.8

  1 Education and Training line includes Central Government Education and Training programmes and Local Authority revenue and capital expenditure.

  2 Local Authority revenue line includes total standard spending net of specific grants, police grants and transfers from other Government Departments.

  3 Local Authority capital line includes the Windfall Tax resources for education which are outside of the published Welsh Budget figures.

  4 Economic Prosperity line includes Central Government provision for Economic and Industrial Development programmes, Roads and Transport.

  5 Social Inclusion lines includes Central Government provision for Housing and Personal Social Services.

  6 Agriculture and Environment line includes Central Government provision for Domestic Agriculture and the Environment.

  7 OHMCI includes running costs and programme expenditure.

  8 Other non-block and demand-led items includes Housing Revenue Account Subsidy, Common Agricultural Policy grants and European Regional Development Fund grants.

  9 Total Budget line is not the sum of the individual lines since the local authority education figures are included in Education and Training and the local authority revenue and capital lines along with other technical adjustments.

  10 In addition to these figures, the Welsh Budget will be increased by its share of the Capital Modernisation fund—£30 million in 2000–01 and £45 million in 2001–02.

  Welsh Office spending plans—main allocations: 1999–2002

  £ million

  Programme

  1998–99 plans

  1999–2000 plans

  2000–01 plans

  2001–02 plans

  Total change

  Average annual change (%)

  National Health Service

  2,480.0

  2,655.0

  2,825.0

  2,999.0

  1,030.0

  6.4

  Education and Training

  1,875.0

  2,008.0

  2,162.0

  2,299.0

  844.0

  7.0

  Of which:

  Local Authority (Revenue and Capital)

  1,315.0

  1,390.0

  1,466.0

  1,562.0

  473.0

  5.9

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales1

  178.6

  199.6

  213.6

  228.6

  106.0

  8.6

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales2

  232.3

  270.5

  294.3

  314.9

  182.8

  10.7

  Training and Enterprise

  125.5

  141.4

  149.7

  150.8

  65.5

  6.4

  Local Authority Settlement

  Total Standard Spending3

  2,841.8

  2,986.4

  3,128.0

  3,279.0

  868.0

  4.9

  Capital

  425.7

  404.6

  395.1

  406.0

  -71.4

  -1.5

  394
  Finally, I have allocated additional resources to meet the cost of the Assembly. This includes the capital cost of the Assembly buildings and in the first year the cost of the Assembly elections.

  In addition to the CSR settlement, the Welsh budget will receive at least an extra £75 million during 2000–01 and 2001–02 from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund; these moneys will be used to fund innovative capital projects, such as housing initiatives, schools and hospitals. The allocations to the main programmes are set out in the following tables.

  It is my intention to discuss the details of the allocations at a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee on 16 December.

  395

  Welsh Office spending plans—main allocations: 1999–2002

  £ million

  Programme

  1998–99 plans

  1999–2000 plans

  2000–01 plans

  2001–02 plans

  Total change

  Average annual change (%)

  Economic Prosperity

  319.0

  335.0

  368.0

  388.0

  134.0

  6.7

  Of which:

  Regional Selective Assistance

  61.2

  63.2

  61.2

  61.2

  2.0

  0.0

  Welsh Development Agency

  123.0

  130.0

  130.0

  130.0

  21.0

  1.9

  Wales Tourist Board

  14.4

  15.4

  15.4

  15.4

  3.0

  2.3

  Central Government Roads and Transport

  102.4

  104.4

  107.4

  107.4

  12.0

  1.6

  Economic Development and Business Support4

  9.0

  9.0

  42.0

  62.0

  86.0

  138.1

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation5

  44.9

  35.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Social Inclusion

  90.0

  109.0

  114.0

  134.0

  87.0

  14.4

  Of which:

  Personal Social Services

  6.0

  12.0

  20.0

  20.0

  34.0

  55.6

  Central Government Housing

  84.0

  89.0

  84.0

  84.0

  5.0

  0.1

  Social Inclusion Fund

  0.0

  8.0

  10.0

  30.0

  48.0

  —

  Agriculture and Environment

  77.0

  83.0

  85.0

  88.0

  25.0

  4.6

  Of which:

  Domestic Agriculture

  54.0

  57.4

  59.0

  62.0

  16.4

  4.7

  Countryside Council for Wales

  23.7

  23.7

  23.7

  23.7

  0.0

  0.0

  Cadw (incl. Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments

  7.6

  7.7

  7.7

  7.7

  0.3

  0.4

  Arts and Culture

  45.0

  47.0

  51.0

  52.0

  15.0

  5.0

  Of which:

  Welsh Language Board

  5.8

  5.9

  6.1

  6.3

  0.9

  2.8

  Arts Council of Wales

  14.3

  14.8

  15.3

  15.6

  2.8

  2.9

  National Library for Wales

  6.0

  6.2

  6.4

  6.5

  1.1

  2.7

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales

  12.3

  13.3

  13.7

  14.0

  4.1

  4.4

  Sports Council for Wales

  6.6

  6.8

  7.0

  7.2

  1.2

  2.9

  Memo item: total Welsh budget

  7,411.9

  7,812.1

  8,223.4

  8,665.5

  2,465.3

  5.3

  1 Excludes provision for student access funds.

  2 Includes transfer from DfEE resulting from the Dealing Review.

  3 Figure is net of specific grants, police grant and transfers from other Government Departments.

  4 Includes Economic Prosperity Fund.

  5 CBDC is to be wound up by 31 March 2000.

  Bus and Rail Industries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in(a) the bus industry and (b) the rail industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [62911]

  Mr. Hain
  The only available information relates to the bus and coach industry where the number of staff employed in Wales is provisionally estimated at 7,200 in 1997–98.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce the names of the chairmen of the NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [62695]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend announced the chairs and some non-executive directors of the new NHS trusts in Wales on Tuesday 8 December.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Community Support Framework, associated with Wales's bid for Objective I funding for 396
  the Western Wales and Valleys NUT2 area, to be completed; and what progress has been made in preparatory work for the Framework. [63151]

  Mr. Hain
  The draft regulations for Structural Funds would, if agreed by the Council, require the completion of a CSF within 9 months of the adoption of the Regulations. Negotiation of the Regulations is expected to be completed by the end of March 1999.

  The Wales European Task Force is currently working on the identification of strategic priorities for the programme. I expect this preliminary stage of their work to be completed in January. The proposed strategic priorities will then be the subject of wider public consultation before Easter next year.

  Dentists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the range of the capital grant made by the Welsh Office to support salaried National Health Service dentists in Wales since the introduction of the scheme; and what repayment provisions apply if the dentists subsequently leave the NHS. [63148]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Capital funding of around £220,000 was paid to the Family Health Services Authorities of Gwynedd and Dyfed over the financial
  397
  years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to meet the costs incurred by those Authorities in refurbishing and equipping surgery premises to a clinical standard suitable for use by dentists employed by those Authorities. No repayment provisions apply. For the most part, the investment was in premises also used for the provision of Community Dental services and I understand that they are still in NHS use.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many salaried dentists have been employed in Wales since the Welsh Office set up its emergency scheme to maintain the availability of the NHS dental service; and of these how many(a) are currently working within the NHS dental service, (b) have transferred to provide a private dental service and (c) have ceased to provide a dental service in Wales. [63157]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number of salaried dentist posts established by Family Health Services Authorities in Wales, and successor Health Authorities, has varied during the period since the first post was filled in 1993. The maximum in post at any one time was 7, in 1996, but there are none at present. Information on the whereabouts of the dentists who were formerly employed by the Authorities is not held centrally.

  The Welsh Office dental initiative has been an outstanding success in attracting new dentists to those parts of Wales where they are needed most. The grant scheme offers a better and more economic long term alternative to the salaried option in addressing inadequacies in service provision.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish a monthly breakdown of the outbreaks of food poisoning in each of the last five years; [63332]

  (2) how many outbreaks of food poisoning there were in each county in each of the last five years. [63517]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Preliminary monthly data on reported food poisoning in the health authorities of England and Wales are published during the second week of each month in the weekly publication, Communicable Disease Report (CDR).

  Final quarterly, regional data on food poisoning which are more complete are also published in CDR (March, June, September and December 1998). Quarterly data are available from 1996. Prior to this, data on salmonella were published in the PHLS State Veterinary Service (SVS) Update.

  Copies of the reports are available in the House of Commons Library or can be downloaded from the PHLS website, address: http://www.phls.co.uk.

  Mixed-sex Hospital Wards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mental health hospitals or psychiatric units in Wales have mixed-sex wards; and if he will list them. [63786]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information about mixed sex wards in mental health hospitals or psychiatric units is not held centrally.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the use of funding by Welsh schools under the Schools Access Initiative. [63827]

  Mr. Hain
  Returns from local authorities relating to the Schools Access Initiative indicate that funding was used for a variety of measures including ramps, alterations to doorways, toilets with access for disabled, extra sinks and shower facilities, white lines on steps and stairs and lift installations.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what records his Department has kept of the use of the £500,000 per year granted to Welsh schools under the Schools Access Initiative. [63829]

  Mr. Hain
  Local authorities were asked to provide reports detailing what measures had been implemented under the Initiative. 9 local authorities reported in 1997.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to audit the use of the £500,000 per year granted to Welsh schools under the Schools Access Initiative. [63828]

  Mr. Hain
  Local authority expenditure is subject to audit by Audit Commission appointed auditors. No separate arrangements are made for reporting to the Welsh Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has carried out to establish in how many and what percentage of cases military equipment exported since 1 May 1997 under an export licence has been used for(a) internal repression and (b) other human rights abuses; and if he will make a statement. [62424]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: No formal mechanisms exist at present for systematically monitoring the use that has been made of British defence equipment once it has been exported. Where relevant, our Posts overseas report on the use of British-supplied equipment in the light of information they receive. We have no evidence that military equipment exported under a UK licence since 1 May 1997 has been used for internal repression or other human rights abuses.

  Licence applications for exports of military equipment and dual-use goods to military or internal security end-users are assessed against our defence export criteria and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. Under Criterion Two of the EU Code we assess the attitude of the recipient country of the proposed export to relevant principles established by international human rights instruments, and exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or by the EU. We will not issue an export licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on deaths and injuries in demonstrations in Indonesia on 13 and 14 November. [63449]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received reports of at least 14 deaths of civilians and members of the security forces as a result of violence in Jakarta on 13 and 14 November. A large number of injuries have also been reported.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of British military equipment being used against demonstrators in Indonesia on 13 and 14 November; and if he will list the equipment involved. [63448]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received reports that some of the military equipment deployed by the Indonesian armed forces during the civil unrest in Indonesia on 13 and 14 November was UK-supplied. We have had no reports that equipment licensed since 1 May 1997 was used.

  UK Overseas Territories
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish his White Paper on United Kingdom Overseas Territories. [63488]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We plan that the Paper will be published early in the new year.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 7 and 8 December; and if he will make a statement. [63341]

  Ms Quin
  The General Affairs Council in Brussels on 7/8 December adopted the A points listed in document 13773/98 and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its sessions of 4-5 November and 16-20 November listed in documents 11765/98 and 12776/98. Copies of the documents listing the A points and resolutions will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  Foreign Ministers met in a Conclave on 6 December to discuss all areas of Agenda 2000 on the basis of a draft Presidency Report to Vienna, with particular emphasis on Structural Funds. We believe the report was a good summary of progress so far. It was agreed that it should go to the Vienna European Council. There was further discussion at the GAC on 7 December, but no formal conclusions.

  The GAC agreed its report to the Vienna European Council broadly endorsing the Commission's Progress Reports. It also agreed Conclusions stating that it would not at this stage make any recommendations to the European Council to add extra countries to the accession negotiations.

  The Presidency presented a factual paper, detailing work needed to implement the Treaty of Amsterdam. The GAC welcomed progress so far, and called for a precise working timetable for the forthcoming months, so that the Council can regularly review preparations.
  400
  The Council agreed a short report to the European Council on Common Strategies, the new foreign policy instrument to be introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty. It also recommended a short list of subjects for Common Strategies, for the European Council to consider.

  The GAC agreed on a progress report for the Vienna European Council on developing a comprehensive EU policy towards Russia. They looked forward to receiving a proposal from the Commission on EU food aid for Russia. They underlined the importance of adequate control mechanisms for the delivery of aid. Ministers will review the implementation of food aid at future meetings.

  The EU Declaration on 10 December reaffirms our commitment to speak up for the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights is high on Britain's foreign policy agenda. And the initiative my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has taken with Joschka Fischer—to publish an Annual EU Human Rights Report—has helped ensure that human rights is firmly on Europe's foreign policy agenda as well.

  The GAC also had an informal orientation discussion on European defence, where partners welcomed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative at the Poertschach informal European Council, and the joint statement on principles agreed between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin at St. Malo.

  The Council agreed to establish a task force on asylum and immigration. The task force will submit an initial report to the GAC by March 1999, and a further report on the results of its work before the Tampere Special European Council in October 1999. Coreper, in consultation with the K4 Committee, will consider precise terms of reference and submit them for Council approval by January 1999.

  The Presidency presented two papers, on subsidiarity, and Council Working Methods. The subsidiarity paper is based on ideas raised at Poertschach, for example early application of the Amsterdam Treaty's subsidiarity proposal, and wider dissemination of the Commission's annual subsidiarity report. The Council Working Methods paper contains suggestions for improving efficiency, for example merging some Councils, better use of written procedures, restructuring agendas. Both papers were approved for transmission to the European Council.

  The GAC welcomed the considerable progress made in the negotiations towards a bilateral EU/Switzerland agreement. They agreed Coreper should examine the Commission's proposal to resolve any outstanding concerns. The Presidency hoped it might be possible to reach political agreement by the Vienna European Council.

  The GAC made a declaration calling on both sides in the Middle East Peace Progress to continue the implementation of the Wye Agreement in the face of violence and mutual recrimination which threaten the progress already made.

  The Council adopted conclusions on Kosovo which called on both sides to respect the various relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, to refrain from violence, and engage actively in the negotiating process. The Council instructed officials to address the problem of reconstruction, calling for a report in time for the January

  401
  GAC. It condemned the FRY authorities' repression of the independent media, and agreed to impose a visa ban on the personalities responsible. It also instructed officials to consider ways to support the EU forensic mission to Kosovo.

  The Council expressed its support for the reform process in Montenegro, and asked officials to consider the possibilities for further assistance.

  The Council urged Croatia to intensify work to assist refugee return, media freedom and election law reform. On Bosnia and Herzegovina, it looked forward to the Madrid Peace Implementation Council; and welcomed the arrest by SFOR of General Krstic and his transfer to The Hague. It welcomed the formation of a new Government in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  On Albania the Council welcomed the peaceful course and outcome of the referendum on the constitution, which will be a fundamental element in the construction of a stable democracy. It deplored the boycott of the referendum and continued boycott of parliament by the Democratic Party and tasked the Council's competent bodies to recommend an adequate EU response.

  Commissioner Pinheiro reported on the latest round of talks of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the UK and South Africa. He had met with trade minister Erwin on 1 December. The Council had an exchange of views on the outstanding issues and agreed to review the situation at their next meeting.

  Council agreed a revision of the Community's Generalised System of Preferences scheme. The review combines into one Regulation previously separate schemes covering agricultural and industrial products. The revision will enter into legal effect on January; its provisions will come into force on 1 July. We have argued strongly in favour of the changes.

  Sir Leon Brittan gave an update on recent developments on the bananas discussion with the US. The Commission would continue to look for ways to solve the current impasse. The Member States took note with approval.

  The Council noted with concern attacks on Christians during recent rioting in Indonesia, on which the Presidency had made a statement on 23 November. EU Heads of Mission in Jakarta had been asked to underline this concern with the Indonesian Government.

  In the margins of the Council, the EU Troika held a political dialogue meeting on 8 December with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This was an opportunity for the new Government to describe the internal political situation, and for both sides to discuss bilateral relations, and the situation in Kosovo.

  Sudan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the murder of three aid workers in the Nuba mountains in June; and if he will place them in the Library. [63447]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UN have given oral reports about the incident to our Embassy in Khartoum. On 9 June 1998 a World Food Programme (WFP) convoy and its police 402
  escort was attacked in the Nuba mountains, territory held by the Government of Sudan. Three Sudanese personnel were killed, two from WFP and one from the Sudanese Red Crescent (SRC), and three more SRC personnel injured. The incident occurred about 60 kms north east of Kadugli between the villages of Arie and Hadab. The convoy was fired on when crossing a Wadi; the WFP Landcruiser seems to have borne the brunt of the assault.

  We have not received any formal written reports which could be placed in the Library.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the advice given to Granger Telecom, Surrey in respect of the safety of British nationals working in Chechnya. [63627]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The advice given to Granger Telecom was consistent over time and widely available. At the first FCO contact with Granger personnel in July of this year Granger's attention was drawn to the FCO's travel advice. This information was again shared with Granger at a meeting in August. The advice included the following:"We strongly advise against travel to the Chechen Republic … because of the unstable security situation. Visitors have been kidnapped in these areas recently."

  A copy of the travel advice of 18 August has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Diplomatic Posts
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates the diplomatic posts will be closed in(a) Chaing Mai (b) Cleveland, (c) Kuching, (d) Pusan and (e) Seville. [63824]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Kuching was closed on 28 November 1998.

  No date has been set for the closure of Chiang Mai, Cleveland, Pusan and Seville. They will take place towards the end of this financial year, or in financial year 1999–2000.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from(a) Governments, (b) industry and (c) other interested parties on the proposed closures of the diplomatic posts at (a) Chaing Mai, (b) Cleveland, (c) Kuching, (d) Pusan and (e) Seville; and what consultation he has undertaken in each case. [63825]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There has been no representation received in either the host countries or in London from governments or any other party over the proposed closures of Kuching, Pusan and Chiang Mai. DTI have received inquiries about these closures from British companies asking for clarification.

  The issue of the closure of Seville was raised informally with our Ambassador in Spain by the Spanish Government, and we have received some representations from members of the public concerned that there would be sufficient consular cover from Malaga.
  403
  Thirteen Congressmen, a Senator and the Governor of Ohio have petitioned our Embassy in Washington over the closure of Cleveland. There have been representations to the FCO and our embassy in Washington from some US politicians and by various British companies and members of the public.

  In each case, we took representations into consideration before taking a final decision.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the selling agents, (b) the sale price and (c) the reserve price of each of his Department's properties currently for sale in (i) Dublin, (ii) Bonn and (iii) Casablanca. [63819]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Selling Agents in Dublin are Hamilton Osborne King and F.P.D. Savills. In Bonn we are being advised by Colliers Erdman Lewis, although they are not appointed in the capacity of agents. In Casablanca our agents are Gerald Cantarel.

  The remainder of the information requested is commercially sensitive.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to close the High Commission in Port Vila in Vanuatu. [63822]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are no plans to close the High Commission in Port Vila, Vanuatu. However we are looking at a more flexible approach to our representation there.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to reduce the British diplomatic presence in Papua New Guinea. [63820]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Of the three UK-based staff currently in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, one will not be replaced when his tour ends (March 1999). The remaining two positions will be retained.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) departmental officials, (b) locally—engaged staff and (c) officials from other departments are currently engaged in the diplomatic posts in (i) Chaing Mai, (ii) Cleveland, (iii) Kuching, (iv) Pusan and (v) Seville. [63823]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The following table shows the number of staff employed in the Missions listed.

  Post staff

  UK-based FCO staff

  LE staff

  Other department staff

  Chiang Mai

  1.0

  1.0

  0.0

  Cleveland

  1.0

  4.5

  0.0

  Kuching

  1.0

  1.0

  0.0

  Pusan

  0.0

  2.0

  0.0

  Seville

  0.0

  5.0

  0.0

  Total

  3.0

  13.5

  0.0

  North Korea
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether North Korea is meeting its obligations under the non-proliferation agreement. [63816]
  404
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  North Korea's Framework Agreement with the US commits it to freezing its Nuclear Reactor programme, and to allowing IAEA to inspect its nuclear waste sites. But we remain concerned that the IAEA is still not receiving full co-operation from North Korea. North Korea's decision in October to allow the IAEA to restart canning operations at a frozen reactor was a positive step. But it is essential that North Korea implements the IAEA Safeguards Agreement at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to give the international community confidence that it is complying in full.

  We have consistently supported the IAEA in its dealings with North Korea, and supported a strongly worded resolution on this issue at IAEA General Conference in October.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held over the past two months with Madeline Albright on North Korea's nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement. [63817]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no substantive discussions with Madeline Albright on North Korea's nuclear programme over the past two months.

  Nuclear issues were raised at the EU Troika meeting on 2 December, and at bilateral talks with North Korea on 3 December.

  Coptic Christians
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Egyptian Government concerning the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. [63815]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Embassy in Cairo closely follow human rights issues, including those related to freedom of religion. They assess that there is no general Egyptian Government policy of discrimination against Christians—a view shared by many leading Copts in Egypt who do not encourage diplomatic intervention in their problems.

  We will continue to stay in touch with the Coptic Church and to monitor the situation.

  Lockerbie
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions held between Colonel Gadaffi and Kofi Annan about Lockerbie. [63818]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We remain in close touch with the United Nations Secretary-General, and are grateful for his efforts to persuade Libya to comply with UNSCR 1192. We look to Libya to provide an early and positive response.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities concerning individuals imprisoned for counter-revolutionary offences. [63537]
  405
  Mr. Fatchett
  Through our continuing bilateral and EU/China human rights dialogues we have raised the cases of a number of individuals detained for counterrevolutionary offences. We have encouraged China to review all such cases following the removal of crimes of counter-revolution from China's Criminal Law in 1997.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities on their implementation of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. [63538]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Through our continuing bilateral and EU/China human rights dialogues, we are encouraging China to ratify quickly, with as few reservations as possible, the two international human rights covenants which it has signed. UK experts visited China in February to share experience in this area.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the detention of members of the Democratic Party of China. [63539]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are dismayed at the recent detention of members of the China Democratic Party. The actions of the Chinese authorities are at odds with the principles of the international human rights covenants which China has signed. China should release all of those detained and take a more tolerant attitude to those who wish to express freely their political views.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities concerning the detention of(a) Xu Wenli, (b) Lu Decheng, (c) Yu Dongyue and (d) Yu Zhijan. [63540]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are dismayed at the recent detention of members of the China Democratic Party. On 2 December, our Embassy in Beijing expressed our concerns to the Chinese government. They can be in no doubt as to our views.

  Vietnam
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent achievements of British business in Vietnam. [64090]

  Mr. Fatchett
  UK business has indeed achieved a series of important successes in Vietnam. UK investment in the country has risen by 50 per cent. in 1998. Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. have recently won an important contract, worth some $15 million, as front-end engineering design consultants for the planned $1.5 billion Dung Quat oil refinery in Vietnam. The award of this contract against stiff competition is a major success. We expect Foster Wheeler's involvement to lead to substantial further business—worth perhaps several hundred million pounds—in the refinery for UK suppliers. The firm has also secured a $2 million contract to run and maintain Petro Vietnam Gas Corporation's operations in Vung Tau.

  Cable & Wireless received a $207 million investment licence in August to install 250,000 telephone lines in Hanoi, during the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. Negotiations took four years. Earlier this year, Mitsui Babcock won the largest ever UK export order
  406
  to Vietnam to supply power station boilers worth $123 million; and Tate & Lyle has invested $85 million in a sugar refining plant.

  These successes follow several years of persistent efforts in support of would-be British investors in Vietnam not only by the companies themselves, but also by our diplomatic posts in Vietnam, by visiting UK Ministers, and by DTI and FCO officials. Those efforts continue in support of other major potential business which could result in significant spin-off benefits for many British equipment and service providers and further enhance the commercial relationship between the UK and Vietnam.

  George Atkinson
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has received from the Government of Dubai consequent upon his note verbale regarding the arbitrary detention of George Atkinson; and if he will make a statement. [63415]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have not yet received a substantive reply. On 8 December my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a meeting with the UAE Ambassador during which she raised the question of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention's decision. My noble Friend asked that in the light of the UN Working Group's decision Mr. Atkinson be released. The Ambassador undertook to refer to his Government.

  On 10 December the Government of the UAE told our Consul-General in Dubai that the Note is under consideration.

  On 13 December, Mr. Atkinson was found guilty and sentenced to two terms of 3 years imprisonment plus fines. We understand he will appeal immediately.

  Cuba (Spanish Royal Visit)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Spanish counterpart on King Juan Carlos's proposed visit to Cuba. [63699]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not discussed the King of Spain's proposed visit to Cuba with Sr. Matutes, the Spanish Foreign Minister.

  Chile (British Ambassador)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British Ambassador to Chile moved into the Hyatt hotel in Santiago; for what reason; how long she intends to stay there; and what are the additional costs to public funds. [63700]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  HM Ambassador to Chile has not moved into the Hyatt hotel.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Tritium (Severn Estuary)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department proposes
  407
  to take to reduce the levels of tritium found in sole, flounder and mussels in the Severn Estuary; and if he will make a statement. [62964]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1999, Nycomed Amersham will be applying for a new discharge authorisation from the Environment Agency. It will be for the Agency to determine the level of discharge of tritium that would be appropriate. The Secretary of State will be a statutory consultee reflecting his responsibilities for food safety.

  In terms of dose to the critical group of fishermen, and fish and shellfish consumers, it is estimated that the current tritium concentrations in fish and shellfish contribute 40–45 microsieverts per year. Together with the dose from carbon-14 the total dose to the critical group is 60 microsieverts per year. This is well below the established limit of 1,000 microsieverts per year, and the dose constraint of 300 microsieverts per year from new sources.

  Meat Exports (Specified Risk Material)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action was taken against those companies which attempted to export meat or meat products which failed to comply with national legislation concerning specified risk material during the first quarter of 1998. [63142]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service, an Agency of MAFF, enforces the SRM controls on a day to day basis in licensed slaughterhouses and cutting plants. In all other premises approved under the SRM legislation, the controls are enforced by local authorities. In addition, the State Veterinary Service carries out regular unannounced independent audit visits to all premises approved under the legislation to monitor the extent of compliance. The inspection figures for the 12 month period to the end of October 1998 show that 4,096 visits were made to abattoirs in Great Britain. At 4,074 of these visits (99.5 per cent.), the handling and disposal of SRM were found to be fully satisfactory. No cases have been found of bovine spinal cord not being fully removed from carcases in licensed slaughterhouses in Great Britain since March 1996.

  We are not aware of any attempts to export meat or meat products from which SRM has not been removed in accordance with the controls.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reverse the decline in farm incomes. [63125]

  Mr. Rooker
  Government and all those associated with food production in the UK need to work together towards a sustainable, competitive and profitable industry and an attractive and viable countryside for the future. This means in particular securing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, and I am planning a broad consultation with all parts of the industry on the way forward on this.

  Food (EU Inspection Agencies)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list those agencies which are licensed to inspect food production establishments in third countries on behalf of the EC; [63138]

  (2) how regular are the inspections of plants in each EU country and outside the EU by the Office of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection; [63143]

  (3)if he will make it his policy to request information from the European Commission regarding the dates when each establishment producing meat in third countries which export to the UK was last inspected by or for the EU. [63141]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carry out a number of missions each year to look at member states' and third countries' procedures and establishments. These missions involve audits of the bodies responsible for consumer health protection and include inspections of some individual processing premises. In addition, some member states who traditionally have carried out their own audits of third countries' procedures and establishments may continue to do so, either for products for which import rules are not yet harmonised across the Community or to complement the Commission's programme. MAFF staff are hoping to visit Brazil and Thailand early in the near year to carry out audits of the public health controls on poultry meat and poultry meat products.

  The Commission are in the process of expanding the FVO so that it can carry out inspections in all third countries to verify that their establishments comply with Community provisions. As an interim measure, it has been agreed by the Council of Ministers that, for products of animal origin other than fresh meat, guarantees of conformity with Community provisions for the protection of public and animal health may, until 1 January 2001, be given by the competent authority of the third country concerned.

  The frequency of FVO missions to individual countries is not laid down but is based on priorities. Work programmes are discussed in advance with the member states and reflect past experience of the products and countries concerned and the importance of the trade. Reports of the missions are, as a matter of course, presented to the Standing Veterinary Committee and summaries placed on the DG XXIV internet site.

  Meat Hygiene Charges (EU)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the EU countries which apply the discretionary standard charge abatement provided for in Council Directive 85/73/EEC (as amended); [63124]

  (2) if he will list the charges made by meat hygiene authorities in each EU member state. [63126]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am currently seeking information about the level of hygiene inspection charges levied on individual meat plants in other EU Members States, including the extent to which the standard charge abatement provision in Council Directive 85/73/EEC is
  409
  applied. Once I have received this information, I will write to the hon. Member, although this may take some time.

  Milk Production (Inspections)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his Ministry conducts inspections of milk production. [63130]

  Mr. Rooker
  The inspections are carried out to monitor compliance with the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 as amended, which implement Council Directive 92/46/EEC and its subsequent amendments, laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat treated milk and milk based products.

  Food Inspections
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the cost of food inspections is charged to farmers. [63129]

  Mr. Rooker
  The dairy hygiene inspections carried out by the Dairy Hygiene Inspectorate are charged to farmers. Charging for inspections was introduced in 1987 as part of the previous administration's policy to recover a proportion of ADAS costs through charges.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, and those of the Copenhagen Conference of EU Chief Medical Officers concerning the use of antibiotics in animal feed; and on what time scale. [63180]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government's response to the House of Lords Select Committee report will be published shortly. We support proposals by the European Commission to suspend the use of four antibiotic growth promoters, which would take effect on 1 July 1999.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the assessment, approval and monitoring mechanisms for veterinary medicines and agricultural pesticides, with particular reference to organophosphate products; and if he will make a statement. [63662]

  Mr. Rooker
  Agricultural pesticides and veterinary medicines are already subject to rigorous approval systems as regards pesticides, under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and the Plant Protection Products Regulations 1995 and, for veterinary medicines, the Medicines Act 1968 and the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994.

  In order to maintain the quality and consistency of the recommendations made to Ministers, both PSD and VMD continually seek to improve and develop supporting procedures, risk assessment and approval mechanisms. The Report to Ministers of the Official Group on OPs, published earlier this year, included a detailed examination of the regulatory (licensing) system for
  410
  pesticides and veterinary medicines which can be found in Chapter 6. The Official Group also noted that it had successfully improved the flow of information on all OP product related issues between Departments.

  The statutory approval systems for pesticides and veterinary medicines are designed to ensure that these products can be used safely provided the manufacturers instructions are followed. Nevertheless, the Government are still concerned to make sure that the comprehensive arrangements for post-approval monitoring continue to be developed to ensure that nothing slips through the net. In addition, the variability conference held recently in York, which aimed at achieving a better understanding of variable residues of pesticides in food and the development of consumer risk assessment procedures, demonstrates the leading role we take internationally.

  The Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) advises Agriculture and Health Ministers on the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines. The VPC has advised on the safety of organophosphorus (OP) sheep dips, most recently on 17 February 1997. The VPC is currently carrying out a review of other veterinary medicinal products containing OPs and will report to Ministers in 1999. In addition we are undertaking a review of OP and other anticholinesterase pesticides approved under the Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986 as announced on 12 May 1998, Official Report, column 68.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of(a) the number of declared and undeclared BSE cases in other EU member states and (b) the control mechanism for the import of beef and beef extract products from those countries; and if he will make a statement. [63663]

  Mr. Rooker
  Figures for confirmed BSE cases in other EU Countries for 1995, 1996, 1997 and to 4 December 1998, supplied to us by the Commission are given in the following table:

  EU country

  1995

  1996

  1997

  11998

  Belgium

  —

  —

  1

  6

  France

  3

  12

  6

  14

  Germany2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Portugal

  14

  29

  30

  83

  Republic of Ireland

  16

  73

  77

  69

  1 to 4 December 1998

  2 Germany has reported no homebred cases of BSE

  The total number of BSE cases reported to the Commission by EU Member States are given in the following table:

  Country

  Date of last report 1

  No. of cases from UK

  Total cases

  Belgium

  4 December 1998

  —

  7

  Denmark

  4 December 1998

  1

  1

  France

  4 December 1998

  —

  46

  Germany

  4 December 1998

  5

  26

  Italy

  4 December 1998

  2

  2

  Luxembourg

  4 December 1998

  —

  1

  411

  Country

  Date of last report1

  No. of cases from UK

  Total cases

  Netherlands

  4 December 1998

  —

  4

  Portugal

  4 December 1998

  7

  191

  Republic of Ireland

  4 December 1998

  12

  335

  1 Date of last report received—whether indicating no change or an increase in number of confirmed cases.

  2 Germany has reported no homebred cases of BSE. The sixth case is believed to have come from Switzerland.

  The UK's SRM controls require all beef and beef products for food and animal feed use imported from other EU member states and third countries to be accompanied by official veterinary certification confirming that they do not contain and were not derived from specified risk materials—the tissues most likely to harbour BSE infectivity. These national controls are in addition to the rules for intra-Community trade.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what testing and inspection procedures are applied to (i) pork, (ii) chicken and (iii) beef being imported into the UK; [63837]

  (2) if he will ensure that chicken pieces coming from Brazil meet the health and safety standards which apply to poultry farmers in the UK; [63834]

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that the British public is not buying contaminated pork or chicken in unprocessed, processed or pre-prepared food products imported from outside the UK. [63836]

  Mr. Rooker
  All consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK, whether from other EU Member States or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with the harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Among other things, this Directive sets out the licensing, structural and veterinary supervision requirements to be applied in abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores. Slaughterhouses in third countries have to comply with standards at least equivalent to those laid down in the Directive before they can export to the EU. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office are responsible for carrying out inspections in member states and in the third countries from which fresh meat is imported into the Community. If necessary, the Commission will take infraction proceedings against Member States whose arrangements are considered inadequate.

  All consignments of animal products imported into the European Union from third countries are subject to checks at designated B order Inspection Posts (BIPs). Community law requires every consignment to be subject to a documentary and identity check. For poultry meat and poultry meat products, other than from countries with which the Community has equivalence agreements, the minimum frequency laid down in Community law for physical checks is 50 per cent. of consignments. For pork and beef and related products the minimum frequency for physical checks is 20 per cent. European Commission guidance states that at least 1 per cent. of consignments which are subject to physical checks at Border Inspection Posts should be randomly sampled for residues, contaminants and bacteria such as salmonella and coliforms. Single Market rules only permit random-spot checks at the final destination on products from other Member States and on products from third countries that have passed through a BIP.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the representatives of the (i) poultry, (ii) lamb, (iii) beef and (iv) pork producers who sit on the Board of the Meat and Livestock Commission. [63839]

  Mr. Rooker
  Members of the Commission are not formally appointed as representatives of particular sectors. The following producers are, however, members of the Meat and Livestock Commission:

  Mrs. Helen Browning (producer of beef cattle, sheep and pigs)

  Mr. Richard Campbell (pigs)

  Mr. John (Rees) Roberts (sheep)

  Mr. John Ross CBE (beef cattle and sheep).

  In addition, the Chairman of the MLC, Mr. Don Curry, is a beef and sheep producer.

  The Agriculture Act 1967, which set up the MLC does not permit the Commission to cover the poultry industry.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new initiatives he is taking to improve the effectiveness of the Meat and Livestock Commission in promoting the sale of British meat products. [63838]

  Mr. Rooker
  The MLC spent over £20 million in the 1997–98 financial year on promoting beef, lamb and pork. I believe that its work is recognised to be effective and that the Commission itself is best placed to judge where it should concentrate its future effort.

  The MLC is currently undergoing a regular five yearly policy review and Ministers will consider all representation made in the course of that review.

  Scottish Devolution
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much is spent annually by his Department on research programmes in Scotland; and what proportion of this funding will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament after devolution. [63284]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: The Ministry funds research to underpin its policy objectives. Decisions on the placing of research contracts are based on the scientific quality and value for money of research proposals and not on the geographical location of contractors. The Ministry paid some £8 million for research projects in Scotland in 1997–98, including projects carried out at Research Council institutes and universities. Post-devolution, the Ministry and the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department will continue to co-operate fully, through the Funders' Group arrangements, to ensure that R&D funded by both departments remains closely co-ordinated and that the results are shared.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the programmes which it will be ultra vires for his Department to fund or have sole responsibility for
  413
  after devolution; if he will list these programmes; and if he will make a statement; [63286]

  (2) if he will list (a) by programme over £50,000 and (b) the total spending by his Department in Scotland on the identifiable spending areas detailed in Table 7.6A of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1997–98 (Cmnd 3601); which of these programmes will fall solely or jointly under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament; and what arrangements are in place to transfer control of funds for these projects to the Scottish Executive or Parliament. [63285]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Most functions in the agriculture, fisheries and food area will become the responsibility of the devolved administrations following devolution. It is too early to say to what extent programme expenditure which is currently administered by MAFF may relate to functions which will transfer to Scottish Ministers. For the total spending by the Department in Scotland I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on 4 November 1998, Official Report, columns 614–15.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made concerning the proposed suspension of the stabiliser for calculation of sheep annual premium payments. [63495]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are not aware of any formal proposal to suspend the operation of the stabiliser applied under the EU regime for sheepmeat. The right to propose amendments to EU secondary legislation rests solely with the European Commission. Were the Commission to propose the suspension of the sheepmeat stabiliser, we would not support such a proposal, in view of its serious implications for both UK and EU expenditure.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total CAP expenditure will go to British farmers in the current year; and to which sectors. [63105]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1997, the latest year for which data are available, direct payments to UK farmers amounted to some 8% of the total CAP budget. Of this total, 50% were arable payments, 48% livestock (including BSE related payments) and 2% agri-environment and other payments. These figures exclude market support measures such as export refunds which also benefit UK farmers but are not paid directly to them.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations his Department is carrying out into(a) the continued use of the agricultural fumigant methyl bromide and (b) the potential reduction of its environmental impact through composted manure. [62965]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are bound by the timetable laid down in the Montreal Protocol to reduce or 414
  phase-out substances as methyl bromide which deplete the ozone layer. The Protocol was last amended in September 1997 when it was agreed, for developed countries, to cut production and use of methyl bromide by 50 per cent. by 2001, 70 per cent. by 2003 and phase out by 2005. All member states of the European Union are signatories to the Protocol, which is currently implemented through Council Regulation (EC) 3093/94.

  The European Commission has proposed a draft Regulation imposing a more stringent timetable to cut production and phase-out methyl bromide.

  Investigations have therefore been carried out into the impact of the phase-out of methyl bromide rather than into its continued use as an agricultural fumigant.

  In addition to these investigations a LINK research project to consider alternatives for the horticulture sector commences in April next year. Part of this project aims at improving composting processes to add value to composts made from domestic waste and animal manure by optimising suppressiveness against soil borne diseases.

  Animal Feed (Poultry Manure)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the prevalence of the practice of using poultry manure as the nitrogen content in compound feeds for animals. [62618]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of poultry manure as an ingredient of compound animal feeds is prohibited by virtue of Regulation 15(11) of the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1995.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy for encouraging the competitiveness of the UK horticultural industry with regard to other EU countries, in relation to the production of flowers for sale in supermarkets; and if he will make a statement. [63240]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are actively encouraging the competitiveness of UK horticulture through a research programme worth over £20 million, made up of contributions from the Agriculture Departments and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Over £1.7 million of this is concerned directly or indirectly with ornamental horticulture.

  The Ministry funds a strategic R&D programme which includes research into scheduling, improved quality and crop protection of both protected and outdoor flower crops. Specifically there is an on-going project with Horticulture Research International at Kirton to develop a framework for predicting the productivity, quality and availability of outdoor flower crops; this is now in its third year (of five) with a total cost of £385,000.

  The Ministry has recently placed a project through open competition with a consortium led by The University of Wales, Cardiff, investigating the biochemistry of post-harvest deterioration of cut flowers with the objective

  415
  of improving vaselife. The project will last three years at a total cost of £258,000. The Ministry also plays a full part in securing promotional funding from the European Commission which has as its objective the increase in demand for flowers and plants in the UK and a consequent
  416
  increase in the sales of British produce. The UK allocation for year one of the scheme (1997–98) was £801,052 (1,079,119 ecu) and £603,833 (867,907 ecu) for year two (1998–99). But additional funding for this year is expected to be available shortly.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Sandwich: Local Council Constituencies
Lord Pender Lord Pender asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the reason for the proposed division of the Cinque Port of Sandwich into two electoral constituencies for district council elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I understand that Dover District Council has made an order dividing the parish of Sandwich into two parish wards. Such decisions as to parish warding and the reasons for them are, under the statute, matters for the district councils concerned and for which the council is accountable in local elections.
Lord Pender: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Following the voting down of this proposal by the local residents by a 3:1 margin, and the fact that the status quo was accepted by the local officers only to be overruled by the leader of Dover District Council, does not the Minister consider that that might be construed as gerrymandering?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not see how the matter can be construed as gerrymandering because it has no implications for the structure of the district council itself; it simply relates to the town council of Sandwich. Although it is true that the majority of those who responded to consultation were against the measure, that did not constitute the majority of those whose views were sought. As I say, it is a matter for the district council under the legislation passed in 1997.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my name is Trumpington of Sandwich? Is it usual to split electoral constituencies where the population is under 4,000? The population of Sandwich is 3,836. Is the Minister further aware that Sandwich people very much resent being bullied against their will by Dover District Council?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in this context the town council in Sandwich is a parish council, despite its glorious history; and, as I understand it, it is quite common to have smaller parishes than is envisaged in this case. I am aware of some of the local feeling, but at the end of the day this is a matter for Dover District Council.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can advise me, because it seems
1098
to me that this Question has no bearing on ministerial responsibility. I am anxious to get some publicity for the proposed closure of two schools in Bristol—Merrywood and Pen Park—which I think is a disgrace. However, I do not think I can ask a Question about that directly. Can the Minster advise me how I might go about this?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I rather feel that the noble Lord has done pretty well without any advice from me. The tabling of Questions and the acceptability of Questions is a matter for the House authorities rather than for me.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, further to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, does the Minister agree that the sandwich has always traditionally been divided into two and what matters to the people is the filling in the middle?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl speaks from authority on this matter. I note his concern.

Local Council Allotments
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to encourage local councils to promote the use of allotments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my department is currently working with the Local Government Association, council representatives and allotments interest groups in order to produce best practice guidance on allotments for local authorities. The Government recognise the importance of the promotion of allotments and in March placed an additional requirement on local authorities to demonstrate the active promotion of allotments before they can dispose of statutory allotment land.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that in many journals, local papers and newspapers great concern has been expressed about the number of allotment sites that have been sold off for development? Is he further aware, and does he agree with it, that Birmingham City Council has been active in promoting allotments, especially for use by ethnic groups and women? I am sure that many of the women could do with the exercise.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept much of what the noble Baroness said, even the last point. It is important that publicity be given to the facilities. However, at the moment the background is that the vacancies far outnumber the applications. That is one of the reasons why we asked local authorities to give greater consideration to publicity. I understand that a number are doing so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to consider the possibility of helping those local

1099
authorities who wish to encourage people to do the work they think they can? Can the Government help in providing them with tools for the job? Without them, men who are hired or wish to make a contribution will be unable to do so.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in so far as this relates to the allocation of allotment plots, I believe it goes beyond the terms of ministerial responsibility here. However, in certain circumstances it may be a matter for local authorities.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his Answer, the Minister mentioned the disposal of statutory allotment sites. It used to be the law that where a disposal was in the offing, allotment holders were offered alternative sites or a new allotment. Is that still so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is still the case where there is a significant number of plot holders in place. With many of the allotments which have been disposed of recently—certainly those which have come to the Secretary of State for approval—there are no extant plot holders.

Libraries, Museums and Archives: New Commission
2.42 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to release the result of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's consultation exercise concerning a possible merger between the Library and Information Commission and the Museums and Galleries Commission.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced earlier today in another place the result of the consultation on his department's spending review. The announcement included the decision to create a new strategic body for libraries, museums and archives, to replace the Library and Information Commission and the Museums and Galleries Commission.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. I declare an interest as a former and long ago chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission, deeply honoured to be so and totally unpaid.
However, is it not a fact that in the DCMS consultation a significant majority of the respondents were entirely against any union of the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Library and Information Commission? In the MGC's own consultation exercise, the responses were three to one against any such merger. Can the Minister explain what arguments in favour of
1100
bringing the two sectors together were so compelling as to outweigh the clear majorities of the undoubted experts in this field?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's statistics. Of the responses to the consultation on the issue, 63 were in favour, 21 were against and the remainder—a minority—were neutral or made other comments. So it is not the case that a majority of respondents were against the proposed merger.
It is true that the Museums and Galleries Commission and the National Museum Directors Conference were both opposed to the merger, but the Library and Information Commission and a large majority of local authorities were in favour.
Perhaps I may seek to go a little further than that factual reply. There are matters in common between museums and libraries as they move from a responsibility for display and conservation into the field of information and education and, generally, into knowledge and understanding. I hope that in due course my noble friend will feel that this is the direction in which all museums, libraries and archives should move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many libraries accommodate museum work as well?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that observation; it is one of the considerations that we took into account. Most local authorities have departments which comprise museums, libraries and galleries. They have found the link valuable.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there will also be a merger between the Arts Council and the Crafts Council?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Another decision announced this morning is that the Arts Council and the Crafts Council will be merged, and the document which was issued, together with the announcement in another place, makes clear how the interests of the crafts, including the Crafts Council Gallery in Pentonville Road, will be protected under the merger.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to give the House a little more information about the statistics he mentioned in his earlier reply. Will he confirm that the statement made by the Secretary of State in another place was, on this occasion, at 10 o'clock this morning in the Tate Gallery and not this afternoon in another place? Will he further confirm that of the 167 respondents who mentioned the proposal to establish a museums and libraries body only 52 were in favour, 85 were opposed, and the remainder reserved their position? Does that not show that the Museums and Galleries Commission proved beyond doubt that the Government's proposals today are most unwelcome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my statement about the announcement was accurate. In

1101
addition to the press conference at the Tate Gallery this morning, a Written Answer was placed in the Library of another place this morning. I answered a Written Question from my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. So the proprieties have been observed, if I may put it that way.
My figures on the responses on the issue were restricted to those who specifically commented on the point. However, if there is any conflict on the evidence I shall write to the noble Baroness and place a copy in the Library of the House, since it could be of public interest.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there was a similar consultation concerning the Arts Council and the Crafts Council merger? Has he any similar information to that which he gave on the other mergers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. The departmental spending review announcement made at the end of July included the provision for consultation on the future of the Arts Council and the Crafts Council. That consultation produced a large number of responses, mostly in favour of the merger. Since it was not specifically the subject of the Question, I do not have the figures in front of me. However, I can write to my noble friend on the point.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister said that parliamentary proprieties had been observed. Will the noble Lord tell the House whether the Written Answer was placed in another place before or after the press statement this morning?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that they were simultaneous. It was not after.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not all of us believe that the co-ordination of library, arts and museum services is not a good thing? Would it not be excellent for local authorities to be able to co-ordinate cultural matters under one heading and to allocate the finance in a reasonable and positive way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I am right in interpreting my noble friend's double negative as an expression of support. He is right that, since local authorities organise themselves in that way, they will be able to refer to the new museums, libraries and archives commission in that field. It is also true that the commission will be in a position to give strategic advice to government on all the issues which concern those local authority departments.
Although change is not proposed in the funding for national museums, they will be strongly represented on the new body and their input will be taken into account.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House the budget of the Crafts Council?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since we are way outside the Question, I can flounder for a
1102
moment! The budget of the Crafts Council for this year and last year is £3.2 million, which is to rise to £3.4 million, £3.5 million and £3.6 million over the next three years.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify something the Minister said. He stated that a Written Answer had been made this morning in another place. The other place was not sitting. My recollection is that Written Answers cannot be published until half-past three.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two opportunities in any day for Written Answers in another place: at 9.30 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. Therefore, I feel sure that I am correct in saying that the proprieties have been observed.

Life Prisoners: Sentencing
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have been able to consider the views of the Lord Chief Justice about the responsibility for the sentencing of life prisoners.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government always consider carefully the views of the Lord Chief Justice on all sentencing matters, including the responsibility for the sentencing of life prisoners.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is my duty to thank the Minister for that cryptic Answer. It would be an impertinence for me to tell such a highly qualified Minister that it is iniquitous that a crime once committed should be treated as worse and worse as time passes. Is my noble friend aware that under present arrangements every now and then a tariff for a crime is increased by the Government in response to imagined public outcry, self-motivated by the tabloid press?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that my Answer was cryptic, although it may have been Delphic. There is no question of a crime becoming worse as time passes, but the public have a legitimate interest in how the state deals with those who have committed very serious crimes; and murder is regarded in any civilised society as being a crime of the utmost gravity. I believe that the Home Office has a legitimate part to play here, but it is not exclusive. It depends on co-operation with the higher judiciary and the Parole Board.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many others share the reported views of the Lord Chief Justice? Does the noble Lord recall, for instance, that in the previous Parliament the Home Affairs Committee in another place, including all the Labour Members, recommended that, while the mandatory sentence for murder should be retained,

1103
the responsibility for setting the tariff and release decisions should be removed from the Home Secretary? Now that the Government have the power to implement that recommendation, why do they not do so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because they do not believe that to be the proper policy to be adopted. The tariff in these mandatory life cases is set by the Home Secretary but only after paying careful attention to the views of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of the day. I can say from my own personal knowledge that they are very carefully and scrupulously taken into account.
When the death penalty was abolished in this country, these were the constitutional arrangements arrived at. They depend upon maintenance of public confidence and the ultimate accountability of the Home Secretary.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the maintenance of public confidence ensured by the arrangements whereby the Parole Board can only recommend the release on licence of a life sentence prisoner if it is satisfied that the risk of reoffending is minimal? Why do we need the tariff on top of that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the tariff is not on top of that; it is quite the opposite. The tariff is set as a minimum period of time which is to be served before a mandatory life sentence prisoner is capable of being considered for release. Thereafter the Parole Board has its part to play in giving informed, detailed advice to the Home Office about risk to the public of reoffending. Nevertheless, I believe, and it is the Government's policy, that the Home Secretary should contribute to the ultimate decision. I believe that that enjoys public confidence.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is an issue on which the Home Secretary is at odds with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor? Was the noble Lord present in this House on 24th June 1997 during Question Time when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed in substance with the statement that he had previously made that how long a person should spend in prison is a judicial decision to be made by a judge in open court after hearing argument, subject to a right of appeal, and that it should not be made by a politician in secret without any right of appeal?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what the noble and learned Lord alluded to there was the generality of judicial power. In fact the High Court judges who try murder cases have the opportunity at present to state in open court what they think the tariff should be. In 221 of the cases between 1st April and 31st October this year the trial judge at that stage exercised his power in only five. It is not a secretive process. The trial judge is consulted. The Lord Chief Justice is consulted. Their recommendations are put to the prisoner. The Parole
1104
Board recommendations are disclosed to the prisoner. The procedure therefore is transparent so far as concerns the prisoner.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the issue seems to have arisen in the context of a belief that Home Secretaries are likely to leave such prisoners in gaol for longer than judges. Is it not prudent to recollect that since the abolition of capital punishment an average of between four and five persons a year have been killed by persons previously convicted for killing and then released from prison?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is about right. If I may, I shall give the precise figures; I had half anticipated that the question might arise.
Between 1988 and 1997, 41 suspects were convicted of homicide who had previously been convicted of homicide, but that includes murder. The vast bulk of those 41 were not second time murderers. Their first offence had been manslaughter. It does not limit the gravity of the noble Lord's point. That is why I took the trouble to research the matter for your Lordships.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as regards the crime of murder, in areas of the country where severe violence has been inflicted we are talking of a group of people who may never be released and who have probably committed the worst murders in living memory. Is the Minister aware that the Government have the support of the population, who would like to see a stricter code than that being applied by some of the judges in those cases?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there must be a decent regard by the Executive in the person of the Home Secretary for the informed views of the higher judiciary, but our system is not such that the higher judiciary may dictate. This was the parliamentary compromise arrived at after a good deal of struggle, heartache and thought. There are 23 prisoners in England and Wales who have whole life tariffs. However disagreeable it may be to some of your Lordships, a whole life tariff is justified for some prisoners.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that at the time of the abolition of capital punishment it was said time and time again by the proponents of change that a unique penalty for murder would remain on the statute book and that no one convicted of murder would be released except on the say so of the Home Secretary, who would be responsible to Parliament if anything went wrong? How would respect for the criminal justice system be enhanced if the Government now went back on all of those undertakings?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that it would, as I sought to say earlier. I do not want to sound too overblown, but this was a

1105
constitutional settlement in a discrete area arrived at following a good deal of thought. The Government believe that they should stick to it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why he has failed to answer my Question? Why has he failed to defend the present arrangements under which, as time passes, a sentence is increased? The crime has not become any worse, but public opinion becomes stirred up by the tabloids. The noble Lord has ducked it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have not ducked any question at all. Sometimes it is very fashionable to believe that tabloid newspapers live in a reservoir of ignorance. Sometimes they get it right and are in tune with public opinion. I have not ducked any question. I put it as brutally as I may: there are some people who have been convicted of murder or murders for whom a whole life tariff is legitimately justifiable. I do not resile from that for a moment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, has it not become clear in the past few minutes that a very large number of people believe that what the Minister describes as the constitutional settlement is the correct way and that this particular piece of the interface between politicians and the judiciary is not one that should be reconsidered, even if other aspects of that interface are under discussion?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am always willing to consider views that are put forward. But the Government are adamant in the view that the noble Lord describes. It may not be popular with all of your Lordships, but sometimes it is necessary to do things that are unpopular in the wider public interest. Where it is necessary the Government intend to do it.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the European Council in Vienna on the 11th and 12th December.

Liaison: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with
1106
recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Clinton-Davis,

B. Jay of Paddington,

L. Kimball,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Weatherill,

L. Wigoder,

B. Young;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

V. Bridgeman,

V. Falkland,

L. Gallacher,

V. Hood,

E. Kinnoull,

E. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor,

L. Monkswell.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Quirk be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Phillips of Ellesmere.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
People value their legal rights highly. They feel deeply frustrated when they cannot secure them. A major component in deciding whether a state provides a decent quality of life for its citizens is the extent to which it secures for them access to justice.
There is much to admire in our justice system. Our courts strive to deliver justice in every case. Many lawyers work on behalf of the most disadvantaged members of society and sometimes offer their services free of charge. Many of the best barristers and solicitors work for the disadvantaged in our society. They provide a route into the justice systems for many who would otherwise be excluded. They work for the disempowered: refugees, asylum seekers, convicted prisoners and mental patients—not always popular causes. But, excellent though this work is, it is not enough. Access to justice remains far too limited. Basically only the rich and the poor who qualify for legal aid can afford to litigate and all the rest—the great majority—are left out in the cold.
A Times leader on 4th December 1998 recognised that,
"the case for the central reform of Britain's modern justice system is abundantly clear";
recognised the need,
"to increase access to justice, and secure better value for the spiralling costs of legal services";
and recognised the need to,
"balance the demands of giving more people greater access to justice and curbing the costs of legal aid".
In some remote areas or deprived inner city estates it may be hard to gain access to any legal advice or assistance at all. The provision of these facilities depends on the unco-ordinated activities of solicitors' firms and the voluntary sector. No consistent attempt is made to measure the need for advice nor to co-ordinate its provision.
The quality of the legal services people receive is often depressingly poor. The large number of complaints which the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors receives testifies to public dissatisfaction. The services which are available from lawyers in private practice are often disproportionately expensive or have no fixed price stated in advance so that clients know where they are.
The market for legal services is one which mercifully most people enter only rarely. It is predominantly for the legal profession to put its own house in order, but the Government, as a major purchaser of legal services, can and must do what they can to raise standards. That is a major objective of the Bill but it is not the totality of my policies. The White Paper I have laid before Parliament paints the broader picture. I ask your Lordships to note especially the programme of reforms to the civil courts which should make the cost of actions more predictable and their progress more speedy.
1108
The Bill will establish a legal services commission to run two new schemes: the community legal service and the criminal defence service. The community legal service will take over the existing programme of civil and family legal aid, but its goals will be different and broader.
In partnership with local funders of legal and advice services, particularly local authorities, the community legal service (CLS) will develop plans for the delivery of legal services which take account of identified needs and priorities. For the first time those who take responsibility for the availability of legal advice and assistance will come together to plan provision. Of course, I cannot guarantee that all needs will or can be met. However for the first time we will be able to base the funding of services by central and local government and others on hard information. The CLS will evaluate the service each body provides, identify overlaps, promote efficiency wherever possible by eliminating these overlaps, develop referral arrangements and ensure that the public know what body offers what. I have already invited a small group of pioneer local authorities to begin work with the Legal Aid Board and other funders. The pioneer areas are Southwark, Liverpool, Nottinghamshire, Norwich and Kirklees. I aim to have the pioneers develop with my department concordats between all relevant bodies which will set out standing arrangements for their mutual co-operation.
There will also be a community legal service fund, the successor to the existing legal aid scheme for civil and family cases. This fund will be used to secure the provision of legal services on the basis of national priorities set by the Lord Chancellor and assessments of need. The commission will draw up a funding code, which I will approve and which will set out the criteria and procedures for deciding whether to fund individual cases.
The approach will be more flexible than the existing civil legal aid scheme. Instead of rigid criteria into which all cases must fit, irrespective of their priority and nature, there will be a funding assessment under a code which will allow different criteria to apply to different cases and types of help in order to ensure that help is channelled to priority needs.
If resources are spent on low priority or relatively unmeritorious cases which can be made to fit within the existing fixed criteria, those resources cannot be spent elsewhere. If I wish to spend the resources available to me rationally, based on an assessment of need, expenditure will have to be controlled and directed.
Contracts with lawyers to provide services will have to be based on fair rates; if they are not there will be no takers. But the state could not match the huge rates some lawyers command in the private sector, where the prices charged may be vast and represent what the market will bear in litigation where often huge sums are at stake. Nor does the state need to pay these rates to dedicated lawyers committed to the public good: they should be content with fair pay for socially rewarding work.
Today, anyone who passes the eligibility and merits test can obtain legal aid through a solicitor who can carry it through from beginning to end even where he lacks the expertise to do so.

1109
The legal services commission will buy quality assured services mainly through contracts. It has been argued that this contracting system is impracticable because quality will go out of the window and there will not be enough lawyers who will be willing to offer their services. I disagree. It will be a guarantor of quality. The Legal Aid Board's franchising scheme has led to substantial improvements, but it remains a voluntary scheme. A new system which sets quality standards in every case can only be a major improvement. And for the efficient and competent lawyer, contracting, with its guarantee of a steady cash flow, is a benefit, not a threat. Some diminution of choice, but among quality assured solicitors only, is for the public benefit.
I want to create new avenues for justice. Courts are not the only way of solving problems, and the cost of going to court is often disproportionate to what is at stake. The community legal service will improve access to information, assistance and advice. People will be encouraged to consider the best way to resolve their disputes. More people are likely to opt for mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution, which will provide a quicker, cheaper and more appropriate answer to their needs. One of the benefits of mediation is that it gives both parties a stake in the outcome, which they do not always feel about court-imposed outcomes. Those who have tried mediation often report a high degree of satisfaction with their experience and they relish the sense that they are controlling the resolution process, not the other way round. The Bill will allow those services to be supported.
Where court proceedings are the best or the only option, the extension of conditional fees to defendants and people with non-money claims, by making the success fee recoverable from the losing party, will provide new ways of funding litigation and open up the courts to those who could not run the risk of litigating and losing.
I turn to restrictive practices in the legal profession. I do not believe it is right for lawyers to be denied rights of audience in court simply because they are employed, and I will ask Parliament to endorse that principle. A lawyer who is employed and salaried is not on that account ethically deficient. Those who defend restrictive practices have an unattractive habit of disparaging those who are outside the benefits of the restrictive practices. Judges are employed and salaried but their independence is unquestioned. Nor do I see any reason why the ethics or independence of lawyers employed by the CPS cannot be relied upon.
I am determined to maintain high standards in advocacy. Advocates must be well trained and observe the highest ethical standards. Defence advocates stand between the state and the citizen. They serve a vital public interest in a democracy under the rule of law. The miscarriages of justice which have marred the reputation of our criminal justice system in the recent past underscore that we must be ceaseless in our insistence on the highest ethical standards.
I am taking two positive steps in this Bill to maintain high standards. First, I am giving the new legal services consultative panel duties to enable the Government to
1110
play a positive role in encouraging appropriate and high quality legal education, working with universities, colleges and other institutions. The education of future advocates is vital. Secondly, I have made clear on the face of the Bill the overriding duty than an advocate owes to the interests of justice and his professional code. No other civil obligation can take precedence. I have no doubt about the ethical standards of lawyers employed throughout the public service, including the Crown Prosecution Service, or of lawyers in private practice; but I wish to reinforce the codes under which they, as well as lawyers in private practice, work. I do not see how it can be rationally argued that CPS-employed lawyers are fit to conduct prosecutions in the magistrates' courts, where 97 per cent. of criminal cases begin and end, but not in the Crown Court.
The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct is to be abolished and a simplified system of procedures set in its place. Let me explain one reason why. The most striking example of delays and problems caused by the current statutory procedure concerns that part of the Law Society's application for rights of audience in the higher courts which related to "employed" solicitors. The application took no less than six years to resolve, and was considered by ACLEC at least three times and by the Director General of Fair Trading, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges twice. ACLEC initially gave defective advice, urging that the Courts and Legal Services Act should be amended, and had to be directed by the Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned predecessor, to reconsider the matter. When ACLEC gave its final advice, it was split down the middle. Eight members and the chairman advised against allowing employed solicitors to appear in the higher courts; the other eight members criticised the way their colleagues had approached the issue, and advised that the Law Society's amended application should be granted.
The results of six years of painfully slow debate, consultation and advice about what rights of audience employed solicitors should have in the higher courts were in practice negligible. The noble and learned Lord and the designated judges granted the Law Society's application in a very limited form, allowing employed solicitors to appear in substantive proceedings in the higher courts if they succeeded in obtaining the Law Society's higher courts qualifications, but only if led by an advocate in private practice. An employed solicitor can only appear as the sole advocate in preliminary proceedings which do not dispose of the merits of a case.
When the Green Paper which preceded the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 was debated in this House, the voices of the prophets of doom rang around the Chamber. The alarmists were in full cry—their cases were never knowingly undersold. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, said,
"Oppression does not stand on the doorstep with a toothbrush moustache and a swastika armband. It creeps up insidiously; it creeps up step by step; and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realises that it [freedom] has one".—[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1331.]

1111
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that the proposals were,
"about to do untold harm to the future quality of the administration of justice in this country".—[Col. 1415.]
On the Second Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill on 19th December 1989 the noble and learned Lord declaimed that:
"The ever-increasing megafirms, with their growing litigation departments…both in size and cost, with full rights of audience in all courts, will cause the Bar to wither away … The strong and independent judiciary…will be weakened by the diminishing quality of available recruits and the growing political influence in their appointments".—[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 205.]
I ask your Lordships: has the predicted end to civilisation as we know it occurred? As at last Friday, 11th December 1998, out of over 75,000 practising solicitors in this country, a mere 730 have higher court rights of audience. On 1st October 1990, there were 6,645 barristers in private practice; on 1st October 1998, there were 9,698. We have a strong flourishing independent Bar and I see no reason why it should not continue to flourish on its merits.
This has, I think, been accepted by the Bar itself. The Vice-Chairman of the Bar, soon to be the Chairman, in a letter to the Financial Times published on 3rd December this year, wrote:
"The argument is not now about who has rights of audience, but about ensuring advocacy is provided to a consistently high standard and at a competitive cost to the client".
My proposals meet those aims.
Some, too, may argue that the control of rights of audience is so fundamental to the rule of law that it should be outside the control of Parliament and left entirely to the judiciary. I would not accept that in a democracy decisions on who may exercise rights of audience in the courts are a no-go area for Parliament. Parliament is the guardian of the public interest and the removal of restrictive practices is emphatically for Parliament.
The powers I propose are limited. The granting of rights of audience to individuals and their removal will remain for the professional bodies. The professional bodies will also remain responsible for drawing up the rules governing the rights of audience of their members, including the qualification regulations. I am merely asking Parliament to define more broadly the general categories of those who are entitled to appear before the courts, in order to ensure that it is easier for employed lawyers and solicitors to do so.
I am also asking for the Lord Chancellor to be given a fall-back power to intervene in the rules of professional bodies if they unreasonably restrict rights of audience. Any use of the powers must also be in accordance with the criteria set out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and requires approval by Parliament by affirmative resolution. The Lord Chancellor's decisions made throughout the process would be capable of being subject to judicial review. But I repeat that I do not accept that the elimination of restrictive practices in the legal profession is a no-go area for Parliament and that the judiciary, who are drawn from the profession, have any entitlement to the last word.
1112
The Bill will also institute reforms to the system of appeals in civil cases, based on Sir Jeffrey Bowman's report. Those will complement the existing programme of reforms in the civil courts of first instance.
As Lord Chancellor, I work with the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General to tackle crime and modernise the criminal justice system. There are two important aspects of this Bill, which are primarily concerned with criminal justice reform. First, the Bill makes a number of changes to the organisation and management of magistrates' courts. These will help develop a more coherent geographical structure for the criminal justice system and improve the management and efficiency of magistrates' courts.
Secondly, the Bill will create a criminal defence service, which will ensure that those who appear before our courts and risk imprisonment receive high quality legal defence services. The major change from the existing system of criminal legal aid is that, in future, only those lawyers who have contracts with the criminal defence service and fulfil quality criteria will be able to represent assisted clients. Those who are accused of criminal offences will have the right to choose among those who have contracts. That is a major advance: there has not previously been a general assurance for those using criminal legal aid that services provided will be of good quality.
The state, in the public interest, takes accused people to the criminal courts, where they may be deprived of their liberty. So it is right that the state should provide high quality defence services to those who cannot afford to purchase defence services for themselves. There should be equality of arms between prosecution and defence.
The criminal defence service will be able to employ lawyers—solicitors and barristers—directly. This is not intended to be a fundamental change in the way representation and assistance is provided. We shall not move towards a wholly employed public defender service. I expect to see a mixed system of private practitioners and some salaried defenders. They will enable the criminal defence service to fill in gaps in provision and to provide a cost and quality benchmark against which the private sector can be compared. I do not accept that state-employed defenders are incapable of being dedicated, effective lawyers of equal quality to those working in the private sector.
I now turn to the clauses in the Bill which give effect to those policies. Clauses 1 to 4 set up the new legal services commission to replace the Legal Aid Board and to be responsible both for the community legal service and for the criminal defence service.
Clause 5 establishes the community legal service and Clause 6 establishes the community legal service fund, which will replace legal aid in civil and family cases. Unlike legal aid, however, expenditure on the new fund will be controlled through the system for assessing need and planning priorities; through contracts which define most of the services to be provided by the fund; and through the flexible funding assessment which will help match the supply of services to the demand.

1113
Clause 7 introduces Schedule 2 which lists certain categories of case which are, for the time being, generally excluded from the scope of the fund. Broadly, that is the same as the existing scheme. Personal injury, but not clinical negligence, cases are generally to be excluded because those cases can generally be funded by conditional fees. A number of low priority categories—for example, boundary disputes and cases brought in the course of business—are also now excluded.
Schedule 2 may be amended, but only by affirmative procedure regulations. But flexibility is built in. I may issue directions to the commission to allow services within the excluded categories to be funded in exceptional circumstances. For example, I may direct that personal injury cases, which are generally excluded because they are suitable for conditional fees, may exceptionally be funded where there are high investigative or overall costs or where wider issues of public interest are involved.
Clause 9 requires the legal services commission to prepare a funding code which will set out the criteria determining whether particular cases should be supported by the community legal services fund. That will replace the merits test for civil legal aid and will be more flexible. The general test will be whether a reasonable person able to fund the case out of own resources would be prepared to accept the risk of pursuing it. It will be possible to apply different criteria to different categories, according to their priority; and it will be possible to change the code from time to time as priorities change. This new mechanism represents a major improvement on the current scheme. I am required to approve the code prepared by the commission and lay it before Parliament.
Clause 9 sets out a number of criteria which the commission must consider in preparing the code. Those include the wider public interest; whether the case could be funded in some other way; and the availability of resources in the fund. The code must also reflect the principle that in many family disputes mediation may be more appropriate than court proceedings. That new provision is at the heart of our reforms and the flexibility should enable the commission to focus funding onto the priorities which will have been identified.
Clauses 12 to 17 set up the criminal defence service. The scope and availability of criminal legal aid provision will remain as it is now. In time, the commission will provide all, or nearly all, advice, assistance and representation through contracted or some salaried defenders, although there is provision to continue case-by-case payments under regulations for the transitional period. This will enable the commission to set defined quality standards, which those with whom it contracts and any lawyers whom it employs, will have to meet. Defendants will have a real choice among lawyers of assured quality.
Clause 16 provides that a defendant in the Crown Court may be required to meet the cost of representation, unless he or she is acquitted. This is a change from the present system of means testing before a case is heard. The present system of means testing
1114
causes serious delays through adjournments while information on a defendant's means is being collected and assessed; and the cost of administering the system at £5 million is not far off the contributions received of £6.2 million. A power in the Crown Court will be cheaper to administer and eliminate delays caused by establishing a defendant's means before a trial. The change will also allow us to concentrate on recovering costs from wealthy convicted defendants.
Part III of the Bill deals with legal services. Clause 27 replaces Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act. Conditional fees will continue to be absolutely prohibited in criminal cases and in family proceedings, with the exception of those family proceedings that are exclusively concerned with finance or property. The new sections also provide that a party against whom costs are awarded may be ordered to pay any enhanced fees that are part of a conditional fee agreement.
Clause 28 will enable a court, when awarding costs, to include the cost of any premium for a legal insurance policy to be recovered from the unsuccessful party.
Clauses 29 to 37 deal with our proposals on rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. Together with Schedules 5 and 6, they will improve the statutory procedures governing rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation to make them more streamlined and quicker.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention in particular to Clauses 30 to 33, which provide that all suitably qualified barristers and solicitors, whether employed or in private practice, have full rights of audience before all the courts.
Clause 36 puts on a statutory basis the duties which all advocates and litigators owe, first, to the court before which they are engaged and, secondly, to obey their professional rules. I hope that this provision will reassure those of your Lordships who really have doubts whether employed lawyers can be independent.
Part IV of the Bill, Clauses 38 to 48, contains provisions concerning appeals. They are designed to modernise the civil appeals system by ensuring that appeals are dealt with in a way which is proportionate to their weight and complexity and that there should only be a single avenue of appeal except in exceptional cases.
They will enable rules of court to provide that appeals in civil cases may only be made with the permission of the court; that, in unexceptional civil cases, there shall be only one appeal; and that the routes of civil appeals may be varied by order, subject to parliamentary approval.
Clauses 49 to 67 introduce a number of reforms to the organisation and management of the Magistrates' Courts Service.
The Government believe that a structure with fewer and larger magistrates' courts committees will be more efficient and effective. The number of magistrates' courts committees have been reduced in recent years and we wish to facilitate this process. Clauses 49 to 51 and 55 to 56 aim to achieve that.

1115
Clause 52 unifies the metropolitan and provincial stipendiary benches. In future, all stipendiary magistrates will have jurisdiction throughout England and Wales and will be renamed district judges (magistrates' courts) to reflect their status more accurately.
Clause 53 removes the requirement for lay magistrates to sit in the Crown Court on cases committed for sentence by the magistrates' court. Because of a change in the law, this has become much more frequent and magistrates have been hearing more serious cases which are outside their normal range of experience. On the other hand, I intend to retain the magistrates' role in the Crown Court on appeals from the magistrates' courts. These are cases of a kind they hear on a daily basis and where they have a real contribution to make in the Crown Court.
Clause 57 creates a Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority to run all the Greater London magistrates' courts and to replace the existing 22 magistrates' courts committees.
Clauses 59 to 62 are intended to split the role of justice's clerk and justice's chief executive. We wish clearly to separate the important function of advising lay magistrates, which falls to justices' clerks, and the efficient and effective administration of the courts, which falls to the justices' chief executives, who need not be legally qualified.
Clauses 63 to 67 will enable the transfer of responsibility for the execution of warrants from the police to magistrates' courts committees. This should help restore public confidence in the effectiveness of fines and community penalties.
Clauses 68 to 74 contain provisions which change the circumstances in which costs can be awarded against justices of the peace, justices' clerks and their assistants and general commissioners of income tax; and further provide that general commissioners, and their clerks, and coroners, should be indemnified against any costs they incur in certain proceedings. It is a general principle that those exercising judicial authority on behalf of the state should not be personally liable for any costs arising out of an action taken against them.
We are not undertaking these reforms to save money or get justice on the cheap. Over the next three years we will be spending on average £1,600 million every year on legal aid. But we are starting with the proposition that resources will always be finite and that those resources must be used to best effect. The system of legal aid which was appropriate in 1949 will not meet modern needs. Resources must be targeted and focused according to need.
Between 1991–92 and 1997–98, expenditure on civil and family legal aid rose from £330 million to £634 million, an increase of 92 per cent. This was a much greater increase than the increase in GDP of 18 per cent. But in the same period, the number of people helped fell by 10 per cent. On the criminal side, 1 per cent. of cases consume 40 to 50 per cent. of the criminal legal aid budget. We must bear down on these costs.
1116
Under the existing legal aid system, criminal and civil, the Government have no effective means of controlling the rate at which costs increase, no means of directing resources to the areas of highest priority, and few means of ensuring the quality and value for money of the services for which it pays. That is no basis for maintaining, let alone expanding, access to justice for all. Legal aid is for the benefit of the public, not vested interests. The reality is that the funds available for civil legal aid are those left over after the prior demands of the criminal defence budget have been met. So these costs must be contained.
Our proposals are a realistic and fair way of using scarce national resources to the best effect to maximise access to justice. Their objective is not to maintain any particular structure or distribution of lawyers' businesses, but to benefit the public. I commend this Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of the Bill. I am not sure that we are all aware that we are participating in an historic occasion. This is the first time, while the House is sitting, that the Lord Chancellor has addressed the House from the Government Dispatch Box rather than from the Woolsack. I am sure that the researchers will be interested to know whether the noble and learned Lord has found it more comfortable to have his back to his friends or his back to the Throne.
The subject of access to justice, with which the Bill deals, has occupied Lord Chancellors over the years. The Title of the Bill is certainly appropriate and most parts of the Bill have some bearing on the subject. The title is, I am sure, an improvement on the title of the White Paper, Modernising Justice, which happens to be blue. Daily, when the House sits, we pray for justice. The prayers have been the same for many generations. The principles of justice are timeless and it cannot be possible to modernise justice. It may be possible to modernise access to justice, which is the concern of the Bill.
I propose to make only a few observations. The speakers' list is long and many noble Lords on it have great experience of the system with which the Bill deals. A small part of the Bill deals with Scotland and so far it has not figured in the explanation. As the noble and learned Lord who is to reply also has Scottish origins no doubt that matter will be dealt with later.
The first part of the Bill covers the setting up of the legal services commission, the community legal service and the criminal defence service. As the noble and learned Lord explained, that is a development from the Legal Aid Board and its authorities, which have their origins in the 1949 arrangements. It is clear that those arrangements need to be substantially overhauled.
This may be the first occasion on which a government have introduced a new body with the provision for splitting it into two bodies without further recourse to

1117
primary legislation. However, there is substance in the view that it may be wise to separate the criminal from the civil system at some time. It is explained that it is done in this way to facilitate transfer from the Legal Aid Board. I well understand that.
I also join the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his tribute to the efforts that the legal profession has made over the years to provide services for the disadvantaged. The Free Representation Unit, which is funded by the Bar, has been in existence for a long time. The pro bono groups of barristers and the pro bono groups of solicitors, more recently funded, are also an important development and they give the lie to the idea that the legal profession as a whole is out to feather its own nest with no regard to the public. I do not believe that people enter the legal profession with that kind of spirit.
The two systems to be funded by the legal services commission are referred to as the community legal service and the criminal defence service. As far as the community legal service is concerned, apart from the word "community" appearing in its name, I do not think that the word appears again in the description of it in the Bill. I wonder which "community" is in question. Is it the nation? If so, is it "the national legal service", or is it some other idea of "community"?
Some years ago we had a debate in the Chamber on matters concerned with legal aid and there was strong support for the view that local initiatives have to be supported. I consider it important, in a community legal service, to try to build, so far as possible, on what the community itself has provided. I welcome the working party with local authorities, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, which seems to have that in view. Tremendous work has been done by those centres in communities. One of the difficulties which has been experienced in the past—the noble and learned Lord must have an answer to this—is that while government funding became available, local authority funding tended to be reduced, so the units were no better off. The contracting arrangements, which had been piloted with them, have helped to deal with that matter. I certainly would be interested to hear how that subject matter has been dealt with.
The most important aspect of contracting, to my mind, is the securing of quality in the contractors. The Legal Aid Board has been seeking to work on that for a long time. I hope that before the provisions of this Bill are implemented it will have reached a stage where reliance can be placed upon it.
One other matter on this part of the Bill is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke of the flexibility of a new criteria for the grant of legal aid. I can see the advantages of flexibility, but I can also see that, if there is to be fairness, there is a need for criteria that are known and approved. I should have thought that there is a good deal to be said for the view that the criteria should be approved by Parliament as part of the general and primary legislation.
Some of your Lordships may remember in 1988, when I introduced the Bill that became the Legal Aid Act, the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, whom we all sadly
1118
miss, speaking from the Labour Front Bench, criticised the Bill on the number of devolved powers that it contained. If he were to speak on this Bill he may have more grounds for that complaint. I regard it as important that this is the subject of primary legislation, particularly in relation to matters such as judicial review. It has been said that local authorities tended not to be keen to fund local centres if the result of the local centres' advice was on action seeking a judicial review against the local authority. I am sure that the Government would not wish to be accused of any partiality on that basis. So far as concerns the ultimate decision on whether or not a particular class of case is to be funded, or a particular criteria in relation to the Government, there is, at least, a risk of that.
Passing over the legal aid provisions for Scotland, I turn now to the provisions dealing with legal services, and to the abolition of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. I agree, of course, that the procedures under which that body operated in the past could now be improved. Indeed, the Bill introduces proposals to improve the procedures; for example, to make it possible not to refer every application, but only the important ones, for advice. I do not see that as a reason for getting rid of the body altogether. The explanations given were that the advice took a while to develop, that it was slow, and that, in the end, so far as employed solicitors were concerned, the amount of development was rather small.
The number of solicitors in private practice—700-odd as at last Friday—is small. Is that evidence that the standards are wrong? Is that the inference to be drawn from the way in which it is described in the White Paper, that the standards are too high? If not, we need an explanation of why it is thought that that is something on which adverse comment can be made.
Another point relates to ACLEC. I pay tribute to all the distinguished judges who headed it over the years and the distinguished people who took part in it. They dealt with issues of considerable importance. I happen to have views of my own about a number of those, but I acknowledge the fact that many distinguished people, with great experience of the system, have a different view. The fact that the committee was split, sometimes narrowly, surely is an indication of how important and difficult those issues were. I am not sure whether I would prefer to be a member of a committee or of a panel, but I have the impression that the panel is intended to be a slight demotion of the present committee arrangement. In creating the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, I sought to build on what had previously existed in the shape of an advisory committee on education.
The clause on rights of audience for employed lawyers seems to raise the question of whether rights of audience are automatically conferred on those who are solicitors, whether or not they are now qualified. Is the effect of the clause to be that, immediately this Act comes into force, all solicitors are to be entitled to rights of audience in the higher courts? If that is not what the

1119
clause means, does it mean that the 700-odd who already have those rights will simply continue to have them and that no particular advance is thereby created?
I turn now to the magistrates' courts. I very much support the proposal to give magistrates immunity in respect of costs. Some years ago they were given immunity in respect of actions. The Bill seeks to extend that. When we gave immunity in respect of actions we thought that the discretion of the court would protect magistrates sufficiently. It has not quite turned out that way, so I strongly support the proposal. I am not certain whether the proposal intends one to look back to the old law before deciding whether an order can be made against the Lord Chancellor. It says something like, "If the award is prevented by the earlier subsection, this award can be made". I should prefer there to be a general discretion, without requiring one to go back to the old law. May I ask whether the provisions, which now cover commissioners of income tax, magistrates and coroners, deal with all judicial persons who are liable to be subjected to personal awards of costs against them?
I am glad that justices are to be retained to deal with appeals. I recognise that the changes which have occurred may require that justices will no longer serve on cases dealing with remit for sentence. The explanation that such cases are more severe than those with which magistrates normally deal does not strike me as a particularly good reason for making the change. There should be continuity in sentencing. When magistrates are considering lesser sentences in their own courts, it is good that they should have some sense of what merits a more severe sentence in the higher courts and, conversely, that those who are sitting in the higher courts on a case where, at the moment, they have a magistrate with them, should benefit from the magistrate's experience in dealing with less serious cases. The change in the Court of Appeal criminal division, allowing circuit judges to serve as members of the court, has proved to be a valuable assistance not only to those judges and to the circuit Bench, but also to the consideration that the Lords Justices and the justices who form the other members of that court give to such cases.
I am sure that we shall want to discuss other matters in Committee. I believe this to be a very important Bill, substantial parts of which are built on work which was done, as the White Paper makes clear, when I had the privilege of holding the office which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor holds now.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is common for Ministers to describe their Bills as "far-reaching and radical" when the Bill is simply tinkering and cosmetic. Nobody could possibly say that this Access to Justice Bill is tinkering and cosmetic; it is unquestionably the greatest shake-up of legal services since the original Legal Aid Act 1948.
Perhaps I may start with three comments which do not go to the substance of the Bill, before commenting on its contents. First, the White Paper was published on
1120
1st December. The Bill and the Explanatory Notes were published the following day. That was only 12 days ago. Some proposals in the Bill—for example, on rights of audience and conditional fees—were preceded by consultation papers, but many key proposals were not subject to prior consultation and the time provided for the study of the Bill has been wholly inadequate. Organisations such as the Law Society, the Legal Action Group, Justice—I should declare that I am a council member—and the Bar Council have had the time to produce only very limited briefings. The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which is one of the key players in this area, has been unable to produce a briefing at all in the time available. For that reason, I am unwilling to comment on Parts V or VI, which contain the changes to the magistrates' courts system, because they are not within my experience and I have been unable to obtain adequate briefing on them. This is a prime example of a Bill which should have been published in draft for discussion. It is essential that adequate time should now be given for considering and tabling amendments. If that is to be achieved, it means that the Committee stage must not begin until at least the second week after the end of the Recess.
Secondly, this is not one Bill, but three. Parts I and III are really a legal services Bill; Part IV, which deals with appeals, is an administration of justice Bill, and Parts V and VI are a magistrates' courts Bill. The reason for that is no doubt that it is easier to get one slot than three in the legislative timetable. However, those very diverse issues make a well ordered debate difficult and will make the later stages of the Bill's progress far too long drawn-out.
Thirdly, the compliance statement, under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, is wholly inadequate. I do not challenge it, but it is plain that the Bill raises convention issues, especially under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is desirable that a much fuller explanation should be given of the reasons why the Bill is believed to be compatible. That explanation should be given in the Explanatory Notes—at least until a Select Committee on human rights is established which can comment on the human rights implications of Bills in the same way as the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation comments on the powers in Bills to make secondary legislation.
I turn now to the contents of the Bill. I do not propose to comment at any length on Part IV, relating to appeals. I suspect that that will be one of the less controversial parts of the Bill. The details may require scrutiny in Committee, but the proposals seem broadly acceptable. For the reasons that I have already given, I shall not comment on Parts V and VI. Part II relates to Scotland, on which I have no qualifications to speak. That leaves only Parts I and III, but there is enough material in those parts alone to justify a speech for far more than my allotted time of 15 minutes.
Part I destroys legal aid as we know it and replaces it with a wholly new system. This party has always had a deep commitment to the Legal Aid Act. In its 50 years of life, it has done an enormous amount to improve access to justice for the disadvantaged. However, we must recognise its defects. It has become too expensive.

1121
To a large extent, that is because of the increasing cost of legal services generally. However, there have been failings and abuses. Legal aid has been granted in cases where it was not justified. The fact that any barrister or solicitor willing to take legal aid work could be funded from the Legal Aid Fund meant that money was wasted on incompetent practitioners. There has been insufficient control over the fees charged by legal aid practitioners. We recognise that some change is therefore inevitable.
We do not oppose the creation of the legal services commission, the community legal service, or the criminal defence service. We particularly welcome the proposals to improve the advisory services. We hope that that will be an improvement on the present haphazard system of advice and assistance through citizens' advice bureaux, law centres and more specialised advice centres, which are often the preferred first point of contact with the legal system for someone who has a legal problem.
We agree that accreditation is desirable to ensure that lawyers who are providing publicly-funded services are indeed competent to provide them. But accreditation must be objective and must not be withheld from those who are competent to provide legal services. That is certainly something that we shall wish to come back to at Committee stage. We accept that it is reasonable for the Government to be allowed to negotiate fees directly with legal service providers. We accept that the merit criteria need to be tightened and priorities for legal aid and assistance established.
However, we also see many serious problems in Part I of this Bill. We object to the Lord Chancellor's power to give directions to the legal services commission. This is a very sensitive area. The separation of powers, particularly between the Executive and the judiciary, is a matter of the highest constitutional importance. We believe that it would be wrong for a community legal service and the criminal defence service to be run directly by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The legal services commission is therefore an important buffer between the Lord Chancellor and the legal system. We believe that it is most important that the legal services commission should be independent in implementing government policy as expressed in legislation. Guidance by the Lord Chancellor, yes: directions, we say, no.
We have serious concerns about the contracting system for both civil and criminal cases. We see very great dangers in the creation of exclusive contracts. Contracting must not be used so as to eliminate services in remote areas or to reduce choice where choice is now available. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, whose experience may well be unrivalled in your Lordships' House in this field, will go into this in more detail later.
The maintenance of choice is a matter of particular importance in criminal cases. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights confers on a defendant the right to legal aid and the right to defence by a lawyer of the defendant's choice. We do not believe that the Bill itself contravenes Article 6, but it could easily be implemented in a way which does. We believe that enormous care must be taken to ensure that it does not.
1122
We strongly object to the creation of a public defender system through lawyers employed by the criminal defence service. Public defenders in other countries, especially in the United States of America, are an example of what not to do in that field. They are notorious for incompetence and inadequacy. As matters now stand, we have a good system of independent defence lawyers. We must not undermine that system. I believe that the creation of employed defence lawyers—anything in the nature of a public defender system—would create that danger.
We regret that the Bill does not contain a proposal to set up a separate public interest fund to cover costs in cases which raise issues of major public importance. Such cases may very well not be brought because they do not qualify for assistance from the community legal service fund. For example, there may be cases which do not confer a great benefit on any one individual and will therefore not justify granting legal representation to a particular individual; but at the same time, in aggregate, they may be matters of very great importance for the community as a whole. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed interest in the idea of a separate public interest fund in his speech to the Law Society's annual conference in 1997. We very much regret that he has not pursued it further in this Bill.
Finally, I turn to Part III of the Bill on legal services, which deals with conditional fees, rights of audience and the powers of the Lord Chancellor to order changes in the rules of professional bodies. Conditional fees have many drawbacks, as can be seen by the effect that their close cousins, contingency fees, have had on litigation in the USA. There are dangers to professional integrity if lawyers have a direct and personal financial interest in the success of their cases. On these Benches we have reluctantly accepted that conditional fees should be allowed where the alternative is a denial of access to justice. Clearly, it is unrealistic to expect that free legal aid should now be extended to the middle income group which cannot afford any form of serious litigation on its own. For that group it may well be that conditional fees are better than no access.
But the Bill contains provisions which, I believe, encourage litigation on conditional fees even where it is not essential that conditional fees be made available. We believe that those provisions should be removed from the Bill. We welcome the statement in the White Paper at paragraph 3.30 that the Government would take powers to make it possible to establish a self-financing contingency legal aid fund. But we believe that such a fund, usually known as CLAF, is a much better alternative to conditional fees and that the Government should not only take powers to do so, but should proceed with a pilot scheme on this subject as soon as possible.
I now turn to rights of audience. As a barrister, I think now, as I have thought for many years past, that solicitors' rights of audience should be extended. So indeed now does the Bar Council. I believe that an independent Bar provides a service which, as has happened in Australia and New Zealand, can and will exist without the need for protection by restrictive rules.

1123
However, we have concern about the extension of rights of audience in the Crown Court to employees of the Crown Prosecution Service. Indeed, some of my noble friends believe that the rights of audience of the CPS should not be extended at all. Others of us would not go quite that far, but all of us are agreed that if rights of audience are extended in the case of the CPS, those rights should be controlled so that a substantial part of the prosecution work still goes to independent advocates.
The powers of the Lord Chancellor to impose rule changes on professional bodies raise very serious issues of constitutional propriety. There has been powerful criticism of the proposals made in speeches outside this House by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Steyn and Lord Ackner, and by Mr. Sydney Kentridge, a most distinguished lawyer with an impeccable liberal pedigree.
I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has recognised some of the force of this criticism by accepting that any change in the rules of the professional bodies which is imposed by the Lord Chancellor must be made by an order passed by the affirmative resolution procedure. However, it is doubtful whether that of itself is a sufficient safeguard. A Government with a majority of 179 in the Lower House and with an Upper House which, by convention, does not defeat secondary legislation under the affirmative resolution procedure have no check on their powers. In any event, the affirmative resolution procedure is the absolute minimum which is needed to make that power acceptable. We shall certainly need some persuading that it is sufficient of itself.
Therefore, we have many criticisms of the Bill and we shall press hard for changes at its later stages. Over the past 50 years legal aid has provided access to justice for many to whom it would otherwise have been denied. It has perhaps been the victim of its own success. At any rate, it is clear that the system now does need a major overhaul, but, in doing so, the vision of access to justice for all must not be lost in the course of making the necessary corrections.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, this Bill has been heralded as the biggest shake-up in legal services for 50 years and as changing the legal landscape. There is, I believe, truth in those claims and, accordingly, an obvious need for very thoughtful consideration of what the Bill proposes. It would be as wrong for your Lordships' House and for those professionally involved in the administration of justice to embrace these proposals with uncritical enthusiasm because they are new as to resist them unthinkingly for the same reason. Our concern must surely be to ensure that, while blemishes are removed and necessary improvements made, the virtues of our existing system—and I hope that I can describe them as "great virtues"—are preserved.
1124
I regard it as wholly desirable to co-ordinate and publicise the invaluable work done by a host of non-governmental agencies which offer advice, help and sometimes representation to the citizen—sometimes, but not always, in very specialised fields. It seems to me wholly desirable to encourage and support the resolution of disputes outside the courtroom by ombudsmen schemes, by mediation and by other forms of additional dispute resolution. Subject to questions of detail, I welcome the proposed changes to appeal procedures which carry forward a process that has been developing over several years.
I welcome in principle the proposal to rationalise the administration and organisation of the magistrates' courts. I know, from a number of personal visits to benches of justices in England and Wales, that the lay justices feel threatened. I hope that these proposals are another sign that the Government's aim is not to marginalise or undermine the role of the lay justices but to strengthen and support it. As magistrates' courts are the only courts which the great mass of the population ever see, I regard this as vitally important. It is high time that the important contribution of the stipendiary magistrates was recognised by a change of title, even though the new title is not that which I myself would have chosen.
However, there are three matters central to the Bill on which acute concern is felt by my judicial colleagues. The first is civil legal aid. Here I echo something of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. In recent years, legal aid has been a favourite target of criticism as being expensive, demand-led, out of control, ill-focused, used to support unmeritorious claims, unfair to unassisted parties and a ready source of outdoor relief for not very indigent lawyers. There is some truth in most at any rate of those criticisms. To my knowledge, no one contends that the scheme should continue entirely as it is. It now has few friends.
We should, however, recall that over the past century the legal aid and advice scheme has given millions of our fellow citizens the benefit of legal protection which they never would otherwise have enjoyed. The Act was enacted at very much the same time as the National Health Service Act, with a similar aim; namely, to make legal protection, like health, available to all who really needed it and could not afford it. This is not an argument for perpetuating the scheme in its present form. I have always supported conditional fee agreements as a means of increasing access to justice. I see obvious virtue in reliance on legal expenses insurance. I see, with deference to those who think otherwise, no reason why the Government, who provide the money, should not have an important say in how that money is spent. But I am very anxious indeed that the withdrawal and redirection of legal aid should march hand in hand with the availability of other sources and means of support in appropriate cases.
As yet, conditional fee agreements, although familiar in the personal injuries field, have a somewhat tenuous existence in every other. The market in "after-the-event" legal insurance is still in its infancy. It is not at all clear how the interests of defendants will be protected. My plea is for a change-over sufficiently gradual that the

1125
most vulnerable members of our society are not excluded from legal protection until alternative sources of protection are available.
The second area of acute concern to many—indeed, probably most of my judicial brethren—relates to Part III of the Bill. I refer to the proposals to abolish the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee; to alter the role of the designated judges from that of decision-makers to that of consultees; to extend rights of audience, in particular to Crown prosecutors and employed lawyers; to introduce, perhaps, depending on the Scottish pilot, salaried defence lawyers; and, above all, to concentrate the power of decision on rights of audience in the hands of the Lord Chancellor alone. I believe that those arguments will be fully and strongly put to your Lordships' House in due course and I shall not elaborate them. However, I make clear that they represent a strong judicial view that there should be an independent body with the same broad functions as the advisory committee; that a power of veto should be preserved, at any rate for a majority of designated judges or the Judges' Council; that any wide extension of rights of audience should not undermine the standards of skill and integrity on which the administration of justice critically depends; that all advocates should be subject to the same code, as, perhaps, should salaried public defenders; and that there should be a level playing field to ensure that competition between advocates is fair. Another concern is that Crown prosecutors and employed lawyers may lack the objectivity and independence which every advocate should enjoy while the proposal to entrust these powers to the Lord Chancellor is regarded as repugnant on the grounds that no Minister, however eminent and greatly respected, should enjoy such power.
These are apprehensions which must command attention and respect. However, I have to say that it is an unfortunate fact that I do not by any means fully share them. While successive chairmen, members and staff of the advisory committee have done their utmost to fulfil the mandate which Parliament gave them, the resulting procedure has been correctly characterised as complex, bureaucratic and slow. Although it is true that the judges have historically decided who should have the right of appearing before them, in recent years this has been a largely formal power. For my part, I do not think that this is an area into which Parliament and the Executive should be forbidden entry, but I would of course hope that any decision takes account of the views that the judges express. After all, the Lord Chancellor plays a very prominent part in choosing the most senior judges and it is reasonable to hope that he chooses those whose judgment he broadly respects and those whose advice he is likely to take notice of.
Six years' experience as one of the designated judges—I have perhaps longer experience in this matter than anyone except the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I am not far behind him—persuades me that the existing regime is unsatisfactory. I see no satisfactory alternative other than that proposed. While others disagree—and, I must make it plain, disagree very strongly, even passionately—I do not agree that Crown prosecutors, members of a service led by a very
1126
distinguished advocate answerable to an Attorney-General who has made clear his belief in the independence of the prosecuting function, would be likely to exhibit in the higher courts vices of which no complaint is made in the lower.
Above all, it seems to me right in principle, subject to appropriate safeguards to which I shall return—and subject, certainly, to appropriate consultation—that the final power of decision in these matters should rest with the Lord Chancellor. In the last analysis, it is he alone who is answerable to Parliament and to the public for the exercise of these powers. As a former Lord Chief Justice—not, it is fair to say, one of the most universally admired—wrote in a different context:
"All experience shows that nothing is more dangerous in public affairs than that nominal responsibility should belong to one person while real authority rests with another".
The third area of concern, closely linked with the second, is that there are throughout the Bill occasions too numerous to attempt to list where the conferment of powers and the right to make decisions and to give directions are entrusted to the Lord Chancellor alone. The apprehension is again that which I have mentioned. As I have indicated, my opinion is that in the final analysis the responsibility and the authority should be in the same hands, which should be those of the Lord Chancellor.
But—and I regard this as an important "but"—it seems to me desirable, to allay fears and to ensure that fundamental principles are followed and borne in mind when decisions are taken, that these principles should be clearly set out on the face of the Bill. Such, indeed, we find concerning the duties of advocates in Clause 36; such we also find in the statutory objective set out in Section 17(1) of the 1990 Act and the general principle set out in Section 17(3), both of which remain operative. These guiding rules could, in my view, be supplemented by a clear statement of certain other fundamental principles, not in themselves controversial but calling for explicit endorsement at a time of radical and far-reaching change. I have in mind such principles as that the independence of the judges—and I would include justices' clerks—should be inviolate; that Her Majesty's subjects should, in proper cases, so far as practicable, if other means of dispute resolution fail, be afforded access to Her Majesty's courts; that a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession should be preserved; that rights of audience should be exercised only by those who possess the required knowledge, skill and integrity, and who are subject to a common code of conduct and discipline; and lastly—although, no doubt, the list could be supplemented—that no advocate acting as such should be made the subject of any penalty or adverse discrimination on the grounds of any honest, reasonable and careful exercise of judgment.
The Lord Chancellor has, with undoubted sincerity, affirmed his belief in almost all of these principles on more than one occasion. I hope that he and his colleagues may see merit in an explicit statement of these overriding principles. If, inadvertently, he or one of his less distinguished successors were to propose a course which infringed any of the principles, then he or she would be amenable to judicial review. That,coupled

1127
with legislative oversight, for which provision is made in the Bill, would, I believe, go far to meeting the anxieties which undoubtedly exist.

Business
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the European Council, I 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.

European Council, Vienna, 11th-12th December
4.26 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a Statement about the meeting of the European Council on 11th and 12th December which I attended in Vienna along with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my honourable friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library.
"The Council concentrated on employment and economic issues, Agenda 2000, enlargement, the future development of Europe and a number of foreign policy questions.
"At Vienna, the last Council before the introduction of the euro by 11 member states, we confirmed and strengthened the strategy on economic reform and employment agreed at Amsterdam and Luxembourg last year and reinforced at Cardiff earlier this year. Macro-economic stability provides the essential basis for long-term growth. Supply side reform must go hand-in-hand with this. Member states have now submitted national progress reports on reform of product and capital markets. These will be subject to rigorous peer review in the first part of next year.
"There will be a parallel review of national employment action plans, the first set of which were submitted during the UK presidency. At Vienna, we agreed revised employment guidelines on which next year's national action plans will be based. The new guidelines fully reflect British priorities. They place particular emphasis on tackling long-term unemployment; promoting equal opportunities; making a reality of life-long learning; fully exploiting the potential of the service sector; creating the right climate for entrepreneurship; reviewing tax and benefit systems to provide incentives for the
1128
unemployed to take up work or training; promoting social inclusion; and examining regulations to ensure that they reduce barriers to employment. This work will be carried forward under the German presidency to produce an employment pact, within the framework of a wider process aimed at employment, growth, stability and economic reform.
"Jobs remain Europe's top priority. The strategy developed over the past 18 months is beginning to bear fruit, with over 1 million new jobs created in the EU in the last year, including over 250,000 in the UK, and the overall rate of EU unemployment falling below 10 per cent. for the first time since 1992. But member states need to step up their efforts to implement real reforms in their labour markets, learning from one another. It was noteworthy that representatives of small businessmen were included in the dialogue between heads of government, employers and unions for the first time at Vienna.
"Also in the economic field, we agreed new measures to complete the internal market, not least in financial services, improve innovation, increase the availability of risk capital and strengthen investment in infrastructure. We agreed on the gravity of the challenge posed by the millennium bug and the particular need to protect national and international infrastructure.
"We also discussed the desirability of better economic policy co-ordination. A small part of this discussion concerned tax policy. The Council agreed that co-operation in this area is not aimed at achieving uniform tax rates or preventing fair tax competition; rather its aim is to reduce harmful distortions in the single market, prevent excessive losses of tax revenue, and encourage employment-friendly tax structures. Work will continue on long-standing proposals on energy taxation and on taxation of savings, with a view to reaching agreement by next December. The UK Government will ensure that British interests—including those of the City of London—are fully protected and promoted in those discussions.
"On a separate tax matter, I and others called for a review of the 1991 decision to end duty-free sales in Europe from next year, not least since the proposed successor arrangements risked ridicule. The Council asked the Commission and finance ministers to examine by next March possible means of addressing the problem, including a limited extension of the transition arrangements. Unanimity is required to secure a change, but a door which seemed firmly closed is now at least half open.
"The council endorsed the finance ministers' report on external representation of the euro area. The UK's essential interests are protected: our membership of the G7 and other international fora will continue as before. We also confirmed an agenda for reform of the international monetary and financial system very much in line with the ideas which my right honourable friend the Chancellor and I have been arguing for—more transparency in international and

1129
national financial markets, better co-operation between the IMF and other actors, strengthened prudential and regulatory standards.
"Much of the discussion in Vienna was about Agenda 2000. This is a wide-ranging and important negotiation embracing the reform of the common agricultural policy to help the consumer, create a more efficient and competitive agriculture sector and reduce the burden to the taxpayer; and reforms to the structural and cohesion funds to ensure that they are fair and affordable, including after enlargement. On future financing, the UK is among a large group of member states arguing for stabilisation of expenditure at current levels by the year 2006. Vienna confirmed the political objective of reaching overall agreement at a special meeting of the European Council on 24th and 25th March.
"As for the British budget rebate, I repeat what I said in Vienna. The rebate is still fully justified and will remain. Even with it, the UK is the fifth largest net contributor in per capita terms, while we are ninth or tenth in terms of GNP. We still pay far more than countries such as France, with the equivalent population and slightly higher national income.
"On enlargement, the European Council welcomed the fact that the first practical results have been reached in negotiations with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. It also welcomed progress made by Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria; welcomed the reactivation of Malta's application; and recognised the importance of implementing the EU's strategy to prepare Turkey for membership. Work in all these areas will intensify next year.
"In the UK presidency my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister led work in the EU on integrating environmental policy into other community polices. The Austrian presidency carried forward this work in the fields of transport, energy and agriculture. At Vienna we agreed that it should be developed further into the areas of international development, the internal market and industry.
"At Cardiff, I launched a debate on the future development of the EU which was carried forward at the informal summit in October. We agreed in Vienna further steps to make a reality of subsidiarity and improve the effectiveness of EU institutions. We will issue a millennium declaration setting out the Union's priorities for the period ahead at the end of next year, to coincide with a new Commission taking office.
"At the informal summit in October, I urged the strengthening of the EU's foreign policy, not least by backing it with a credible capability for military action in regional crises where the US or NATO as a whole does not wish to be engaged. The joint declaration agreed with the French at St. Malo on 4th December gave us a sound basis on which to build this initiative. It was widely welcomed by partners at Vienna. We agreed that work should be taken forward under the German presidency. There is of course no question of undermining NATO in any way. Strengthening European defence capability will strengthen NATO.
1130
"On current foreign policy issues, we underlined the urgency of bringing the parties in Kosovo to a political agreement and the importance of the EU continuing its political and economic support for the Middle East peace process. We repeated our readiness to help Russia overcome its present severe difficulties, and agreed that Russia should be the subject of one of the first CFSP common strategies when the Amsterdam Treaty enters into force.
"The Vienna Council made useful progress on the economic and employment points, and above all laid a solid foundation for the difficult Agenda 2000 negotiations in the next three months. Britain's interests were safeguarded and promoted without difficulty. We defended our positions, in a constructive way, just as others defended theirs.
"In the days before Vienna we issued joint statements with Spain on structural reform, with Sweden on social policy, with France on defence and with Germany on tax. All of these were welcomed in the discussion and reflected in the conclusions. At Vienna itself we helped shape the debate on economic and employment issues, on Agenda 2000, on enlargement and other issues in sensible directions, fully consistent with our interests.
"This Government have transformed Britain's relations with the rest of the European Union since they took office. It is in the fundamental interests of this country that we remain fully engaged in the debate on the development of the EU. On this side of the House we have the confidence in our arguments, and in our ability to build support for them, to believe that we can win the debates in Europe in favour of economic reform, and an open and decentralised Europe.
"Those who would end up by taking us out of Europe, or so far to its margins as to eclipse any serious influence in Europe, would profoundly damage this country. This Government will not be swayed from their positive and constructive European policy. I have no doubt that this is the right course for Britain's future."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement and wish to go on to ask her some questions and make some comments about the issues that she has raised.
First, though, does she recall that, after the so-called informal Council that took place at Poertschach some weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Cranborne and I pressed for a Statement to be made in the House on the undertakings given on European defence integration, on tax harmonisation and on closer integration? Does she agree that at the time no Statement was given to this House because of the disinclination of her right honourable friend the Prime Minister to make a Statement in another place? Does the noble Baroness now agree that, in the light of what has taken place at the Vienna summit, it is clear that substantial efforts

1131
were already in train at that earlier summit to give new momentum to European integration and that it would have been better to have made a Statement? Indeed, does she accept that the Prime Minister might have been in a stronger position at the Vienna summit if he had had the reaction and support of the British Parliament behind him? Will she therefore give the House an assurance that, as this process develops, Statements will in fact be given in this House on important informal summits such as the Poertschach meeting?
Turning now to the substance of the issues decided in Vienna, I welcome the reaffirmation of the need to take action against the scandal of Community fraud. Will she accept, however, that the problems of fraud have long been identified and that we on this side will find it disappointing to read that a review in Council of the fight against fraud will not take place until December 1999? Is she aware that we also welcome the restatement of the aim to widen membership of the Union? But has she also noted that, while the Presidency Conclusions speak of "new momentum on integration" and "a new impetus towards a defence role for the European Union", they refer only to maintaining momentum on enlargement? Can the noble Baroness inform the House whether the Government's prime strategic objective is to widen the Union or to deepen it? If widening the Union is the objective, what specific success can she report for British influence in Vienna?
I welcome the underlining of the commitment to subsidiarity and the reduction of unnecessary regulation. This is something for which my right honourable friend Mr. Major, when he was Prime Minister, laboured long and hard. Will she give the House examples of Community legislation that has been modified or repealed under this agreement as a result of the British Government's initiative?
So much for what we can welcome. Will the noble Baroness note our concern and disappointment as regards the overall outcome of the summit? Is she aware that the pronouncements of the Prime Minister on the issues before this summit were somewhat confused, and that they have not become any more convincing or consistent the more often they are repeated? Does she agree that the Prime Minister tends to emphasise a different line depending on where he is speaking? Did she note his remarks on GMT when he said that my noble friend Lady Thatcher was right to stand firm for Britain's interest, but that on the other hand she was wrong to stand so firm? Is the Prime Minister standing anywhere on his European policy except on his head?
What did the Prime Minister mean when he said that the UK rebate was up for negotiation? Is it, and what were the conclusions of Vienna on this? What did the Prime Minister mean when he wrote in The Times today that there is a genuine debate on aspects of tax harmonisation? Is the noble Baroness aware that the Prime Minister agreed in Council to pursue work on a directive on taxation of savings and a directive on interest and royalties? In that work what do the United Kingdom Government rule in and what do they rule out?
1132
The Council emphasised the need to combat harmful tax competition. What tax competition do the UK Government consider harmful? The Council agreed that it wished to get national tax structures,
"to develop in a more employment-friendly way",
and commissioned a study on company taxation. What will the UK Government say to UK business on this? What are their objectives in agreeing to it? What is the Government's policy on a Europe-wide withholding tax?
The Presidency Conclusions talk of a new impetus on European defence integration following the Poertschach meeting. How far are the Government prepared to go in dismantling the Western European Union? Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House allow a debate in government time and explain what specifically they see as the long-term role of the European Union on defence?
I believe that the Government have come to a crossroads. The rhetorical plaster that the Prime Minister has put over his incoherent policy on Europe is coming off. The European Council conclusions—endorsed by the Prime Minister—proclaim new momentum on European integration. The train is on the move. Are the Government on the train, or off it? Are they trying to apply the brakes, or propel it forward? I think that this House needs to know the principles guiding the Government's policy on Europe. I hope soon we shall be told that.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, while I thank, as always, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement, I hope that I am not alone in looking forward to the day when reports of the European Council will be seen as too routine to deserve such formal prime ministerial Statements. In practice, the report was of a relatively quiet weekend in Vienna, despite the predictions of stormy and difficult negotiations. Almost all there is to know has already been said in the communiqué, in press briefings and on television. In that respect I certainly do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in discussing yesterday's television programmes or, for that matter, today's newspapers. I shall limit my remarks rather rigorously and show discipline by dealing with the Statement itself.
I hope that there is much for all of us to endorse. As regards enlargement, certainly I think we can endorse what the Statement says, although the process of enlargement is much too slow. I do not think Vienna accelerated the pace in any way at all. As regards the British budget rebate, we have been told what we always knew—despite the noise which was made by the Conservative Party in advance of Vienna—namely, that it was never seriously at risk. As regards strengthening the European Union's foreign policy with a credible capacity for military action, I think that step was widely endorsed in both Houses of Parliament only a week ago. It is good to hear that jobs remain Europe's top priority and I hope they still remain a top priority here and we shall not always be carried away with regard to the

1133
percentage or the decimal point of inflation. I think we all know that the common agricultural policy remains a great unsolved problem with which the European Union must continue to battle.
I cannot work up nearly as much passion as the Prime Minister on duty-free sales and I wonder whether that was entirely a wise use of prime ministerial time. However, I may be an exception on that matter, even in your Lordships' House, and therefore I rest my case. As regards tax harmonisation, despite all the excitement that was a dog that did not bark. I welcome the fact that the Statement acknowledges, properly, that there is a place for reform to reduce distortions in the single market. It was necessary and inevitable that certain tax matters should be looked at in the light of the single market and its proper functioning as a level playing field.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House repeated—as it was proper to do—the Government's claim to have transformed Britain's relationships with the rest of the European Union since they took office. There is at least an element of hyperbole in that. I do not doubt that the Government have created good will and optimism and I think that we on these Benches greatly welcome that. However, it is too soon to say whether they have delivered a whole new way of treating Europe, or if they are willing to explain to the nation as a whole exactly the nature of relationships within the European Union. They need to describe the whole negotiating process; that is, that negotiations inevitably involve statements of position, give and take and compromise when 15 nations properly seek to defend their own interests. They need to say also that, whatever the short-term problems may be—and sometimes difficult short-term concessions—the objective must always be the long term and where Britain's long-term interest lies. As we see the matter from these Benches, it lies unequivocally with active participation in the European Union.
My only question is one which I think the noble Baroness would describe as rhetorical. Is not the real choice for any government today between sharing fully in the move towards the development of the European Union, declaring now their intention to participate in the euro at a specific early date—that is one possibility—or effectively to move into a semi-detached position (as Her Majesty's Opposition appear to be doing) with the logic of becoming a lame duck member of the Union or getting out altogether? Will the noble Baroness endorse my view that these are the two historical alternatives which shine through all the detail of the weekend in Vienna?
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions and for their general welcome of the Statement. I accept that the final question of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is largely rhetorical. However, he referred—I think the Statement also reflects this—to a division in understanding on the long-term future of European commitment as between this side of the House and his Benches and those in the main opposition party.
1134
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that underlines the difference of principle. Although I would not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in advocating the immediate, or at least time-limited adoption of the euro, we share his main sentiments and they certainly underline the principles behind much of the Government's attitude to European discussion.
The two noble Lords appear to differ on whether this Statement should have been made at all. As regards the report to Parliament on the informal earlier summit, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I am, of course, aware of the correspondence between his predecessor and myself on this subject. I have taken advice on this matter since the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, raised it at an earlier stage. I understand that it is extremely rare—I believe there has been only one such occasion in the past decade—to report informal summits to Parliament. I believe this is also relevant to the position that the noble Lord adopted on the question of holding another debate on some of these issues in government time. I point out that recently there has been not only your Lordships' debate on the Strategic Defence Review but also a whole day on the debate on the humble Address. Those debates covered many of the subjects. There have been opportunities recently to look at them in general terms and I do not feel that the House has been left uninformed, as discussions have proceeded. I am sure that through the usual channels that situation will continue.
The noble Lord raised specific points about tax harmonisation. As I said in repeating the Statement, the issue did not attract controversy at the summit because it became a matter on which the issues which the noble Lord sought to describe as being of some immediate concern, were not addressed. I quote directly from the conclusions:
"Co-operation in the tax policy area is not aiming at uniform tax rates".
The UK will not support any action at the EU level or anything which does damage to business competitiveness or jobs. There is no question of tax changes being imposed upon the UK. If we consider the taxation proposals which might be in Britain's national economic interests, there are obviously some in which interesting discussions and developments may arise at the EU level. We have long supported action within the G7, the EU and the OECD to combat harmful tax competition. That action will continue.
The noble Lord also raised questions of welfare and employment. Those, too, are matters where agreements at Vienna continued the policies which had been established in the immediately preceding summits. The noble Lord was concerned that the discussion on fraud would only come to fruition later in the year. I hope he agrees that some of the substantive decisions on ways of combating fraud, and the joint activities between the European partners which have led to much more detailed discussion both of the possibilities of investigating fraud within the individual countries and within the European institutions, are to be welcomed. I am sure they will be taken forward with vigour.

1135
In response to the noble Lord's questions, I end by saying that he asked me to define the position of the Government in the long term. I need only repeat that the welfare of the United Kingdom will be vigorously pursued by the Prime Minister and all members of the Government who engage in discussions with the European Union at every possible level. However, we believe that the prosperity and security of this country can be achieved and advanced through the European Union. We see it as part of the mature development of European politics to which we hope all parties agree.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I echo my noble friend's thought that the Statement was excessively long on words and extremely short on acts and decisions. Those will be left to the Council when the Germans take on the presidency at the beginning of this coming year.
I wish to raise two points with the noble Baroness at this stage. The first is on taxation, which the Government's press spokesmen have underplayed almost as ludicrously as some hysterics have overplayed it in the press. After all, no fewer than five separate taxes are on the agenda and were discussed. I wish to ask the noble Baroness about two taxes: those on which directives are being prepared and those which are expected to be agreed by the Helsinki council in six months' time. Have we reached an agreement on the two taxes? I refer to the tax on savings and the tax on interest and royalties.
That apart, I have one short question on which I seek reassurance from my noble friend in regard to the section on external relations. Euro-land, with its euro, will be represented on the IMF and the G7—those major forums. Is it really the case that, as the communiqué states, not only is it desirable for the Community to speak with one voice but that the Community must speak with one voice? Does that mean that Britain's independent voice and vote on the IMF and G7 is now to be brought to an end?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's questions. As to the timetable on specific questions regarding taxation on savings and interest, although, as he rightly said, there is continuing discussion on them, it is only discussion. There has been no agreement to reach a decision at a particular point. There is all still to play for. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the United Kingdom will not support action that will damage business competitiveness or jobs.
On our representation in the international organisations, the UK retains its seat on the IMF and at the G7 and other important bodies which discuss issues in the international forum. We have been successful in obtaining, and we always intended that there should be, an important distinction between those issues which would be considered as relating to the 11 euro members and the wider concerns of the 15. I hope that that reassures my noble friend.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the Leader of the House assist me? I gather that on tax harmonisation the
1136
Council said that the object of the exercise was not to bring about uniform tax rates but to stop, among other things, excessive loss of tax revenue by a country. Did anyone explain when a loss of tax revenue is acceptable and when it becomes excessive? Did the Council say who is to judge whether any loss of tax revenue is excessive and when it is acceptable?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I may be leading the noble Lord astray, but all I can do is to repeat to him the words in the communiqué:
"Co-operation in the tax policy area is not aiming at uniform tax rates and is not inconsistent with fair tax competition but is called for to reduce the continuing distortions in the single market, to prevent excessive losses of tax revenue or to get tax structures to develop in a more employment-friendly way".
I read that because I thought it was the most sensible way to be explicit about the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, referring to what was left out of the report, there was a quite substantial Austrian presidency paper on further development in justice and home affairs, particularly on immigration and asylum. If I understand it correctly, so far there are four European councils calendared for 1999. One of them, in Tampere in October, is to be devoted almost entirely to justice and home affairs. Was that not a subject on which the European Council spent time? If it is to be one of the major issues—and it is already one of the major activities of the European Union—could it be a subject for a government Statement on the British attitude, and perhaps a debate in this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, a debate in this House would obviously be a matter for the usual channels. However, it has a resonance to which many noble Lords would agree.
The position on the action plan on justice and home affairs which was originally proposed by the Austrian presidency did not find agreement. Therefore, it was not discussed in the summit. But there has been a little confusion. I understand that there was also in circulation—and it was widely reported in the British media—a paper called Corpus Juris intended to take forward some of those matters. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, it was simply an academic institution paper and was not designed to reflect any of the positions to be taken either by the UK Government or by the Council of Ministers.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I wish to take up two points with my noble friend. The first is on taxation. Does she accept that any rational Member of your Lordships' House would welcome and support the points made in the Statement? I refer to the aim to reduce harmful distortions, prevent excessive losses of such revenue and encourage employment-friendly tax measures. I hope that the noble Baroness will ignore those who laugh at these matters and accept that there would be no point in arguing with anyone who irrationally disagrees because they are no longer sensible.

1137
On enlargement, will the Minister state that, despite the welcome of the negotiations which have started, there is likely to be a long delay due to the lack of agreement—in particular, on those areas on taxation under CAP—and that those who plead for greater enlargement know that it will not occur at least for a very long time?
Finally, I recognise that there has been no real progress in Vienna. I doubt whether many people expected it. However, do I take the more euro-friendly tone of the Prime Minister to mean that it is now a matter of when we join rather than if we join?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to tread difficult waters as regards his latter point and his invitation to question the rationality of some Members of your Lordships' House in raising points—as I am sure they have always done—perfectly legitimately.
Although I know that there has been some speculation that the enlargement process has run out of steam and was not given an enormous push at Vienna, there are clear understandings behind the Statement and the communiqué that fast progress is expected under the German presidency to maintain the momentum, and that there should be new dynamism in and with those countries which are not yet in the formal negotiating process. Therefore, I do not necessarily agree with his understanding that there has been no progress in that field. I am sure my noble friend would not expect me to respond immediately.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether I can ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House about two highly dubious claims in the Statement. The first is the claim that the EU's employment strategy is beginning to bear fruit, especially through new internal market measures in financial services which are supposed inter alia to increase the availability of risk capital. How do the Government square those claims with the loss of jobs and the damage to our economy which we are starting to suffer in, for example, our international art market and in our mergers and acquisitions industry in the City of London from harmonising EU legislation? If I am wrong about that, and the Statement is honourable in that area, can the Minister assure the House that we are indeed to escape from the effects of the VAT directives, droit de suite, and the takeover directive?
The second claim is at the end of the Statement and is even more absurd, I should have thought. It is to the effect that it would be profoundly damaging for this country to leave Europe. I suppose that it depends what the Government mean by the word "Europe". What do the Government mean by that word? Do they mean the common market, the single market, the Treaty of Rome, or the Europe of nation states? Presumably it is common ground that we do not want to leave the common market. But we would not damage the 15 per cent. of our economy which takes place with the EU if we left the Treaty of Rome. That would be profoundly beneficial to the remaining 85 per cent. of our economy which takes place in the United Kingdom and with the rest of the world.
1138
In short, why would it be disastrous to leave the treaty but to stay in the common market?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. The art market is a specialised area. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond immediately. I shall discover the answer to the points he made on that specialised area and will write to him about the VAT matter.
I simply say that it is in the Statement. Although I realise that there are difficulties in various economic and employment sectors throughout the UK, and in other parts of the EU, nonetheless over 1 million new jobs were created in the EU in the past year and over 250,000 of those were in the UK. The overall rate of EU unemployment has fallen below 10 per cent. for the first time since 1992.
As regards which part of Europe we are discussing, and how we define it, I think that when the Prime Minister, and indeed any Member of the Government, refer to leaving Europe they refer to the European Union.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the Statement referred to the forthcoming entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Can the Minister say when she expects that to be? Have we deposited our instrument of ratification of the treaty? Perhaps I may remind the Government Front Bench that in the course of our debate a few weeks ago on the report of the Select Committee on the Treaty of Schengen I suggested that the Government should make a further communication to Parliament before deposit of our instrument of ratification. I still await a reply to the question that I put twice in that debate, I think to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, not all countries have yet ratified the Treaty of Amsterdam. Therefore, it is not possible to assess an exact date for its overall implementation. I shall follow up the noble Lord's inquiries to my noble friend Lord Whitty. I am sure that he will respond very shortly.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the Minister did not reply to my specific question as to whether we had deposited our instrument of ratification of the treaty.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am advised by my noble friend from the Foreign Office, and as regards my briefing from the Foreign Office, that that has not yet happened.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I might have been able to give a welcome to the Statement that the Government believe that we are on the road to an open and decentralised Europe if I could believe that to be true. However, is it not true that the Statement is centralist; and is not Europe going in the direction of a centralised, closed and secretive European Union rather than the reverse?

1139
I ask the Minister one question on the rebate. Is it not incongruous that countries such as Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland should be demanding an end to the British rebate while at the same time holding out their begging bowls for even more money than they already receive? Is it not a fact that after the rebate this country is still paying £2.6 billion net? Can I have the assurance that under all circumstances the Prime Minister will resist the ending of our rebate or any diminution of it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will not expect me to agree with the general sentiments he expressed at the beginning of his intervention.
Although my noble friend may be referring to statements reported by the media in the countries he mentioned, there was no formal discussion of the rebate during the Vienna Summit. Therefore, the Prime Minister's strong position on maintaining the UK's determination to continue that rebate stands.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, while welcoming the desire of the European Union to assist the Russian Federation through its severe difficulties, many of which have been self inflicted, will the Council bear in mind that the smaller nations of central Europe, such as Latvia and Lithuania, have not yet been invited to start negotiations? Will we ensure that the technical aid which goes to the Russian Federation is matched by the technical aid to those two nations whose environment has been severely affected by the Russian Federation and its predecessor, the Soviet Union?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for again raising the question of those particular countries. I hope he will have taken the point from one of my previous responses that, following the Vienna Summit, it is hoped that during the German presidency there will be an acceleration of discussions with those countries who have not yet entered into formal negotiating positions so that the dialogue can be continued in a productive way. As to aid, the Vienna Summit had a particular concern to ensure that some of the difficulties in previous years, when aid had been given to Russia and there was doubt about where it had ended up, should not be repeated. There have been some very important discussions as to how aid should be distributed. In regard to the absolute amounts being matched as between Russia and other countries, I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Earl that assurance.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the Leader of the House will be aware that her right honourable friend the Prime Minister has blamed the press for some of the anxieties that are being expressed about events within the European Union. Does she agree that it is enormously important for the press to report in full, to an even greater extent than it does at present, statements made by leading figures in continental countries? That, incidentally, would help to explain the point, made by
1140
the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that there is a discrepancy in the views on whether it is desirable that enlargement should be a first priority of the European Union.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, perhaps I may correct one earlier comment. I am delighted to announce that my noble friend Lady Symons has confirmed that we have now formally ratified the Treaty of Amsterdam, although this has not brought it into being. I apologise to the House for my earlier incorrect statement.
To come to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on the position of the newspapers, it is important to encourage open debate on all of these subjects, and that point has been made, but that is very different from the simple assertion of facts that are incorrect. Some of the assertions in the past few weeks in the British media about the supposed discussion on tax harmonisation have not assisted mature general debate, which I am sure the noble Lord wants to see developed. I refer to the comments in yesterday's Observer by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He dismissed discussion of some of the issues about tax harmonisation as hysteria and farce. It is not simply those on this side of the House who believe that some of the discussion has been distorted. The noble Lord is right that there should be open discussion, but I hope that the debate on enlargement will be more factually informed than some of the recent discussion on tax harmonisation.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
5.13 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the four speeches that noble Lords have heard so far have been quite outstanding. I shall now put an end to all that. The speech delivered by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor outlining the purposes of the Bill was inspired by very careful thought. If I disagree with my noble and learned friend in some respects it does not indicate any criticism of the overwhelming purpose that he set out at the beginning of his speech. I urge my noble and learned friend to consider very carefully the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, that the principles that he enunciated should be set out on the face of the Bill. That is an answer to some of the criticisms made about the exercise of his powers, which, as he will be aware, figure very substantially in a number of the briefings that have been issued to noble Lords prior to today's debate.
I declare one or two interests. First, I am a solicitor. Secondly, with my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and Lord Archer of Sandwell, I am joint president of the Society of Labour Lawyers. My noble and learned friend has played a notable part in that society in seeking to advance the cause of law reform for very many years. The society is soon to celebrate its

1141
50th anniversary. Thirdly, for many years I was involved in running a solicitor's practice in a working class area of London. Indeed, like my noble friend Lord Mishcon, with whom I was an articled clerk, I did precisely that kind of work. Not only did I undertake a large volume of legal aid work but I believe that I worked overwhelmingly in the interests of ordinary people who desperately relied upon that form of work.
My practice was in east London. I have not been connected with it for about 20 years. However, such practices certainly cannot be regarded as being of the "fat cat" variety; they are the "lean cats" of the profession. They undertake work that provides access to justice for thousands upon thousands of people who would otherwise have little or no advice when needing it and little opportunity to obtain redress in the courts. While others have chosen more lucrative practices, as they are entitled to do, many outstanding lawyers have chosen to dedicate their lives to an area of the law that does not provide them with a very adequate living. It is right to pay tribute to those who have decided to devote themselves to this area of the law. I hope that nothing that we do will deflect young lawyers who come into the profession from their determination to provide exactly the same kind of devotion to service in the cause of justice. We must be very careful about the way in which we proceed as far as concerns this Bill lest we endanger that prospect.
Although I no longer practise in this area of the law, I understand that there has been virtually no increase in fees for the past four years, even taking into account inflation. Partners in those firms are responsible personally for the debts of the practice. They are not able to form limited companies and they are usually very substantially under-capitalised. I am not sure that that background is always perceived by the public outside.
Having said that, I agree with the objectives outlined by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is necessary to review the present system of legal aid, to identify and reduce excessive cost in the system, to reduce delays, and to deliver even greater access to justice. In parenthesis, in calculating the costs one does not often see a reference to the recovery of costs from defendants, particularly in personal injury cases, and the recovery of very substantial sums of money that go back to the Department of Health and Social Security as a result of the claims made.
While I support many of the proposals in the Bill I have serious anxieties about others. I propose to concentrate on my anxieties in the hope that they may be allayed by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer in his reply, or, more particularly, during later stages of the Bill.
The replacement of the present position of all solicitors providing legal aid if they wish by a system of contracts between quality assured solicitors and the new legal services commission is a substantial change. It is obviously right that we should concentrate on providing efficient legal aid services. I do not accept any suggestion that the majority of the legal profession providing these services do not operate efficiently. From
1142
the many years of practice I had, I would say that the contrary is true. Of course there are some who fail to live up to the necessary standards. That applies in all professions and, of course, the legal profession is not immune. What I do ask is: why should all firms, having attained the standards of competence established by the Government's own criteria and having obtained a franchise, not be entitled to a contract in relation to those areas of the law to which their franchise applies? Is it to be the case that only firms with family, mental health or immigration franchises are to be eligible for a contract? What about those involved in social welfare law, housing, employment, welfare benefits and so on? I do sense a degree of inconsistency; perhaps I am wrong in coming to that conclusion. If so, I hope that my noble and learned friend will put me right.
Presumably the Government's response in part is that these matters can be dealt with virtually exclusively by agencies. I admire the work of most of these agencies but in my own experience I have come across quite serious instances where there has been a failure to provide proper legal advice, for example, in housing cases by citizens advice bureaux, or in cases involving notice to quit which used to be a matter of profound complexity and possibly still are. These are areas where a good degree of legal expertise is required, yet I found that on a number of occasions this simply was not forthcoming and the damage done was often irrecoverable. Perhaps this is not too serious a matter but I think it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on the work that can be done by agencies rather than by lawyers. There needs to be a blend between the two. Indeed, I believe that was a point made by my noble and learned friend at the very outset.
Undoubtedly, the number of firms doing work subject to the contract is going to be massively reduced—according to the figures, by something like 4,500 to 5,500. What are to be the consequences of that in the shorter term? Perhaps a situation will emerge whereby mergers will take place, but that takes time. I hope that in the meantime people who are vulnerable will not be exposed too suddenly to the changes that are going to take place. Time is needed for the situation to settle down.
Is there not also the risk of clients who are perceived to be more difficult to deal with and who take up a greater part of the solicitor's time being placed in some jeopardy? I give as an example the inarticulate. I well recall having to deal with, and trying to understand, for over a year someone who suffered from the most terrible speech impediment. It took a great deal of time trying to see the points he was attempting to make. Usually I had to ask him to write them down. But that was not very easy either. Would such a person fail to receive the advice to which he ought to be entitled?
Is there likely to be a caseload maximum imposed and, if so, are any overflow arrangements contemplated? All these are matters to which we will turn in the course of discussion in Committee and afterwards. I hope that they will be taken on board.
I turn to the question of the community legal service. It is of course important to enable the Government to give priority to legal services and to ensure that they are

1143
properly focused as envisaged in the White Paper and the Bill. But why is a discretionary system needed to replace the current objective test of entitlement? Evidently it is connected with the capping of the community legal service budget. I wonder whether that is a correct conclusion.
As far as criminal defence services are concerned, the majority of publicly funded services of this kind will also operate by way of a contract with private practices. I do not have any great problem with that, but the argument that in setting an appropriate fee practitioners must take the rough with the smooth may not always be the correct way of looking at matters. It could have damaging and unsettling consequences. In a complex criminal case those who practise in this field would agree that totally unforeseen situations can occur; for example, the critical need to employ a forensic expert which one may not have foreseen at an earlier stage of the case. Would it not be wholly inequitable if that cost were to fall directly on the solicitor involved? Should there not be a provision, therefore, that disbursements of this category should be separately accounted for and that perhaps the test should be determined by the trial judge in pre-trial directions or at some other stage during the case when the issue arises?
The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice put in a much broader perspective the issue of the Lord Chancellor's powers. I would very much appreciate hearing from my noble friend Lord Falconer his response to the great deal of criticism that has emerged.
I have one or two miscellaneous points. On the question of conditional fees I am not at all sure that sufficient research has been done. I am not sure that research has been done into the question of insurance, which was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not think that conditional fees can be applied successfully in the wide variety of cases in which my noble and learned friend seeks to put them. It reminds me of the memorable statement by Dan Quayle, the former American Vice-President, that if you do not succeed you run the risk of failure. I do not know how in some cases, for instance, matrimonial cases, a solicitor can be expected to undertake this aspect. I may be wrong, but how attractive is all this to the insurers themselves? What research has been done to enable us to come to satisfactory conclusions? Although it is true that insurance premiums are recoverable under Clause 28, they have to be paid for in the first place. As I understand it, they could be very heavy indeed. An inability to pay the premium could have the most dramatic and serious consequences for a litigant. We are talking about the lower income groups and the most vulnerable. What happens to them in that situation?
My noble and learned friend has certainly tried extremely hard to come to the right conclusions. Having said that I do feel that we need to look at this matter, reflect on it with great care, and not impose the system too rapidly. While some of the criticisms that I have read are, I believe, misplaced, in particular, about the criminal defence service and its lack of independence—I do not think it will work out that way—nevertheless, perception is all important in relation to litigants.
1144
I hope that the objectives which my noble and learned friend has outlined will be fulfilled. Above all, I hope that none of this will divert young people who wish to devote themselves to the less well paid parts of the profession from coming into it because without them the service which the profession can offer to the most vulnerable in society will be seriously impaired.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this is a large and timely Bill and one which is particularly suited to begin its passage through Parliament in this House. I shall confine my remarks to one aspect only; that is, the establishment of a criminal defence service for the stated purpose of:
"protecting the interests of individuals involved in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings".
That is in Clause 12 of the Bill and although it falls short of a statutory duty, nevertheless, it is welcome as a statement of intent.
A comprehensive defence service is a completely new concept hitherto unknown in our criminal process. It is also something of a surprise. It does not appear to have been the subject of any prior consultation with the professional bodies whose co-operation will be critical to its success. In a letter published in The Times on 5th December, the Chairman of the Bar Council, Heather Hallett, Q.C. said:
"The White Paper boasts that its proposals are based on substantial consultation. Yet, the first we knew of the establishment of this new service, replacing the criminal legal aid system and with powers to represent a defendant from arrest to trial, was when the White Paper was published on December 2nd".
That was the same date on which the Bill was introduced for the first time in your Lordships' House.
Why was that? Was it because of a shortage of time? Was it a last-minute decision? Was it, perhaps, fear of allowing time for opposition to intensify? Yet other parts of the Bill, some of them highly controversial, such as those regarding the rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation, had been published in advance, and there had been a discussion paper available before the Bill was published. So why was not the same done in the case of the proposed criminal defence service?
In his opening speech the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that he did not envisage a move towards a criminal defence service staffed wholly by salaried employed lawyers. He added that this statement was intended to reassure those who doubted whether employed lawyers can be genuinely independent. That doubt has already been forcefully expressed in the debate this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who objected to anything approaching a public defender service, citing as his reasons a lack of independence and American experience.
Let us pause for a moment and consider the implications of those two criticisms. They will be made again in the course of the debates we shall be having over the next few weeks on the Bill, and they will be made—indeed they have been made—outside the House.

1145
As to independence, we have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, speak earlier this afternoon. The construction of his speech was of such subtlety that I may not have caught every nuance, but I doubt that I am the only person in the House to be left with a clear impression that he did not share all the "apprehensions" (the word he used) which some senior members of the judiciary have expressed. It may be that we shall hear more of them in the debate this afternoon, particularly as regards rights of audience.
We look forward also with particular interest to the speech which we shall hear shortly from the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. Earlier in his very distinguished career, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, had some experience of working as an employed lawyer in the armed services. I hope that I reveal no breach of confidence in disclosing this to the House. I do so only because we can be quite certain that any case with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was concerned as an employed lawyer would not have suffered from any restraint whatever as regards the independent judgment which he brought to bear.
Next, I turn to the American experience. Over a period of years, I have had an opportunity to make a thorough study of the system of criminal justice in America and have been able to publish on that subject. I have learnt that although there are many outward similarities, the actual operation of the system of justice, and the forces which motivate it, are very different from what we know in this country. And so it is with public defenders. They vary in quality from state to state and between state and federal jurisdictions, from the very best to the very worst. Moreover there are two factors in the American practice which make any comparison invalid. The first is the existence of capital punishment and the handling of capital cases—prisoners held on death row—over a period which may be up to 10 years or more while challenges are made by way of habeas corpus applications before the courts. The second is the power of the prosecution to plea bargain. That is certainly something that we should avoid at all costs. Neither of those factors apply in this country.
It is for those reasons that I am sceptical about the claims made about lack of independence and the relevance of American experience. Consequently I do not share the hostility towards the Government's proposals that in future all qualified lawyers should have full rights of audience before any court, subject only to meeting reasonable training requirements. Indeed, it seems to me that the new defence service could be developed in such a way as to widen opportunities for that parity of advocacy skills found most often, although not exclusively, at the Bar. I add that comment in the presence of some distinguished solicitors. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in particular has the respect of the whole House. We can all agree that such skills are the key ingredients of an adversarial criminal trial.
Of course, it is likely that money as well as professional competence will bear on the fairness of the criminal process. The White Paper envisages that most of the criminal defence service work will be done by
1146
solicitors. I note that Clause 17(1) provides that the overall expenditure is not to be cash limited. That is an important provision. In the majority of routine criminal cases it will be for the solicitor to decide whether to retain the services of a barrister. When he does, the barrister will be paid out of money received under a contract negotiated with the Legal Services Commission.
There must be a risk in that arrangement. In some cases, even if they are only on the borderline, an experienced professional advocate might be desirable but the solicitor administering the contract may be tempted towards a cheaper alternative. Such a result might be regarded as a legitimate response to market pressures, but would it conform to the requirements of justice?
I repeat that although there are critical arguments to be advanced against a number of features of the Bill, it seems to me to offer a solution to the long-standing problems of finding a way to curtail the apparently open-ended demand on public resources with which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern had to grapple for so long.
The requirements of efficiency and value for money must not be allowed to take precedence over the interests of justice. Where clashes arise, as they will, who will reconcile them? I see a role for a strong director of the new service, supported by a staff of talented, public spirited employed lawyers. The core group of salaried defenders might be located in the same areas as the reformed and, we must hope, strengthened Crown Prosecution Service and establish similar links with the police and other agencies.
I have seen what can be done by inspired leadership in setting up new institutions which fulfil the highest ideals of public service. Since Lord Hunt died so recently, perhaps I might be allowed to mention his name as a shining example. He was the conqueror of Everest and the founder chairman of the Parole Board. If handled with skill and imagination—such qualities exist in Whitehall, although they are sometimes submerged—the new criminal defence service offers an opportunity to take a decisive step forward in the administration of justice. It could be, and it ought to be, treated as a counterweight to a reorganised Crown Prosecution Service.
In conclusion—and I pick up something mentioned twice by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; once at the beginning of his speech and once at the end—as more and more young people are attracted to careers in the law this could be an opportunity to recruit some of the most adventurous and idealistic of them to take an active part in the creation of a brand new public service in which they, and we, could all take pride.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation as I am not a lawyer. I am a potential consumer of such services and will not make a lawyer's speech. However, I believe in the law, in particular that access to the law and to justice is too important to be left to lawyers. That is why I am speaking briefly in this debate.

1147
I also believe that, for the wider community, the most exciting and radical step in the Bill, and the step which will promote real and improved access to justice for that wider community, is the community legal service. It will bring access to justice to many disadvantaged people who at present have legal rights in theory but cannot exercise those rights in reality.
During the last election, I worked for the Labour Party. I worked for the introduction of a community legal service as part of its manifesto commitment and I look forward to its implementation. I know that arguing for manifesto commitments in your Lordships' House can be a sensitive issue, but I hope that on this occasion we have an issue for which we can have majority approval.
I recognise that many individuals and organisations do their best to help disadvantaged people to assert their legal rights whether in the field of housing, employment, immigration, welfare or complaints against their local authorities. There are individual lawyers, citizens advice bureaux, advice centres and law centres all making an important contribution. However, not only is there a shortage of funds available to meet those needs, but there is a clear lack of co-ordination among the organisations which are doing their best to assist.
Moreover, the provision of legal services is itself fragmented. In some parts of the country there are solicitors who specialise in welfare law as well as high quality advice centres. But in other parts of the country there is a serious shortage. They are well described by some as legal advice deserts where there is nothing for those in greatest need.
It is surely wrong that in 1998 there are still huge gaps in our legal provision. It is wrong that in our developed democracy, in which we are all supposed to live equal under the law, large numbers of our fellow citizens are not in practical terms able to assert their basic rights under the law.
I support the Government's intention to put that right and to adjust the legal aid system so that more public resources can be moved to assist those who so far have suffered from little or in some cases no access to justice.
In an important way, the introduction of the community legal service is part of the Government's plan to modernise the welfare state. For too long, the most disadvantaged of our fellow citizens have fallen behind the rest of us, whether that be in terms of income, life style, housing or general quality of life. That also applies to a right to assert their legal rights. The Government are determined to change that and I welcome the Bill as a significant step in making Britain a more genuinely equal country.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as a lawyer no longer in practice—I know nothing about the criminal procedures of the living law—I am firmly of the view that octogenarian legal eagles should fold their wings and settle back in their nests, well feathered or not, unless a real matter of principle arises to which perhaps their long experience might contribute.
1148
In the Bill, I see three such principles arising. There is very much in the Bill to admire, and "access to justice" is an inspirational title. For one who practised at the criminal courts and met a larger cross-section of the general public probably than in any other form of court, it has always been my aim that access to the best should be available for the least favoured and the most stressed. Indeed, during those many years, what a long way we have come from the dock brief and what we use to call the PPD—the poor person's defence.
However, I must say to the noble and learned Lord that in his emersion in the intellectual stratosphere of the human rights jurisprudence he seems to have lost sight a little of the mundane area where human rights are mainly abused, which is in the criminal courts. I recognise that he is a Lord Chancellor in a hurry. Indeed, the way in which he presented the case exhibited that. However, Exhibit 31—Clause 31—extends the present limited rights of audience of state employees, prosecutors for the CPS and government departments to the higher courts for judge and jury trials.
I speak as a practitioner in those courts. I believe I am the first person in this debate to speak in that capacity. There has been a great deal of talk of what goes on in those courts from persons—I say this with the greatest of respect—who have never, ever conducted a prosecution or a defence in a magistrates' court or in a Crown Court.
My opinion is that it is of fundamental importance that prosecutions in those courts should be in the hands of advocates who are wholly independent of the police, the state and any prosecuting authority and should appear to be so. That is an essential protection of the preservation of the rule of law and our freedoms under a democracy.
Such prosecutors should not be perceived as promoting the interests of the state. They should not be appointed and paid as civil servants working daily, as they must, in the closest co-operation with the police, subject to all of the pressures of that involvement, the pressures of preferment, of success rates, of performance related pay, where the only yardstick of success is the number of convictions obtained and the throughput of cases. That is not what the public want, whether as jurymen, witnesses or defendants, particularly those who are pressured by an ever-powerful state.
I must say that I was somewhat astonished when the noble and learned Lord said that there is no rational reason why employed prosecutors who operate in magistrates' courts should not do the same in higher courts. Of course, 96 per cent. of crime is tried in the lower courts. Thousands and thousands of trivial motoring offences, including speeding offences, are tried there. We are talking about the 3 or 4 per cent. of cases to be tried in the Crown Courts, before a judge and jury: cases which involve long terms of imprisonment; cases which affect for ever the reputation of members of the public; and cases involving enormously important points of law which arise from day to day and affect the freedom of the individual. Advocacy in those courts has nothing whatever to do

1149
with advocacy in magistrates' courts. An appeal from a magistrates' court trial is a retrial, a safeguard, whereas an appeal from the Crown Court is allowed only on special grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Following Clause 31, of course, we have Clause 32. As the independence of the prosecutor is swept away, there emerges—10 days ago—predictably undiscussed, without warning to the public or to the profession, what I would call the sinister figure of the salaried state defender, paid, selected and controlled by the state. That fine warrior is to be sent out to do battle on the field of liberty and human rights, with his opposite number, his local colleague in arms, the salaried state prosecutor—an all-state contest. As many others have long predicted, introduce a state prosecutor and the state defender follows as night follows day—the dark night of dependence and control, the other side of the coin.
What next? Instead of the interests of justice being paramount, the culture of negotiated justice will prevail. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, plea bargaining behind closed doors will arise. Plea bargaining already exists, but not behind closed doors. However, there will be plea bargaining behind closed doors, pressures to abort trials, cosy relationships between prosecution and defence to maintain the conviction count and the volume of cases and to minimise the cost. That cosiness will soon extend to the court itself, which will be anxious to rid itself of the stubborn and determined advocate who wastes the judge's time.
We shall see a system—this is not far-fetched—of salaried prosecutors under the control of the DPP, supervised by the Attorney-General, defendants directed to the public defender's department and the rules governing the conduct and procedures of the advocates in court regulated under Schedule 5 of the Bill by the Lord Chancellor of the day.
That is the picture. The one thing that matters for the freedom of the individual and human rights in this country is the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the advocate. With the greatest of respect, and a modicum of dismay, I must advise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, at first sight, the new consultative panel, appointed entirely by himself and acting within the terms of Schedule 5, looks to me more like a consultative poodle than a consultative panel.
In this country it is the tradition that prosecutors do not press. They present the evidence as ministers of justice. They have to disclose matters favourable to the defence. They must exercise independent and objective judgment in the interests of justice alone. By definition, and with no disparagement or personal attack upon them, employed prosecutors cannot be, nor perceived to be, independent. No code of practice could alter that. There must be conflicts of interest between duty to the court and duty to the employer. There must be pressures from above, overwhelmingly from the police. There must be a personal interest in the outcome. Success rates affect preferment and are all-important. From time to time, the Serious Fraud Office announces proudly its
1150
percentage of success. A young man in my Chambers who announced a percentage of success in prosecutions would have his knuckles severely rapped.
State prosecutors never defend. They lack the essential balance and experience that that work brings and therefore disqualify themselves from preferment to the Bench.
The Glidewell Report on the CPS suggests joint units between prosecutors and the police, to be set up in police stations, to facilitate the charging of members of the public. Is that what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described as "objectivity" and "independence"?
All that can be illustrated by a short look at the Matrix Churchill trial, the subject matter of the Scott Report, which we debated in this House not very long ago. Your Lordships will remember that the managing director of a company was charged with making false statements in licence applications to export goods for military use in Iraq. The Attorney-General forced Ministers, who knew quite well what was going on, to issue public interest immunity certificates to prevent disclosure of documents which would establish the defendant's innocence. Prosecuting counsel was instructed by the DPP to urge the judge to uphold those certificates and to prevent disclosure. Counsel for the defence blew open the duplicity of Ministers in that case. Counsel for the prosecution (who, I am glad to say, is now a High Court judge) despite pressure from the Attorney-General and from the Director of Public Prosecutions, exercised his own independent judgment and, as Scott found, entirely properly abandoned the prosecution and the case in the interests of justice. Had those advocates been paid by the state—been civil servants—do we really think that the outcome would have been the same?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that advocates should be chosen for their skill and not because they belong to one part of the profession. Surely that is tautology. Are not specialist surgeons and neurologists part of the medical profession?
The noble and learned Lord also says that he is disappointed that only 1 per cent. of solicitors have become advocates since 1990 and that barristers still maintain their monopoly. Again, do not surgeons, air pilots and engineers have monopolies also, which are fiercely controlled so that the public can be sure that they are properly and sufficiently qualified? That 1 per cent. is obviously explicable. Advocacy is an extremely difficult and prolonged line of learning, taking years and involving heavy responsibilities. No one man can prepare cases and then present them in court. Advocacy is a full-time job. Advocacy cannot be put on like a hat or a wig. Solicitors, who have heavy work to do in their offices, do not want to become advocates—full-time, independent persons presenting cases in court. All professions must have restrictive rules to guarantee competence and reliability. Those rules are not facilely to be described as "restrictive practices".
In his White Paper, The Way Ahead, the Lord Chancellor states in the foreword:
"There are no 'no go areas' in the Government's determination to modernise our country".

1151
Those words seems to echo the memorable statement of a previous great Labour lawyer, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who in earlier days said, "We are the masters now". I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, once more with the greatest of respect, that possibly he is mistaken. Jury trial, the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the advocate are areas where politicians should fear to tread. They are three pillars of our democracy—and they should not be undermined or tampered with.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much welcome the Second Reading of this Access to Justice Bill and I am glad of the opportunity to reiterate the words of appreciation of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to all those—and there are many of them—who bring such commitment, integrity and sheer hard work to the British legal profession.
As a non-legal person, a novice, speaking in such a debate, while preparing for it I looked up "law" in the Penguin Dictionary of Humorous Quotations, and I saw that the writer John Mortimer was quoted as saying that no brilliance is needed in the law; that nothing is needed but common sense and relatively clean fingernails. I have the clean fingernails, but that is about it.
Although not pretending to possess in any measure the skills and qualifications of my legal friends and colleagues in this debate, I have had 15 years' experience of representing Birmingham people as their local Member of the European Parliament. Because of that experience, I know that real access to justice is at the heart of people's drive for dignity and respect, and that, as my noble friend Lord Sawyer said, it is fundamental to a healthy democratic society. I know, because I have been made aware of it by my constituents, that so many people feel intimidated and insecure in seeking justice. I know that what might seem a simple procedure to many of us, of finding the right legal advice or walking into a solicitor's office, is a chasm of complexity, bewilderment and doubt for so many people. I know that, although some have no problem in knowing—and, indeed, in working—the system for very many others, the system, as it is, is failing them. In many ways, this Bill represents a long-overdue reform and modernisation which, at its best, will be a liberating force for millions.
Although the Bill's contents include reform of the funding of legal services, rights of audience, appeals, magistrates' courts, the civil courts and the criminal courts, I shall concentrate on that aspect of the Bill which covers the community legal service.
On 2nd December, in announcing the publication of the White Paper, Modernising Justice, the Lord Chancellor introduced the new legal services commission to oversee two new services: the community legal service and the criminal defence service, and to take over the £1.6 billion annual spending on legal aid. As we know, the commission will
1152
replace the Legal Aid Board. In that announcement, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine, stated that:
"A Legal Services Commission will enable us to focus legal aid money on the people who most need help and get real value for money for the taxpayer. With the Community Legal Service—for the first time—we will be able to assess the grassroots legal needs in our communities and develop the services people really want".
The Lord Chancellor went on to say,
"We will be able to put money into innovative, alternative ways of resolving disputes. Going to court is not always the best answer".
At its best, I believe that the community legal service will open up access to justice to many more communities than is the case at present. I welcome the fact that such access to justice will be delivered through a new, cohesive network of service providers of consistently measurable high quality. Those seeking legal advice for their difficulties should now find the most appropriate help that they need.
The community legal service will not, of course, begin life in a vacuum, but will find partners in other existing funders of advice and information services in order to create a local, regional and national map of provision where priority needs are accurately pinpointed, and where common criteria are quality assured. These aspects of the Bill are very much welcomed by groups such as the National Consumer Council. The possibilities that the new community legal service offers for new ways of assessing cases is particularly exciting and should offer a much higher quality of choice to consumers and act as a downward pressure on consumer costs, which has to be welcomed.
I understand that the implementation of the community legal service is to be piloted in five local authority areas from January 1999. I know that that experience will be invaluable in assessing how best to partner existing CABs, law centres and advice centres within the new framework of the Bill.
As a non-lawyer, I was hesitant to take part in this debate today alongside such able legal practitioners as my friends and colleagues. I am reminded, in my audacity to take part, of the time many years ago when I rang my mother to tell her that I had agreed to become treasurer of my local Labour Party branch. Her immediate reaction was, "Oh! Christine, why did you do a thing like that; the Labour Party has always been very good to you".
However, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the Access to Justice Bill as a very important part of this Government's mission to make justice open, inclusive and equitable. There is a film starring Paul Newman called "The Verdict"—it was made in his later period—in which he plays a lawyer fighting a seemingly hopeless case. At one point he talks about the justice system in which he works. He concludes that that system does not actually provide justice, but provides only the chance of justice. This Bill could offer to a great many people the chance of justice, which they have been unable to grasp until now.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I follow the elegant words to which noble Lords have just been listening, conscious

1153
that it was my intention to focus not on some of the issues which have inspired such heat in the debate so far, but to deal with the assistance that this Bill gives to the general programme of civil justice reform which is taking place in this country at the present time. However, in deference to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, perhaps I may at least make this clear. As regards the general aspects of the Bill to which I have just referred, I am conscious, as is the Lord Chief Justice, that very many members of the senior judiciary have very great concerns. However, like the Lord Chief Justice, I do not share those concerns to the same degree.
In particular, as regards rights of audience, with which this Bill deals, I am conscious that it does so in two ways. It makes specific proposals concerning employed lawyers and extends rights of audience as regards employed lawyers. On that subject, although I have been a designated judge for a shorter period than the Lord Chief Justice, I am totally convinced that the present machinery for dealing with rights of audience of that kind is inappropriate. The result of the present procedures produces only stalemate. I am quite convinced that the time has now come when this very important subject should be discussed by Parliament and it should reach a decision on it.
The arguments which can be advanced are finely balanced. There are dangers which one anticipates if one has grown up, as I have, in the law and for a time both prosecuted and defended criminal cases. One knows how important is independence. But as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicated, during my national service I had an opportunity for a very short period to see how professional, employed prosecutors appeared before courts martial and showed the independence which I regard as absolutely critical, notwithstanding the fact that they were serving officers and did not have the support that any independent member of the Bar has when faced with difficulties in knowing that he does not have only one source of work.
If Parliament takes a decision about the role of the employed lawyer, then it seems to me that much of the difficulty goes out of the whole subject of rights of audience because the question of whether employed lawyers should have rights of audience is the solely important subject which yet remains for determination. Of course, there will be specialist bodies who will seek rights of audience, but they are not going to create the same issues as the question of employed prosecutors and defenders do. Equally, I venture to suggest that in the civil field the use of employed lawyers does not raise the same acute concerns which arise in the criminal field.
That being so, it seems to me that the proposals contained in the Bill requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult and then to proceed by way of statutory instrument, subject to the affirmative process, provide the only appropriate safeguards that are needed. I have heard of no alternative which would be more satisfactory. I saw a handout from the Law Society on the subject and a suggestion that perhaps it should be a task for the Master of the Rolls to perform. I am flattered by the suggestion, but I do not believe that that is practical. As the Lord Chief Justice said, it is part of
1154
the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor in our constitutional framework and he must take that responsibility.
Turning away from that high ground to more modest proposals contained in the Bill, I particularly welcome the proposals made in relation to the Court of Appeal for which I am responsible. As to these proposals, there was the required consultation. I am glad to say that the concerns which were expressed by members of the Court of Appeal have been taken into account in the proposals which are now made.
The proposals are designed to achieve greater flexibility in the use of judicial resources and also to achieve more sensible and proportionate appellate tracks for appeals; they are needed. The Court of Appeal will have to face additional work of considerable proportions as a result of the proposed civil procedure reforms which come into force next April. In addition, there will be the impact of human rights as a result of the Human Rights Act. We are fortunate in the calibre of the judiciary in the Court of Appeal, but the latter cannot be made more effective merely by increasing the number of judges. That being so, we have to find ways of dealing with cases which are proportionate to the issues involved.
It is most important that those who have small cases which are not complex not only have a proper form of trial at the first instance but also have an appropriate form of trial on appeal. In many situations, what is needed is a form of local review at a local court rather than those cases having to come, as at present, to London. The reforms contained in Part IV of the Bill are designed to give the necessary flexibility.
Another small reform which is included in the Bill is one to which I attach importance; namely, the question of conditional fees. At present, conditional fees are providing a means of obtaining access to justice in a small range of cases, which was not available before their introduction. Conditional fees are not a panacea; someone has to pay the uplift involved in using conditional fees. Someone also has to meet the insurance premiums involved.
One of the problems faced by those who bring proceedings within the area now covered by conditional fees is that, all too often, defendants—and by "defendants" I want to make it clear that I am really referring to insurers—do not dispose of those cases as early as they should. As a result, considerable distress is caused to members of the public who often have to wait substantial periods of time before their litigation is concluded. In many cases the latter is concluded on the day that the case is listed before a court when, for the first time, a sensible offer is made.
The proposal that those who have to resort to a conditional fee in order to have the benefit of legal representation should be able to recover the uplift and also the insurance premium must surely be a just and sensible suggestion. It is my belief that it would help to bring about a change in the culture which we would like to see; namely, that when claims are put forward they are disposed of much more rapidly, much more sensibly and, indeed, much more appropriately than they are now.

1155
There are other matters in the Bill to which I attach importance. Here I particularly refer to the legal services commission. I endorse most strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said on that subject. If we are to have a service provided by the civil courts which meets the needs of the public, it is very important that the public should be able to obtain the representation which they need. Alas, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out in his introduction to the Bill, legal aid is reaching fewer people at greater expense. That process cannot continue; we have to find other methods. It seems to me that a new body, such as that proposed, should be able to take initiatives which will achieve greater availability of the necessary legal advice for those who are in need in a better way than is possible under the rather rigid structures provided by legal aid at present. There is a great need for the use of new technology and there is a great need for the unbundling of legal services so that those who want to receive the benefit of legal advice can receive it in a way which they can afford and, if they cannot afford it, in a way which can be provided by the state.
When the Human Rights Act comes into force it will be of little value if it is not able to be used by the public at large. It is no use having rights if you are not in a position to enforce them. Reference has already been made to the need for an independent fund to allow public interest cases to be advanced. I very much hope that the legal services commission will be in a position in due course to take that matter forward. It is perhaps one of the shortcomings of the Human Rights Act that it does not make provision for a human rights commissioner, although that shortcoming could be met if in fact the legal services commission can do what is necessary.
However, in regard to the legal services commission, I must confess that I do have concerns that there should be an unrestricted power on the Lord Chancellor to give directions. For other aspects of the Bill, it seems to me that he has put in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure that there is a required process of consultation and that that consultation will take place in a way which will enable the Lord Chancellor's decision to be scrutinised. Whereas I could understand that the Lord Chancellor should have power to give directions to the Legal Aid Board, I urge that reconsideration should be given as to his ability to give directions without first undergoing a process of consultation to the legal services commission. I believe that that commission has a wider power than that enjoyed by the board which it will replace.
As I see this Bill as being one which takes forward the general thrust of the reforms to the justice system that we all wish to see, I commend it to your Lordships. I recognise that there are matters of detail which require improvement. However, I am sure that great care will be taken in Committee to examine each of the provisions contained in the Bill. But, in general, I hope that the Bill is one which will commend itself to your Lordships.
In regard to the detail of the Bill, I cannot resist pointing out to noble Lords that I am conscious of my historic relationship with the solicitors' side of the
1156
profession as Master of the Rolls. I am therefore rather surprised to see that Schedule 6 provides that, if after consulting the designated judges—of whom I am one—the Lord Chancellor decides to disregard their advice, I am deemed to consent to what he is proposing. I do not feel that that is perhaps the appropriate treatment of my role in relation to the solicitor side of the profession.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is right when he says that access to justice is one of the measures of a true democracy. A high quality legal service, available to all, is essential. I therefore support the principle behind the Bill of creating a more coherent system for the funding and delivery of legal services. The creation of the legal aid system was one of the great achievements of the post-war Labour Government, but the present legal aid system has not always been able to deliver a service of consistently high quality, nor has it been able to control escalating costs. The time is right to reconsider legal provision and its funding. Like others, I am very happy to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has listened to those of us who were concerned that conditional fees may not work out as planned, particularly with regard to the poorest plaintiffs, and that he intends taking reserve powers to create a contingency legal aid fund to make up for any failures in the new system. I am also pleased to see that he has recognised the need to protect public interest work. I am also delighted to see the steps that he has taken to provide greater coherence in the services to the community through the community legal service.
However, I, too, have some concerns and queries about this Bill. First, I am concerned that, in seeking to drive down costs, quality will be sacrificed. There is clearly a potential conflict between the objectives of cost control and quality. I regret that the emphasis in the Bill appears to be on the first. For example, in paragraph 3.18 of the White Paper, which sets out the Government's objectives in contracting, three of the bullet points relate to cost control and only one to quality control. In paragraph 3.21, the incentives in the new scheme are said to address speed of action and the rejection of unmeritorious claims. No mention is made of quality.
There can be no objection to the Government seeking to use public money responsibly and effectively, nor to the argument that the present funding system provides no proper mechanism for the control and assessment of costs before the event. However, this needs to be balanced with the requirement to provide services of proper quality—and any quality service costs money. I am concerned that the current focus is on assessment of office and management systems within firms of solicitors seeking franchises.
Where are the questions which address themselves as to whether or not those firms of solicitors will fight hard for their clients? Where are the questions which address whether no stone will be left unturned in preparing the case. Where are the questions about the standards of legal research which will be undertaken in preparing cases, the quality of advocacy, or the point at which the

1157
solicitors will seek the assistance of specialist advocates rather than keeping a case in-house to save money? Where is the question addressing whether or not the solicitors will seek out the right expert for a case? All of these matters concern me in relation to the issue of quality. I would therefore urge that the legal services commission should include a requirement to ensure that the legal services it funds are of adequate quality and sufficient to meet the importance and complexity of cases.
I also have queries about some aspects of the block contracting system of the criminal defence service. How do you ensure that specialists who are suited to the case are brought in? Will the block contracting system relate only to run-of-the-mill cases? What happens with the unusual or specialist case? To what extent are we sacrificing choice to efficiency in terms of cost?
I remember, in my early days at the Bar, my clerk referring to the importance of horses for courses. I discovered that most clerks in chambers are betting men. When they talk about horses for courses, they are really talking about the importance of getting the right barrister for a particular case. Will there be space in the block contracting system for the securing of the right barrister for a particular case? Will it be possible for any solicitor up and down the country to pursue the well-known advocate who is a leader in the field of prisoner rights if he is not on the solicitor's normal block contract list of counsel? If the solicitor has a case involving mental health, will he be able to secure the specialist advocate who deals with mental health cases and has taken many of them to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords? Will the solicitor be able to secure the counsel who have been at the heart of so many of the miscarriage of justice trials? Will the solicitor be able to seek out barristers who have specialist knowledge and understanding of, for example, domestic violence? Or will the contract system confine the solicitor to those included on the special block contract list?
The danger this poses to the service and to the client is considerable. I say to my noble friend Lady Crawley that we are left with exactly what we saw in the Paul Newman film—a chance at justice but perhaps very little more.
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, about my greatest horror of all. The idea of introducing a criminal public defender system into Britain fills me with great alarm. I have direct experience of the public defender system in the United States. I have seen it in action. I have a friend working within that system even now—a young black lawyer, working in Washington, who is handling cases which no lawyer of his age and experience should handle. I have seen the pressure that that puts him under. A talented, brilliant young lawyer, who was the clerk to one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, he still speaks of his desire to have a legal aid system like ours operating there.
We hear that there is a pilot scheme operating in Scotland to consider whether a public defender system might be effective and cost efficient. I can say now that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will
1158
discover that it is very cost efficient. But surely in justice we are concerned with more than that? The horrifying levels of plea bargaining in the United States will almost certainly visit themselves upon our courts if such a system is introduced.
What happens with such a system? The young and the older but less able work within it; the turnover is incredibly high and lawyers quickly become beaten down. Collusion becomes part of the system—collusion between lawyers on both sides, prosecution and defence, with the court in order to get through the bulk of cases as quickly as possible.
Is that really the route that we want to go down? I know that our Lord Chancellor is committed to human rights and I hope that that will be his legacy to our legal system. But might he also be creating another legacy—the introduction of a system which can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor?
Finally, I suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is addressing only half of tile problem. The general public pay for legal costs through much more than legal aid. The government departments and public bodies have to pay for lawyers out of taxpayers' money. To whom do they pay that money? To the private sector lawyer who is charging the huge fees to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, the ones that he said were based on what the market could bear. Why should the taxpayer be paying those sums of money? Is not the taxpayer, or the general public ultimately, out of pocket because of the fees that are being paid to the commercial sector? Where is the urgency on the part of the Lord Chancellor to curb and regulate the commercial sector, from which he himself has come? Is not the greed of lawyers in the privately funded parts of the profession part of the problem? Insurance companies, banks, National Health Service trusts and others all get their money to pay legal costs ultimately from the public, through enhanced premiums and charges which we all bear. So when my noble friends speak to the importance of creating community legal services and to the importance of improving services to the public, let us not be unprepared to say that commercial lawyers are the people who have driven up fees across the board and have had a shameful role in all of this.
There are many good things in the Bill. I congratulate my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on introducing them in this piece of legislation. I congratulated him at the beginning of my speech on his willingness to listen. I hope that will continue in the processes which follow from today.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, we can surely all agree that the Bill administers, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said, a tremendous shake-up—perhaps the biggest shake-up—in the provision of legal services since the war or at least since 1949. Equally, I am sure we can agree that at this late hour the very scope of the Bill precludes a speech that is more than a very selective one. Applying that

1159
principle, I shall forgo following, as I should like to do, the speech to which we have just listened, save to say that I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said.
While there is much that is good in the Bill—most noble Lords have agreed on that—and no doubt there is more that can be made better, I propose to focus on provisions in Schedule 5 to and Part III of the Bill that are so dangerous that they could hardly be made worse. But, at the end, if I do not permit myself to tilt at the windmill of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, it will only be for considerations of time. I hope to give notice that I intend to do so a little later, meanwhile, as it were, marking down the windmill upon my register of targets.
I declare an interest. Although I am no longer in practice, I remain a member of the Bar of England and Wales, which I had the honour to lead for five years. During some of that time—it seemed to be rather a long time—the Government wrestled with the difficult issues of competition and of fostering competition on the one hand and the need to maintain the independence of the Bar in the context of rights of audience on the other. It is no secret—it was not a secret at the time—that within the government there were conflicting views as to how these interests should be balanced and as to where the public interest lay. We were a strongly reforming government and we believed in maximum competition. We were also a strongly constitutional government, upholding the separation of powers. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern valiantly strove to bring forward a reconciling balance and in doing so he attracted a good deal of flak from opposing quarters. But that is the lot of those who seek, as they have to do, to reconcile conflicting interests. The result was contained in Sections 29 and 30 of and Schedule 4 to the Act of 1990.
None of us would claim that that outcome was perfect. It certainly is an unwieldy outcome. It can be speeded up, as I think all noble Lords have agreed and as others outside have agreed as well. But it is not a process which by its nature ought to lend itself to being railroaded, and it did preserve free from the exclusive control of the executive what are after all the core functions of any profession—certainly the core functions of the profession of the Bar; namely, the formulation of its rules of conduct and the formulation of its rules governing qualification for membership.
The reason that we preserved those core functions from the exclusive control of the Executive was simple. It was well understood in every quarter of the government that in a free society, just as the judiciary has to be independent, the Bar has to be independent. The Executive must be denied control of the core functions of the Bar, which services with advocacy the courts that the judiciary operates.
I do not recall hearing the contrary being argued even by the driest and highest of the high priests in the Treasury. Certainly their concern was to get more competition; certainly their concern was to get lower costs. Those are patently concerns of the present Government. But they knew better than to seek exclusive control over the matters which now are affected by the schedule to which I have referred. They knew that that
1160
would be incompatible with the need for the public to have access to fearless advocacy and to fearless representation on the part of the Bar.
In those days, the recent speech by Mr. Sydney Kentridge QC, reference to which many noble Lords will have seen in some briefing, had not been delivered. It is worth citing a few lines from it. He said:
"If I may be permitted an anecdotal recollection, during the years of apartheid in South Africa, there were frequent threats from the Government to place the Bar under the control of a central council with Government-nominated members. This proposal was consistently and successfully resisted by the whole of the Bar, including the many members who normally supported the Government in its policies and legislation. It was well understood that to remove the control of the profession from the provincial Bar Councils and the General Council of the Bar would have meant the end of the independence of the profession. What was also well understood was that the independence of the Bench was inextricably linked with the independence of the Bar".
If those words had been, as it were, in the public domain at that time, the previous government would certainly have endorsed them. But we did not need them. I am afraid it is plain that the present Government do need them, because tucked away in Schedule 5 to the Bill are provisions which allow the Lord Chancellor alone to decide who can appear in court, who can conduct litigation, what rules of conduct there shall be, what qualifications lawyers can have, and more besides of a fundamentally important nature.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described these provisions as streamlining. I hope I shall not cause offence if I say that I thought his reference to them in the course of his speech was fairly streamlined itself. The Lord Chancellor's purpose in bringing forward these proposals is stated with almost Orwellian clarity in the admirable Explanatory Notes with which we have been provided. Paragraph 146 states:
"This power will enable the Lord Chancellor to change on his own initiative unreasonable or restricted rules on the part of a professional body".
What is the purpose of bringing in this extraordinary interference with the ability of a profession to govern itself? What are the shortcomings that lead him to guard against unreasonable or restrictive rules? Who is to test the Lord Chancellor's notion of what is reasonable? It is no good saying the judges will do so because the judges have that jurisdiction at the moment but it is to be swept aside by Part III of the Bill. The answer is that no one will be available to test that. Only Parliament will give consideration to an affirmative resolution, by which alone the Lord Chancellor will have to seek, as it were, validation. As we all know, with a large majority in another place, affirmative resolutions take up—no doubt, most inconveniently—as much as one and a half hours of Parliament's time. When they come to this place, what can we do? We can bring to bear such expertise as we have by virtue of the convention already alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. However, we cannot overturn such a measure. This is what we are confronted with. It is introduced in the most streamlined way that one can imagine. Clause 35 simply states,
"Schedule 5 (which substitutes new provisions for sections 29 and 30 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) has effect".
When one reads Schedule 5, one's hair stands on end!

1161
There is much in this Bill which is admirable. However, I cannot forgo one little tilt at some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I should, I suppose, declare an interest in that it fell to me to set up the Crown Prosecution Service all those years ago. It is worth reminding your Lordships why, right across the political spectrum, there was pressure for an independent prosecution service. It followed from the report of the Royal Commission headed by Sir Cyril Philips, which drew attention to scandal after scandal that obtained when the chief constable in every force took prosecuting decisions right the way through to the conduct of trials. That is why there was said to be a need for an independent prosecution service.
I believe that we need to be fair. Of course we have listened to a brilliant forensic speech, as those who know the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, would have expected. However, I am not one of the host who approach these matters without ever having undertaken this kind of work. I, too, have put up my flag and sought dock briefs. I knew perfectly well what PPDs stood for. I was jolly grateful for dock briefs and PPDs in my time. I also knew—if we are going to be fair about this—that there were members of chambers who never did anything except prosecute. As regards some of those rare but nonetheless important instances, one would look at them a long time before one was put in mind of the concept of total independence.
As I say, there is much in this Bill that is admirable. But finally I must say—before I turn my donkey about—that I believed that what the noble Lord said about my successor as attorney-general at the time of Matrix Churchill demonstrated less than his usual fairness. I hope to revert to that if it is necessary to do so at a later stage in the Bill. Although much is good in the Bill, I am afraid that there is a good deal that is dangerous. However, there is nothing more dangerous and more important than Schedule 5, which is profoundly unconstitutional and wrong. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves the House it will have been fundamentally amended.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I wish to concentrate on three main aspects of the Bill: the responsibility of the new legal services commission to take the lead in establishing a community legal service in co-operation with local, regional and national plans to match the delivery of legal services to identified needs and priorities; the funding of services; and the reform of the system of appeals in civil cases. As the White Paper, Modernising Justice, states, a co-ordinated system for planning and funding legal services must take account of the views of local people. It will be successful only if local authorities, the bodies mainly responsible for meeting the needs of local communities, are closely involved.
We should not seek to re-invent the wheel. We must build on existing mechanisms. These include local law centres, which have existed for almost 30 years. These centres came about following the pamphlet of the Society of Labour Lawyers, Justice for All, in 1968, the
1162
principal author of which was the great lawyer, Morris Finer. Some 30 years on, Justice for All must still be our aim now.
Law centres make legal services available to individuals who would not otherwise have access to them, and they have a broad interest in their local communities. Often they are located exactly where they are needed, where traditional practitioners are most thin on the ground. But there are far too few law centres, and those that exist sometimes have a precarious existence. I therefore welcome the proposal in the Bill to establish a legal services commission and for functions to be conferred upon it relating to the community legal service. The commission must establish, maintain and develop such a service with a view to making a range of legal services available to members of the public.
The commission must inform itself not only about the unmet demand for, and existing provision of, such services but also about the quality of the services provided. It must co-operate with local authorities and other bodies and persons to plan what can be done towards meeting the demand. It must facilitate the planning by others of what can be done by them to meet the demand. More is required, but quality is also of vital importance. The Bill therefore rightly recognises that the commission will have a role in setting and monitoring standards.
I turn to funding. There is general recognition that changes are needed in the way the system of civil legal aid operates. There are at present abuses and anomalies. Disputes arising in the course of business cannot be regarded as a priority. Legal aid is not available for companies. It is right that it should not be. But a trader who is not incorporated can currently get legal aid to pursue a business dispute. This is despite the fact that businessmen have the option of insuring against the risk of having to bring or defend legal proceedings. The taxpayer should not meet the legal costs of businessmen who fail properly to insure themselves.
There are other areas which do not have sufficient priority to justify public funding. These include boundary disputes between property owners, and matters concerned with the law relating to trusts and partnerships. Consideration also should be given to whether there are better ways than litigation of resolving a particular dispute and, if not, whether the dispute could be funded by ways other than legal aid.
The existing so-called merits test does not ensure that resources go to the cases with the highest priority. A flexible funding assessment is required. Public money should be directed to the most deserving cases. I am glad that priority cases include those involving social welfare and the care of children. Targeting resources on priority areas is essential.
I move from Part I to Part IV of the Bill. I welcome the reform of the workings of the appeals system. As the White Paper states, an effective system of appeals is an essential part of a well functioning system of civil justice. At the same time appeals produce uncertainty about how long the litigation process will take, and what it is likely to cost.

1163
No doubt there are other reforms that can and should be made in modernising justice in the Court of Appeal that do not require legislation. Present practices grew up when the proceedings were entirely oral. Now appeal hearings are preceded by an exchange of written arguments. It makes one wonder whether there should now be only one speech on either side. The elimination of a right of reply for an appellant should shorten proceedings. It might also be fairer. At the moment one side has all the advantages of the first word and the last word and twice as many speeches as the other side. We must strike the right balance between justice and workability. I welcome the proposals in the Bill for less complexity and greater efficiency.
The Bill is based on sound principle. Someone who wishes to appeal should be required to show reasonable grounds. In most circumstances, more than one appeal cannot be justified. Appeals should not be heard at a higher level or by more judges than is appropriate.
I return, by way of conclusion, from the particular to the more general. Before the last general election, the Society of Labour Lawyers published a book: Law Reform for All. The present Prime Minister wrote a foreword. He wrote that legally enforceable rights and duties underpin a democratic society and access to justice is essential in order to make those rights and duties real. He described Labour's goal of improving access to justice as an essential part of its commitment to social justice. He referred to proposals for extending access to justice which included developing a community legal service which would be more responsive to the needs of the consumer rather than the lawyer. We are now seeing those ambitions brought forward as legislation. I am happy that while the Society of Labour Lawyers will be celebrating its founding by Gerald Gardiner and others half a century ago, this Bill makes a reality of access to justice in the ways I have described.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it may well be that I am the only solicitor in the House whose firm has a legal aid franchise at the moment. I am certainly the only lawyer on these Benches who was one of those who laboured to produce the document to which the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, referred: Justice for All. It is true that it has proved an inspiration for the improvement in legal services with which we are bound up tonight.
I shall concentrate my remarks around the impact of the Bill on legal aid via the services of solicitors. It is sometimes forgotten that of the 3.5 million acts of assistance under legal aid last year, well over 95 per cent., I suspect, were delivered by solicitors in private practice.
It has already been said, and is only too true, that the Bill is skeletal and that the devil will be in the detail. But there has been a plethora of documents emanating from the Legal Aid Board. The White Paper itself makes plain what is currently proposed vis-à-vis a radical reduction in the number of solicitors who will be able in the future to provide legal aid.
1164
Perhaps I may clear up one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, in her admirable speech. The White Paper makes clear that in fixing prices for solicitors who will be asked to tender for these new exclusive contracts it will include, "any advocates' fees". So in some way the firm that puts in a tender for legal services in a particular branch of whatever it is in a geographical area will have to sort out just what it will have to say on that score.
However, the new regime we contemplate hinges around a classic business school model. If you, a solicitor, give me, the legal services commission, a fixed price quote for the provision of legal services; and if you then win the tender, I, the legal services commission, as it will then be, will give you, the solicitor, a geographical monopoly of the relevant legal aid services for up to three years in that area.
I must say I thought that the sale of monopolies had gone out before the Civil War, but it is back here with a vengeance. This "come-on"—the exclusive contract, as it is not called in the White Paper; and I wonder why, because at no point does the document face up to the fact that these are exclusive contracts, given that the Legal Aid Board's last consultation document was called Exclusive Contracting—is bargaining on the fact that, with an exclusive contract "come-on", the commission will get solicitors (some of them quite desperate to hang on to the legal aid work they are doing) to tender at prices which are "what the market will bear", to use the phrase given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It will be a rather rigged market. If you are one of the 11,000 solicitors firms doing legal aid and if it is an important part of your practice, to be suddenly told that you will not be able to do any more at all unless you win one of the exclusive contracts is a strong concentrator of the mind on the price at which you will wish to bid in order to get the franchise or the contract.
For those of your Lordships who may not have read the vital White Paper, a flavour of it may be enlightening. On exclusive contracting, it says that,
"all contracts will include quality standards and the work that providers do will be monitored. Wherever possible, contracts will fix the price which will be paid for work under them, and (where relevant) the number of cases to be done … Fixing price and caseload will enable the Legal Services Commission to control spending, and place positive incentives on providers … Fixed prices create an incentive (for solicitors) to deal with cases more quickly and efficiently. Fixed caseloads will remove the incentive to take every possible case, regardless of merit".
So much for our professionalism.
I wondered, as I read this and much more like it, how the good, noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the equally good, noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would have reacted to the imposition on them in their glory days at the Bar of such a regime. But then, I am not so sure that either was strong in the legal aid field.
Also pause, my Lords, to consider the prospect from the point of view of the 11,000 solicitors' offices currently doing legal aid and how they will fare under the new system. Under the panoply of powers given to the legal services commission under the Bill, its

1165
conscientious bureaucrats (among whom you will not find one who has hands-on experience of doing solicitors' work, by the way) will, the White Paper assures us, require cases to be dealt with more quickly and efficiently than now, at a lower price than currently prevails—that is clearly anticipated—and at improved quality standards.
That would be all very well if legal aid solicitors were living off the fat of the land. The truth, however, as I am sure I do not need to impress upon your Lordships, is that legal aid practitioners are the packhorses of our legal system. I think they are like the good old lay justices, they do all the work and get none of the praise. They work extremely hard doing largely unglamorous work, for which they get little or no public esteem or thanks in return for modest—sometimes very modest—profits of roughly half what comparable non-legal aid firms make.
So let us not confuse them with the thoroughbreds of the commercial firms or the fat cats, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is fond of calling them. As I remarked in what I said in response to the gracious Speech, trainee solicitors in the City are paid more or are charged at more per hour than an experienced solicitor advocate gets currently for standing on his or her hind legs doing demanding magistrates' court defence work.
No, the new world anticipated by the Legal Aid Board in its October report to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor understands everything about free market forces in theory, but not nearly enough in my view about professional realities. You can lay down all the criteria, the quality standards, the performance-related indicators and franchise specifications in the world. You can monitor, compare and measure until you are blue in the face. But if what you are offering by way of remuneration is poor by market standards (and I mean by comparison with private client work) and if the bureaucratic regime of oversight is laborious and demotivating, you might as well save your breath.
The latest three consultation drafts put out by the Legal Aid Board recently, vis-à-vis exclusive contracting, runs to a total of 350 pages. That comes on top of a whirlwind of earlier consultation papers.
Many, if not most solicitors find all this onerous and demoralising. In some respects they will simply prove unworkable. I give one example.
The qualifying standards and requirements for supervisors, as it is called, under the proposed exclusive contracts demand, among a host of other things, that the solicitor concerned does as least 50 per cent. of his or her work in the area of supervision. That will be a knock-out blow to many smaller firms including those with existing franchises and developed expertise. In response to the gracious Speech, I quoted the chair of the current Legal Aid Practitioners Group who has remarkable expertise in social security law and will have to give up because of that condition.
The effect of that proposal, and of the bureaucratic overburden of the arrangements, involving a veritable paper chase of steps, procedures, records and so on,
1166
is that most small and smaller solicitors' firms are likely, if not certain, to be squeezed out of legal aid altogether. Yet they are often the firms which are keenest to do it and at the keenest prices. One of the inexorable laws of legal practice—as I am sure all noble Lords will know—is that the proportion of fees devoured by overheads rises in step with the growth in the size of the firm. In short, small equals value for money.
Another consequence of the new arrangements will be to cut out literally thousands of firms which now undertake a modicum of legal aid work, typically £10,000 to £20,000 worth a year, often because they think they have a duty to undertake some legal aid even though their real profit is little or none. My office in London is a case in point. We are not a legal aid practice in the square mile, but we have a legal aid franchise for immigration work. It is extremely uncertain whether we shall be able to retain it. We have a highly skilled family law department with scarce expertise in handling cross-frontier children's work. My colleagues are almost certain that we shall have to give up that work much though they want to do it, and much though it feeds rare expertise into the system.
There is another potentially damaging side effect of the exclusive contracting proposals. The proposed concentration of legal aid work in the hands of 3,200 firms, or thereabouts, compared with the current 11,000 offices will involve a considerable increase in the amount of legal aid work to be done by the winners of the new contracts. I imagine that the Legal Aid Board think that that will be a great "come-on". However, many of those firms are not sure that they want a significant amount of extra legal aid work. They will have to take on more staff; and it will disturb the fine balance which exists not uncommonly between two-thirds private client work and one-third legal aid work. That is true of my Sudbury office. Since the private client work is typically charged at up to double the legal aid rate, it is not at all clear that such a firm will want to tilt the practice in the less profitable direction. Research by the Law Society demonstrates that the more legal aid undertaken the less the profit made.
But that is not all. The winners of the new competitive tenders will have to contemplate losing the work when the tenders come up for review. By then legal aid may have become the major part of their work. However, to return to the nub of it all, 11,000 legal aid offices are to be contracted to 3,200 plus 200 charity providers of legal services. (And that is a great advance in the proposals of the Lord Chancellor.)
The claim made for this radical concentration of legal aid work is that there will be economies of scale, more specialism, and quality will be tightly controlled; and that all those factors will improve the status quo. The fingerprints of the Treasury are, I need hardly say, everywhere apparent.

1167
With a glibness which will surely come back to haunt it, the Legal Aid Board (which will transmogrify into the legal services commission) reported to the Lord Chancellor only two months ago that,
"while the proposals to concentrate the contracts on a smaller group of quality suppliers would reduce the number of individual access points, we do not believe that the proposals would lead to problems of access per se".
The gaps—and they will be huge in rural areas—will be plugged by a combination of exclusive contracts for citizens advice bureaux and other charity suppliers of legal services, telephone advice (and much is made of that) and other unspecified "outreach services". As the Labour Party used to understand, the problem of legal access is not just about cash and physical proximity—although for poor people, mothers with children, and the elderly and disabled, that is real enough in an age of disappearing public transport—there is also a psychological deterrent for which telephones are no alternative.
It is not my job, or the wish of those on these Benches, to defend incompetent or lazy lawyers. The public have a right to a good service at a fair rate. As the Lord Chancellor said in the introduction to his White Paper, and as he reinforced today, he is seeking "a fair and efficient system of justice". Fairness, I am sure he will agree, cuts both ways or in the long run does not cut at all.
I have to say, however, that many high street solicitors feel that they are becoming the whipping boys of the legal system. As I have sought to explain, the rewards for legal aid work are in most cases poor, and, in truth, in order to earn a decent living many legal aid practitioners have to handle too many cases—too many if they are to deal with them all with the same degree of efficiency and effectiveness that they and their clients would wish. The reforms brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, may well make that dilemma infinitely more acute.
All one can say is that at present the vast majority of clients would far rather have sometimes slow and less than perfect service than none. By contrast, as I have sought to explain, the somewhat triumphalist assumptions behind the White Paper could make access and quality worse unless the proposals are reconsidered and significantly recast.
We shall be encouraging the House to make amendments to Clause 9 of the Bill by adding criteria to the code to be prepared by the legal services commission which will frame the terms of service with solicitors and other service providers.
In conclusion, the very proper preoccupation of the White Paper with quality and quality assurance will not become actuality simply by the imposition of ever increasing numbers of codes, inspections, forms, and so on. Many noble Lords will be aware that the system developed over recent years does nothing to check the quality of the work in the way it is conducted and the outcome. In the consideration that the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues will give to the Bill, I hope that that important point will be remembered. I fear that for many
1168
solicitors the taste for the legal aid scheme has been, and is being, undermined to a point where many of them, conscious though they are of their public duty to take the rough with the smooth, may no longer wish to take part in the new regime.
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, welcome and applaud the holistic approach adopted in the Bill and the objectives behind it. Many of those objectives have already been referred to by other noble Lords. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not intend to recite any of them.
I listened with great care to the concerns expressed in many speeches, not least that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice who reflected so many of those of the judiciary. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will heed them with care. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made powerful speeches in relation to the difficulties facing your Lordships' House in considering the Bill. I find myself echoing many of those concerns. I am confident that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will also have listened with care to their comments. I am sure that he will be sensitive to the need for further consultation and mature reflection.
A large number of the matters debated today will be the subject of detailed comment during the Committee stage. That is the most appropriate time to discuss them. As indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, we should ensure that the virtues of the existing system are preserved and valued. One of those virtues is the integrity of the legal profession which is rightly envied elsewhere in the world. It should be jealously protected and valued and not taken for granted. The point has often been emphasised to me by visiting European and American judges who are frankly amazed by how much our judges are able to rely upon the advocates who appear before them and the level of trust that is invested in them. As one American federal judge stressed to me, we undervalue that at our peril and we do not truly understand the pearl we have. The comment was made after she and other Supreme Court judges had had the benefit of watching our procedure in operation. She watched advocates assisting the judge, identifying issues and matters of that kind. We must listen to that echo and not undervalue what we have, which is a very British thing to do. It is rather like the comment of Groucho Marx. No one wants to be the member of a club that is happy to have that individual as a member.
The complexion of our legal profession has changed for the better. Currently, there is a wide cross-section of society reflected within the legal profession that is available to assist all sections of the community. The profession is no longer the preserve of the privileged. I hope that nothing within these proposals will prevent this process from continuing.
It has been accepted by many that the question of costs is crucial. There are many ways in which costs can be contained. I am sure that this is another subject that we shall spend a good deal of time debating in

1169
Committee. I am comforted by what has been said about the preservation of a level playing field and that the same rules will apply to all advocates.
I am not in the least concerned by—indeed I welcome—the increase in competition in the legal profession because that must be advantageous to the litigant who seeks redress. But what does it mean? At the moment the Bar adheres to the taxi rank principle which obliges each member to take whatever brief is offered provided it falls within his or her field of expertise. Is that to be preserved? If not, why not? If it is to be preserved, how? At the moment there is parity of opportunity for the litigant by virtue of the fact that the advocate is obliged to take the first brief in time irrespective of the fee attached to it. Therefore, if a legal aid brief arrives before a privately paid brief it is one's duty to take the first in time. On the basis of that principle, it is to the public advantage that it should be so.
I emphasise that peculiarly in this jurisdiction a legally aided litigant, when faced with the might of a large institutional body or rich opponent, can be equipped with a better lawyer or team of lawyers even though the market indicates that the institution or body is paying considerably more for its representation. In our system David can still overcome Goliath with a little help from his friends.
The words that spring to mind when reviewing the Bill are "caution" and "balance". I hope that when we come to debate the Bill in detail we shall have the courage to jettison that which detracts from the undeniable and honourable aims and objectives of the Bill. I echo the words of many other noble Lords. There is much in the Bill to applaud, to be grateful for and in which to rejoice, but there is also much that should make us extremely cautious. We must guard jealously our justice system because once it has gone it has gone.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, how right is the noble Baroness to utter the words that she has. I could not agree more. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor opened the debate he said that access to justice remained far too limited. In that context we welcome the Second Reading of the Access to Justice Bill. Although I intended to comment only on the civil justice reforms, I am moved by the speeches of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to say a word about access. I believe that the overwhelming message that has come through in the speeches thus far is that the Bill is the Limiting Access to Justice Bill. That must surely be a worry for us all.
I believe that when the noble Lord made reference to 11,000 firms being in receipt of the legal aid franchise and that the figure would be cut to 3,200 it produced a feeling in us all of serious concern. I agree that it is necessary for quality to be paramount in handling cases on behalf of litigants on whatever side of the argument. But, surely, the recent announcement by the Law Society of the Lexcel Quality Accreditation scheme and all the measures that have been taken is enough to
1170
reassure people. The message that comes out of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is that it is essential that all firms who have reached the franchise standard should be entitled to a contract in the area of law to which their franchise relates. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made the point earlier, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will reflect upon it.
In many ways the provision of legal aid could become a lottery. The noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, said that one had to stop legal aid deserts. Surely, to restrict it to these firms—I shall turn in a moment to the reforms of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which I greatly welcome—and to concentrate on multi-track civil trial centres in certain parts of the country, thus producing a number of firms that group around those courts, means that in large areas of the country it will be impossible to find a lawyer who has an exclusive contract and also the expertise to bring one's case. These are whole areas in which needy people in particular will be unable to find local solicitors who are allowed to take on their cases.
I believe that the reduction in the number of firms franchised to carry out legal aid work will alter the economics of practice. The noble Lord said that there will be fewer larger firms. That does not mean that they will be cost-effective. I fear that there will be a period during which the public in large (perhaps outlying) communities will be unable to locate appropriate solicitors.
I turn to the voluntary sector. As president of my local citizens advice bureau I can hardly wait to hear the evidence of the national association. Having been involved in many voluntary organisations, perhaps I may pause for a moment to reflect that these bodies cannot be expected to fill the gap, particularly when they do not insure against the consequences of negligent advice. Therefore, there is no remedy available to a member of the public who in effect will be without protection. I hope that the House will forgive me for deviating for a moment from the main purpose of my speech, which is to talk about the civil justice reforms, by asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to find some way to ensure that access to justice is improved.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on addressing constructively the failure of the system to deal with private disputes between citizens. Those failures have built up over many years. Of course the noble and learned Lord is carrying forward the reforms to civil justice started by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
The problems identified some years ago in the Civil Justice Review were expense, delay and complexity. Those problems are felt as keenly as ever by the users of the system, whether private individuals, companies (particularly small firms), insurers or public bodies. I do hope that the Government will take account of the very constructive response to reform which is now coming from all branches of the legal profession. I hope that Ministers will accept that the profession has fully taken on board the need for change and has contributed to the

1171
debate. The few objections which there have been to the planned changes are carefully thought out and merit consideration.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will know, I applaud the contribution he has made, without which we would not have proceeded at the pace we have. He will have heard me in the debate on the new civil procedure rules last summer when I explained the concern expressed by many practising lawyers about the timing of the implementation of the new rules and the resource which is available to support the new reforms both generally and with specific reference to information technology. The rules have now been signed but there are those who believe that they still contain some detailed provisions which will cause difficulties in practice. Moreover, as the focus has now moved on to practice directions, which support and clarify the rules, it is a matter of some concern that only towards the very end of this process some of the key drafts are now for the first time entering the public domain.
Nevertheless, we are all gearing ourselves up to make the new rules a success. The Law Society, with the support of many involved in developing the new system, has just completed a round of seminars aimed at raising awareness. Indeed, as those practising solicitors participating in this debate know, all of us in our own firms are doing detailed work to ensure that 26th April 1999 is going to be a day when the reforms will from the outset be a considerable success. The ripples are spreading across the legal pond. Solicitors are doing their best to make sure that their clients, from individuals to major corporations, and also public bodies, as mass users of the civil justice system, are aware of the changes and the implications for themselves and their businesses and organisations.
It has become apparent that one major problem for insurers will be educating individual policyholders who, for example, may have a road traffic accident about how the new procedures will affect them. I urge Ministers to consider whether or not there is need for a more extensive advertising campaign as a matter of public information. I say those magic words knowing full well, as do those who were previously Ministers, that there is always money available somewhere for a public information campaign. I am sure there is one called for here.
I applaud the concept of proportionality which Part 1 of the new rules introduces to the civil justice system, but I do not think it should be assumed that the public at large will do so without some information to enable them to understand the concept, in particular when they discover what it is going to mean in practice. I do hope that there will be no delay in ensuring that the necessary support systems are in place.
I hope that Ministers will read tomorrow's The Lawyer. I mention that periodical just as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to it in the last debate we had on this subject. A front page article under the headline, "Part-time judges face delay over Woolf training", states:
1172
"The 1,250 part-time county court judges in England and Wales, who sit for at least 20 days per year, will not begin training in the new rules until 19 April."
I hope that that is not true. I look forward to the Minister confirming in his response that it is incorrect.
On the question of funding, I want to say a word about conditional fees. The replacement of the old "merits" test for legal aid is to be welcomed. Solicitors in practice know that this test very rarely results in the refusal or withdrawal of legal aid. The White Paper identifies three key questions which will feature in the new funding assessment. I believe the criterion concerning the availability of a conditional fee agreement is not strong enough. Surely, once conditional fees are established, as we all hope they soon will be, it should be made clear that the availability of that funding mechanism in principle should be an absolute bar to state funding. I cannot see why the state should ever accept a lawyer's opinion that it should fund litigation which that lawyer is not prepared to risk himself.
Secondly, it must not be thought that conditional fee agreements are that ideal, long-thought-impossible, free lunch, because they are not. The rules which have protected the position until now existed to protect the public from the dangers of lawyers sharing too closely in the financial outcome of their clients' cases, which reminds us that there is a wider dimension here. The primary duty to the court is now going to be put on a statutory basis and it is unlikely that the vast majority of legal professionals will find that that enhances in any way the moral imperative under which they have always operated. For the few who are tempted, it remains to be seen whether the new statutory duty outweighs the vastly increased financial pressures. I share a number of noble Lords' concerns about that.
I have spoken already about the hidden cost in the new funding package which relates to the recovery of the insurance premium and the success fee. That represents completely new money in the system and an additional cost which will have to be borne by the insurance industry and the public purse where the defendant is a public body. I am not sanguine about the view expressed that the insurance industry will be keen to develop cheaper legal expenses insurance in the face of this additional cost. As the industry consolidates, legal expenses insurers and liability insurers increasingly are the same people. I still oppose what I believe to be an unfair provision but if the Government win the day I hope special emphasis will be given to monitoring and controlling the level of success fees and insurance premiums at the end of each case. Any laxity in this area will see the level of legal costs increase sharply to the detriment of what must be one of the fundamental principles behind the entire process: reducing the cost of obtaining justice.
I hope these are matters that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will bear in mind. In addition to the 75,000 to 80,000 lawyers mentioned in the White Paper there are many tens of thousands more employed in the legal services industry. A significant part of the £8 billion worth of annual fees of legal firms are represented in services supplied to clients overseas,

1173
contributing to the economic health of the country. I hope he will bear all this in mind in the search for some way of managing not only the biggest upheaval in legal aid we have ever seen but also the largest ever reform of the civil justice system. We will have to tread more cautiously to ensure that we do not end up by limiting access to justice.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, in rising to speak in this debate I can say two things for sure. The first is that I will be brief because, due to seasonal croakiness, my voice will not hold out for very long and, after four-and-a-half hours, some may say that is just as well. The second is that I shall not at this moment be straying into the territory of audiences, fees and related matters already occupied so eloquently by so many of the legal profession here today.
Many lawyers have spoken today and perhaps even more, I suspect, are holding their fire for yet another occasion. Quite rightly, there is enormous and sometimes passionate interest which colleagues in the legal professions have and will show in the Bill. It is important that those of us who are consumers of the law and who have experience of other kinds of advice-giving should also be heard in this discussion.
I have worked as a probation officer. I have worked in a girls' remand home. I helped to run the citizens advice bureaux and law centres of north London for a time. Indeed, I was a member of the management committee of the greater London CAB service under the chairmanship of the then Lord Ponsonby.
I wish to say a few words about the proposals in the Modernising Justice White Paper and the Access to Justice Bill before us today concerning the community legal service. It is not a new aspiration to attempt to provide a comprehensive front-line legal service which guarantees consistent quality. Indeed, it has been an aspiration of many of us who have been involved with citizens advice bureaux and law centres for many years. What is different and why it is such an important matter here today is that the Government have placed access to legal services at the heart of their reforming legislation and have made a commitment to an holistic approach which involves all providers in that sector.
Surely the key to success in the new proposals rests in their comprehensive nature, people's access and a guarantee of the quality of legal information. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, at present the provision of legal advice services is patchy. Many communities, often those which need advice most, do not have access. I am thinking particularly about the homeless and vulnerable young people who have no access because they have nowhere to live. The lack of standard measures of quality of advice sometimes leads to bad advice and distressing outcomes.
I am aware that there are those in the legal profession who are concerned—and some have expressed those concerns today—about the provision of front-line advice being provided by non-legal experts. It is important to remember that duff advice, if I may use that expression, can come from anywhere. Recently, an acquaintance of
1174
mine was given completely the wrong advice by her solicitor about the very important issue of her landlord. Even I knew that the advice was wrong and, in fact, the local CAB provided correct and helpful information. I am aware that one example does not make a general case but in answer to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I should say that it shows that bad advice can be given from different quarters. That is why the Bill's commitment to the quality of information and the development of kitemarks is to be wholly welcomed.
I am pleased to learn also that the development of core quality criteria will involve all the parties—local government, the voluntary sector, law centres as well as government departments and the Legal Aid Board. Many of my friends are lawyers and I have the highest regard for them. Indeed, some are very close to me! But as a profession, it does not always place the value on the views of non-lawyers that it places on those of itself. I make a plea to my colleagues in the legal profession: when you have discussions with other agencies—CAB services, voluntary agencies and so on—to develop a uniform set of standards, I recommend that you use the strength and diversity of that sector to help to inform the provision which is ultimately developed. It will be greatly strengthened by that. There are people who have experience of delivering services in the most deprived and difficult communities and to groups and societies shunned by many. Above all, they have experience of how and when to deliver services. I believe that they will provide an extremely valuable insight into the process. I hope that that insight will be used.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Lane: My Lords, no one questions the importance of making justice more efficient; indeed, as efficient as it possibly can be. Of course, efficiency comprises a large number of aspects—speed, low cost and, perhaps above all, fairness. But I suggest with deference and hesitation that some of the proposals for efficiency in this Bill are to be bought at too high a price.
The prime examples are those which have already been mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. They are mostly contained in Clauses 30 to 35 and, in particular, in Schedule 5. The three most important are that standards of education and training for advocates, their codes of conduct and their rights of audience in the High Court, should be decided by the Lord Chancellor untrammelled, as it seems, by any other restraints save for the necessity of consulting but not being bound by the views of the designated judges.
Those are grave inroads into the authority and the long-standing independence of the judiciary and the Bar. They are a serious erosion in the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, at a time when that principle is of particular importance.
The Government have a large overwhelming majority. The Opposition are correspondingly weak and very largely ineffective. That means that there is almost a free power in the hands of the Executive and it is the Executive role which the Lord Chancellor is acting or

1175
going to act. In other words, the scene is well set for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, on an earlier occasion described as a parliamentary dictatorship.
It is that point at which the separation of powers becomes so important; that is, the separation between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The only check on the unrestrained power of the Executive is the law administered by the judges, assisted by an independent Bar. They can try to ensure, by judicial review, that the Executive does not exceed its legitimate power. If the judicial power is eroded or, even worse, is manipulated by the Executive, then the ordinary citizen is in trouble. It is a sad fact that judicial protection is a benefit which is not missed until it is lost.
Is it too much to ask that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not forget that he has a judicial as well as an executive obligation? If he forgets that, the consequences may be more drastic than he realises.
I wish only to add this. It was surprising, to say the least, and disappointing for me to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Master of the Rolls, depart from the views which have been expressed by the judges in their care. I suggest respectfully that the views of those judges in the care of the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice are to be preferred.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Goudie referred to the former Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner. I recall that about 30 years ago Lord Gardiner was receiving the first fruits of the work of the Law Commission whose creation is generally regarded as his most lasting achievement. The Law Commission had a considerable programme of law reform, statutory consolidation and the removal of obsolescent law from the statute book. I am pleased that a couple of weeks ago my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was able to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that he has every intention of bringing forward a number of Law Commission reports for implementation. The White Paper before us today states clearly that up-to-date law allows legal disputes to be resolved more effectively.
However, it goes on to recognise, as does the whole of today's debate—that improving people's legal rights, no matter how important, is a vain endeavour unless they can enforce those rights effectively with reasonable dispatch and without bankrupting themselves.
The Bill is broad, but I shall confine myself to civil justice. Surely we all agree that there needs to be affordable access to dispute settlement machinery for people from all walks of life. Not many of your Lordships have referred to the matter, but I believe that government policy rightly promotes many models of dispute resolution which in recent years have grown up as alternatives to the traditional court system. I refer to mediation, arbitration and ombudsmen. I am pleased that the Government's draft financial services and markets Bill puts much stress on a comprehensive unified ombudsman scheme outwith the court system.
1176
One of the great benefits of the Law Commission is that it is a standing body keeping the law under continuous review. Until now we have not had such a body in continuous, permanent existence dealing with the administration of justice as distinct from the substantive law. Instead, during the past 40 or 50 years we have had frequent ad hoc inquiries. Most recent and most importantly for today's discussion is the inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, into the civil justice system. I regard it as excellent that not only are the Woolf reforms being implemented, but that the standing body (the civil justice council) to monitor the changes is being created with the noble and learned Lord as its first chairman.
The first element of access to justice, which the Bill rightly emphasises, is the ready availability of information and advice. I need not develop that argument because several of my noble friends have spoken of the various ways in which the Bill's provisions seek to co-ordinate the existing patchwork of advisory services to develop a core criteria of quality and to create a community legal service. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that those services are at the local level but mix and bring together the skills of lawyers and the interests and willingness of enthusiastic volunteers.
I welcome the extension of the availability of conditional fee agreements in Part III. I, too, accept that it is not a panacea, but we all know, that except for the rich and the legally-aided poor, pursuing a civil case today is too often an unpredictable and certainly an unquantifiable gamble. The proposal to enable a court to include any success fee, which is payable under a conditional fee arrangement, and any insurance premium paid among the costs that it orders a losing party to pay to the winner is also welcome. I was delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls also welcomed those provisions.
Many questions need to be answered and pilot schemes can assist in that regard. I refer to the willingness of solicitors to undertake conditional fee work and the availability of insurance, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. But surely my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was right not only today but in the debate on the gracious Speech, in earlier speeches and in the consultation process to explain his views on these matters.
I believe that cultures can be changed. I would not have predicted that, for example, Mr. Peter Carter-Ruck, would so soon offer his services in defamation cases on a conditional fee basis. On the subject of conditional fees, and on the erosion of lawyers' monopolies as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I praise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. When he was Lord Chancellor in the late 1980s he came in for a great deal of unfair criticism over the Green Papers. I recall, as did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with appropriate quotations, the somewhat immoderate language, used even by noble Lords in this House, condemning the proposals of the then Lord Chancellor for ending some of the restricted practices engaged in by the legal profession.

1177
Some restrictive practices are justified in the interests of maintaining the quality of service to clients and ensuring proper protection to clients against rogues and incompetents. However, so often the restrictions adopted by the profession—not only the legal profession, but that is the one we are discussing today—have gone beyond that. Self-regulation has often operated more in the interests of members of the profession than in the interests of the public. Your Lordships may know that in the 18th century the lawyers of New York had a monopoly on court practice. They passed a resolution to admit no more apprentices into training for the next 14 years—except for their sons! No doubt the citizens of New York were solemnly reassured that that measure was essential in the public interest.
That was a long time ago and it was not in this country. But not so long ago in this country only a solicitor could engage in conveyancing; all publicity as to the services which a lawyer could give to the public were banned; and only a barrister could appear in the higher courts. Changes were made in particular by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. But they were hedged around with conditions and exceptions and, not surprisingly, the impact of the changes was small. Fewer than 1 per cent. of solicitors currently have rights of audience in the higher courts.
The most extreme condition has been the veto on the change which can be exercised by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor or the President of the Family Division, or any one of them. That most extreme quadruple veto is altered by the Bill to a consultative role. It was most interesting to us all to hear today the views of the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls of the present day. As a result, I have a feeling that I should prefer that the so-called designated judges had a role rather than the other judges. Perhaps that is simply because of the views expressed by the senior judges who have spoken today. Of course, I am glad that the consultative role of the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading is retained. As a former holder of that office, perhaps I am expected to say that, but his office is experienced in weighing up, in many areas, the often conflicting benefits of competition and other public interest claims. Whatever the case, I certainly hope that in the future clients will have a wider choice of quality people providing legal services, as long as they satisfy basic training requirements.
I do not believe that competition from others will destroy the role of the self-employed barrister. They may be fewer in number, but the Bar will continue to be valued by solicitors and their clients as an independent source of advice, advocacy and specialist knowledge, with the benefit of low overheads available to all solicitors, large and small, throughout the country. It is unlikely that the higher courts will be flooded with solicitor-advocates, if only because most solicitors practise in such a way that court appearances cannot be fitted in conveniently as an everyday function.
It has been pointed out that the period of existence of the National Health Service and legal aid are about the same, as it is 50 years since the Legal Aid and Advice
1178
Act 1949 was passed. Last week, in a debate on the National Health Service, the point was made that whatever may have been the case in the past the patient, not the practitioner, is at the centre of our concerns. This Bill helps to put the client at the centre of our legal and judicial process.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in 1690, a great political philosopher, John Locke, said:
"It may be too great a temptation to humane frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons who have the power of making laws, to have also in their hands the power to execute them. whereby they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its making and execution, to their own private advantage".
There is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Joined-up government, avoiding a fragmented and piecemeal approach, is one thing. Co-ordinated and planned strategies, based more on performance indicators than justice, are quite another. The ability to dispense justice fairly and efficiently will be called into question if the objectives of the police and Crown Prosecution Service are too closely aligned with disposal rates set by the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the courts. Government policies, which are implemented in a coherent and consistent way across all agencies, have the potential to call in question the impartiality and independence of those involved in judicial decision-making which, in turn, could very well lose public confidence.
That is evidenced no more so than in the provisions which relate to magistrates' courts. The Government's stated intention to allow for the first time an administrative body answerable directly to the executive arm of the Lord Chancellor, the magistrates' courts committee, to determine judicial issues such as the allocation of cases (recognised by all judges as a judicial matter) and the deployment of justices is an example.
Clause 55 will allow the Lord Chancellor, by statutory instrument, to extend the remit of a court's committee into the judicial arena, a function which is not currently enjoyed. Increased default powers of the Lord Chancellor, together with the ability to appoint an unlimited number of non-magistrate members, many of whom could be local politicians, would call into question judicial independence and politicise, either nationally or locally, the operation of magistrates' courts.
Alterations to petty sessions' areas must, in my view, be a matter of great concern. The Lord Chancellor appears to be intent on changing the concept of local people dealing with local issues. The result of all that means that magistrates will no longer be responsible for organising cases which come before them. Administrators will be able to pick and choose the composition of the tribunals in circumstances where the liberty of the individual is at stake. Such decisions have the potential to be based more on performance indicators than justice.
Steps must be taken to ensure the continued integrity of local benches which maintain judicial control over jurisdictional issues, such as listing of cases. In the Lord

1179
Chancellor's paper, Modernising Justice, reference is made to the Crown Prosecution Service being made responsible for listing, thus manifesting an appearance of bias.
One other area which threatens judicial independence at its very roots is the provision relating to the extending role of the justices' chief executive. The Government's intention to produce a performance charter, which will include targets to reduce delay and improve fine enforcement, will compromise the judiciary if the chief executive is permitted to direct the justices' clerks in all matters, except giving advice in individual cases.
The Magistrates' Association already has examples of chief executives interfering with sentencing and fine-enforcement measures. Defining all the justices' clerk's functions, apart from certain limited circumstances, as merely administrative in Clause 61, when the other duties include giving advice to panels at general meetings and dealing with the grant of legal aid, is a very dangerous view to take.
It needs to be made abundantly clear in statute that the chief executive must not and cannot direct the justices' clerk on any legal issue concerning the bench, or in relation to his or her own judicial or legal powers. Section 8 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 has proved to be deficient in ensuring the integrity and independence of the justices' clerk. Allowing chief executives to direct justices' clerks, when performing statutory duties in relation to legal issues under Clause 60, is a fundamental breach of constitutional law.
It would appear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is becoming prescriptive in relation to his directions. Take, for example, the directions to advisory committees on the appointment of justices of the peace, which no longer allow the committees to use their own initiative and judgment. Here he is becoming prescriptive in relation to judicial matters through a justices' chief executive.
I understand that there was to be a period of consultation which dealt with the role of the justices' clerk. The period for submissions ended on 30th November 1998, yet the Bill was published on 2nd December 1998. The Government pride themselves on being a listening government. In this respect they have listened only to themselves.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recently assured us that if he were permitted certain sartorial concessions he would do his job more efficiently. I suppose, like interest rates, that takes some time to work its way through the system. We must be patient. I am deeply disappointed at his failure, not merely to deal with, but to disclose the very serious constitutional principles which relate to Part III. I propose to take this as the principal point, as the cardinal point, or perhaps I should say as "the cardinal's point". It has a significant Wolsey undertone.
Some nine years ago, in a Green Paper, the Conservative government proposed that in future the Lord Chancellor should make the final decision on
1180
standards of education and on conditions for training advocates, and that he should prescribe the principles to be embodied in codes of conduct for advocates and be empowered to make decisions on rights of audience in the High Court and the Court of Appeal by means of subordinate legislation. The judges, who were carefully defined as the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor, the Lord Justices of Appeal and Justices of the High Court, responded robustly. In their written response they said:
"If the proposals are adopted, he—
that is, the Lord Chancellor—
"will be the final arbiter in all these matters. He will have the power, which no Government Minister has hitherto had, and no Government has hitherto sought, to exercise ultimate control over the profession of advocacy in the Courts. We regard this as a grave breach of the doctrine of separation of powers even though it does not directly threaten the independence of the judges themselves. The obvious risk which gives rise to our concern is that some future Lord Chancellor could use these powers to control the conduct of advocates in such a way as to deter them from representing the interests of unpopular minorities or those who are seeking to challenge decisions of the government of the day".
I intervene to say, "Compare the position of Malaysia at the moment". The quotation continues:
"This may be unlikely to happen for many years to come but once the power is given the risk that it may be so used by some future government (which might contain a Minister of Justice), cannot be disregarded. The Government should recognise that it has gone too far in making these proposals and should accept that such powers as the Lord Chancellor may require should only be exercised by him with the concurrence of the Judiciary. In this way the necessary separation of the proper powers of the Judiciary and those of the Executive would be preserved".
The Government rightly gave way and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and in particular Schedule 4, obliged the Lord Chancellor to obtain the concurrence of all four of the designated judges to any alteration to rights of audience and to standards of education and conditions of training for advocates.
Prior to the issue of the White Paper, The Way Ahead, the Lord Chancellor introduced legislation designed to enable him to have as the Permanent Secretary in his department some other civil servant than had been prescribed by the Supreme Court (Officers) Act; namely, a member of his department who was a lawyer or who had been there for at least five years. In the debate on the Supreme Court Offices Bill, the Lord Chancellor said:
"The Lord Chancellor is at a critical cusp in the separation of powers between Parliament, government and the judiciary".
I leave out one sentence.
"Under the previous government the public were disturbed that the separation of powers was not alive and well because the judiciary and the executive appeared to be at war. It is for the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the public can have continuous confidence that our system, based on the separation of powers, is working".—[Official Report, 25/11/97; col. 934.]
That makes it even more surprising that when the Lord Chancellor issued his White Paper, The Way Ahead, there was no reference at all to that doctrine or to the fact that the Lord Chancellor was intent on breaching it. It provided a very short consultation

1181
process and, I expect to the surprise of the Lord Chancellor who was expecting an easier ride, the judges provided written memoranda on this very subject.
As the leaders of the judges, both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal—namely, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls—have sought to dissociate themselves from that advice, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to what the judges said because I think that they have been treated in a very cavalier fashion. The lengthy paper which accompanies the issue of the Bill does not refer to the judges' responses. They are ignored and it appears that their proposals are not worth seeking to deal with in any way.
However, perhaps I may draw them to your Lordships' attention. The High Court judges said in terms:
"The predominant view is to reiterate the opinion expressed in the Judges' Response to the 1989 Green Papers".
They then set out what I have read to your Lordships, and continued:
"Whether properly viewed as a constitutional issue or not, the High Court Bench strongly support the suggestion of the Court of Appeal in this regard, to the effect that it is insufficient for the Lord Chancellor only to consult the Judges. It is recognised that a veto is unacceptable: a system for identifying majority approval must be established".
In its written response, the Court of Appeal said, inter alia:
"We accept that the traditional role of the Judges as being the sole arbiters of those who should be entitled to appear before them is no longer practical or desirable. We also accept that the need for the unanimous agreement of the designated Judges may repose too much power in the hands of any one designated Judge. But what we do not find acceptable is that the designated Judges should be relegated to a purely consultative role. The separation of powers is still an important constitutional process: and the position of the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary and a government Minister is anomalous. While the Lord Chancellors are, and should be zealous to maintain the independence of the Judiciary, like all spending Ministers they are subject to Treasury constraints. There is an inevitable conflict between the desire and need, which we recognise, to contain the costs of justice and the equally important need to maintain standards …
It is quite untrue that Judges are concerned to preserve the monopoly of the Bar in the Higher Courts because they themselves came from the Bar. It is our view that it is insufficient for the Lord Chancellor only to consult the designated judges. He ought not to change the rules without the concurrence of the majority of them".
There was also a response from the Council of the Inns of Court, which stated,
"We understand why it may be considered wrong that a single designated Judge, however eminent, should have the power to veto changes to the grant or exercise rights of audience approved by the Lord Chancellor and the other three designated Judges. But we do not understand why it should be necessary to go to the opposite extreme and relegate the Judges to the role of consultees only. We agree with the views expressed by Mr. Sydney Kentridge QC in the memorandum dated July 29, 1998 annexed hereto.
As Sydney Kentridge QC points out, the powers the Lord Chancellor proposes to take would be exercised by him not as head of the judiciary, but in his ministerial and executive capacity. Such powers would increase the power of the Executive over the judicial process and would erode the independence of both the Bench and Bar. We also agree with the view expressed by the High Court Judges in paragraph 9 of their response to the consultation paper".
1182
If that was not good enough, there was a wide-ranging speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, who virtually started his speech with this cautionary observation:
"When the Government has a massive majority in the House of Commons the Executive becomes all powerful and Parliamentary scrutiny of the acts and intentions of the Executive is not always as careful as it ought to be. That is when the constitutional principle of the separation of powers becomes more important. In its judicial capacity the House of Lords has emphasised that the British Constitution is firmly based on the separation of powers".
I shall not weary your Lordships with further excerpts, but there is a paper in the Library, of which I was the author, published in the New Law Journal of 19th October, which has the great merit of not setting out my views, but the views of the judges to whom I have made reference.
On the second day of the debate on the Address the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the issue of the separation of powers and back came this very odd observation by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said,
"So far as rights of audience go, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there will be no violation of the separation of powers because, in the unlikely event that I, as Lord Chancellor, having consulted with the judges and with the professions, have to exercise a fallback power to impose rules upon the profession … I would not do so without the support of an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament".—[Official Report, 25/11/98; col. 127.]
That shows a remarkable misunderstanding of the entire doctrine. It presupposes that the Lord Chancellor has removed from the judges their existing powers and. having done so, he then makes a decision which they do not like. In order to get further authority for his Executive act, he goes to Parliament for an affirmative resolution. As it has been pointed out, we all know that affirmative resolutions are never scuppered except in one case which related to sanctions during the Rhodesian affair. As my noble and learned friend the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, may recall, I sought to attack his order relative to conditional fees and I very nearly won. I lost by five votes. I would have won if the convention had not been adhered to of the Front Bench spokesmen urging on their troops, but resiling from voting themselves. If they had voted I would have won by ten votes. So the attempt which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor sought to make to quieten the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seems to me to be far off the mark.
As it now stands, the position under this Bill is that the Lord Chancellor can decide who can appear in court; who can conduct litigation; what rules of conduct lawyers can have; what qualification regulations lawyers can have; whether lawyers can change their rules and whether they can change their qualification regulations.
We all know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor enjoys the exercise of power. He has told us that he is chairman of no less than five committees of the Cabinet. My noble and learned friend, the former Lord Chancellor, was the chairman of none during his final year. But the Lord Chancellor must be prepared not only to exercise powers but to share them.

1183
Unless and until he does so he has seriously breached a very important constitutional issue designed to protect the man in the street from excessive Executive power.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I apologise for any discourtesy in not being present during the earlier part of this debate. I was exercising a right of audience elsewhere. I should also declare an interest as a barrister who does, and who hopes to be allowed to continue to do, legal aid work. I welcome the acknowledgement, despite its guarded understatement, in paragraph 1.4 of the White Paper where it says that most lawyers are decent and hard-working people of integrity and commitment and who do not all become rich.
If I was left with any emotion during the long debates leading to the passing of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, it was of some pride at being an advocate adhering to the cab rank principle and willing to do legal aid work. In passing, I welcome the commitment in paragraphs 1.14 and 1.15 of the White Paper to law reform, including continuing statutory consolidation and pruning, because surely access to justice requires accessible law.
But this Bill is concerned with wider questions to which I suggest two basic propositions. The first is that the right to conduct litigation and to appear in court involves the provision of a public service; and, secondly, that the public, both the users of legal services and the taxpayers who fund their provision, are entitled to effective quality control. In that respect I would like to say how much I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
So the questions to be confronted in considering this Bill are these: what degree and standard of quality control should there be, and where should it come from? Clearly, the professional bodies should have primary responsibility for these matters. I do not believe that they will fail to meet that responsibility. Perhaps I may add one further observation. Lawyers are now much better trained than I was when I qualified. The growth of accreditation schemes initiated by specialist legal associations will maintain and raise standards, without the need for Executive interference.
Much reference has been made to Clause 35 and Schedule 5 to the Bill, which give the Lord Chancellor the power to make and break the rules of the professional bodies. The purpose, which is clearly stated in the White Paper, is to ensure that professional bodies cannot frustrate the Government's objectives. No doubt the Government would say that these powers are to be regarded as a last resort, and so they must be. But I would seriously question whether in reality their exercise will ever be necessary. Certainly as regards the Bar, I do not foresee any attempt to exploit a monopolistic position, and yet I would expect the professional bodies to reserve the right to argue for the maintenance of standards, which is the proper concern of those who work daily in the courts.
In the White Paper there are repeated references to parliamentary approval being required of the changes, if any, to the rules of the professions. I do not find that
1184
requirement set out in the Bill itself. I ask whether I am correct in assuming that the affirmative resolution requirement derives not from the Bill but from the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which this Bill will amend, even though, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, indicated, the affirmative resolution procedure may be an inadequate safeguard.
I turn briefly to Clause 36 of the Bill, which states the overriding duty of advocates to the court and also the duty to comply with professional rules of conduct. That emphasises what most of us take for granted. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the purpose is to protect the independence of all advocates and litigators. In reality, it is designed to make clear to employed advocates that these basic duties prevail over any duty to those who pay them. I question what sanctions exist for the breach of those duties.
Presumably one of the sanctions must be punishment for contempt of court. If that is correct, should it not be on the face of the Bill? More importantly, will the powers of the court to deal with breaches of these fundamental duties extend beyond the employed lawyer who has acted through misplaced loyalty to, or under pressure from, his or her employer? Will it extend to the employer himself who exerts that pressure and who may not himself be a lawyer or otherwise answerable as an officer of the court?
I turn briefly to the question of appeals. The rules concerning appeals at various levels have become increasingly complicated and impenetrable. The rules in the Court of Appeal, supplemented by practice direction after practice direction, occupy a disproportionate part of the White Book. I hope that the Master of the Rolls will not mind my saying so.
However, I only wish to raise a concern about Clause 39 and the restrictions on second appeals. I can see that the expression in the Bill "some other special reason" will become one of those phrases which take on a life of their own, generating a considerable body of case law. More importantly, while there is clearly an argument for restricting a second appeal when the first appeal substantially upheld the first instance decision, it is less obvious that there should be such restrictions when the first appeal overturned the original decision. The originally successful party should not be deprived of the benefit of that success by a flawed first level appeal, coupled with an inability to meet the requirements presently stated in the Bill. I suggest that there should be a lower threshold, at least when the first two decisions are not pointing in the same direction.
Finally, I believe that we shall need to look critically at the introduction of conditional fees in family cases. I welcome the recognition that work concerning children is manifestly unsuitable to conditional fee agreements. It is a platitude that there are no winners or losers in such cases, except perhaps the children themselves. But in matrimonial financial and property cases the law is not providing compensatory damages; it is redistributing finite family resources which are often barely enough to support the family when it is together, let alone when it breaks up.

1185
The statutory scheme under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requires first regard to be given to the interests of the children. Moreover, the law requires a sometimes complex discretionary exercise dealing with actual and prospective assets—the past, the present and the future—dealing with prospective interests; dealing with domestic and business assets of varying degrees of liquidity and illiquidity; and nowadays dealing with pensions. It is not just concerned with assets but also with responsibility for the liabilities left when a marriage has broken down.
The latter requires a great deal of skill and care in unravelling fairly the joint financial lives of parties who have very often been together for a long time. It is, therefore, not obvious in such cases who wins and who loses. Moreover, practitioners are encouraged not to think in terms of winning and losing. Similarly, they are not encouraged to allow their clients to think in those terms; but rather there is very properly nowadays an emphasis on mediation and conciliation, not only encouraged by the legal associations to which most of us belong but also by the court system itself. In particular I doubt very much that insurance, which underpins conditional fee agreements in ordinary civil litigation, would be available to meet the costs of the successful party if the client who is subject to such an agreement loses the case in whatever terms that may be described.
I can also see the difficulties which presently exist with the legal aid statutory charge on former matrimonial assets—which can last for many years—being replaced by charges in favour of the legal profession. It is very difficult to envisage how this will work in practice and even more difficult to see how it will be a benefit to clients.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, if I may say so—and no one else has said this so far in the debate—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is looking absolutely splendid without his breeches. He has every right to be pleased at the good reception that the Bill has received from all quarters of the House. This is a good Bill. For a long time there has been a denial of access to justice for an increasing number of our population not poor enough to be able to obtain legal aid and not rich enough to avoid the cost and risk of litigation. Therefore, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right to overhaul the entire system for civil and criminal cases and; in doing so, to set up a new legal services commission coupled to a new community legal service. That will mean that the right resource can be delivered in the right quarter at the right value.
I believe that the innovation of legal aid was very important. It is something of which my party still has every right to be proud. It was introduced in 1949 and it worked well for many years. This, in one particular regard, is relevant to Clause 5(1)(a), under which the new community legal service is under a duty to provide,
"general information about the law and legal system and the availability of legal services",
and must do so in a clear and lucid way.
1186
I should tell my noble and learned friend that only last Friday at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre the Legal Aid Board received a prize at the "Plain English" awards ceremony. Indeed, it received a gold award for the clarity of the explanation of the function of legal aid in its leaflets. I do not want to move my noble and learned friend too quickly on to the subject of his right honourable friend the Home Secretary but, at the same gathering, the Home Secretary received a gold award for gobbledegook. However, he received it most humbly and said that it would be an encouragement for him and his officers to follow—he did not say emulate—the example of the Lord Chancellor's Officers. It would serve as an encouragement for the Home Office to do better in the future.
I can well remember sitting on legal aid committees in the 1960s. I particularly remember sitting on the legal aid committee in Nottingham. By and large—and this is some 35 years ago—the legal aid system worked well. However, times have changed. Therefore, my noble and learned friend is quite right not only to act but to do so decisively and radically in order to deal with the serious problem of denial of access to justice. Therefore, I congratulate him not only on the Bill but also on the White Paper, although we were not given as much time to study it as I am sure he would have liked us to have. Moreover, I should congratulate him on the 60 or so pages of printed Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill. Indeed, this is my first recollection, after many years in this House, of a department having gone to such care to prepare information about a Bill. We should all be most grateful to my noble and learned friend in that respect.
My noble and learned friend is also quite right to make provision of state funds for civil and criminal cases more flexible and cost-effective, as well as pressing forward—I say this in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—with the conditional fee arrangements. I have never considered that the legal profession could not be trusted with conditional fees, any more than I consider now, in the proposal contained in the Bill, that the employed lawyer cannot be trusted to carry his proper responsibilities to the court.
I am also very pleased with the new provisions on the rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation, which are to be found in Clauses 30 to 36 of the Bill. They repeal the earlier rights of audience provisions of Sections 31 to 33 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Now there is to be an even playing field between barristers and solicitors—both have the rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. It was particularly pleasing to read the memorandum supplied by the Bar Council and to learn that it supports this proposal in principle. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, will remember, this was a very contentious matter in many debates during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill.
I am quite happy with the provisions of Schedule 5, under which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has a duty to consult the appropriate body and then has a duty to put his proposals forward on the affirmative procedure. I noted that the noble and learned

1187
Lord the Master of the Rolls also supported the provisions in Schedule 5. I was sorry to learn from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, that other judges take a different view. But we have heard the very clearly expressed views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, and I am wholly satisfied with their views.
I remember very well the circumstances of the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct set up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay Clashfern. He did his very best to control its size but, as it went through the Houses of Parliament, it grew like Topsy and became much larger than the noble and learned Lord originally would wished. Now it has become a stalemate and something has to be done. The best example of how much of a stalemate it has become lies in the words of the noble and learned Lord in opening this debate, when he drew our attention to the six-year delay over the consideration of employed solicitors' rights of audience.
I have two caveats. The first is the application of Clause 18 of the Bill, which denies the provision of legal aid (if I may so refer to it; I know the legal aid system is going and I use it as a colloquial term) for services relating to any law other than that of England and Wales, except when it appears to the Lord Chancellor that a foreign law is being imposed by a treaty obligation.
I had a close connection with the passage of the Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act 1996. I hope your Lordships will not think that I am boasting, but that Act, before it came to the statute book, was born of a joint opinion which I wrote with Mr. Robert Webb, QC. I have drawn to the attention of my noble friend, who will be winding up, that in that Act, in order to establish a defence to committing a criminal act on a foreign aircraft arriving in the United Kingdom, the defendant is entitled to take the point that while the act he performed in that aircraft might have been an offence under English law, it was not an offence under the law of the country in which the aircraft was registered. Indeed, he has a duty under the Act to serve a notice stating the facts upon which he believes this requirement has not been met, and show the grounds for that opinion. I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend would look at that. Perhaps we could deal with that with a suitable amendment during the Committee stage.
The second matter is perhaps more substantial. Under the provisions of Clause 7(5) and Schedule 2 all legal aid is being withdrawn from all personal injury cases, that is to say cases arising out of motor car accidents. I believe that is a mistake. We should not go that far at this stage. The personal injuries system has worked quite well. I am told that there has been £520 million in compensation for 76,670 legal aid victims. The net cost to the public is £34 million. I refer to the year 1996–97. There have also been £90 million in benefits repaid to the DSS by insurers arising out of payments that the DSS has had to pay out. There have also been savings for the National Health Service.
1188
The poor litigant who would be entitled to legal aid has, under the conditional fee system, to pay an insurance premium and then pay out disbursements. It is quite possible that the very poor would not be able to launch a conditional fee arrangement because their resources would not be enough to pay even that limited amount of money.
Having made those two observations, I very much believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is carrying forward the work of his predecessor. I supported his predecessor throughout the passage of the Court and Legal Services Bill and I wish to support my noble and learned friend throughout the passage of this Bill. It is a most welcome Bill. I say again, it is a good Bill.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, certain important principles have been stated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We welcome—perhaps not with the enthusiasm of what one might call the metaphorical red scarf and rattle of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, a few moments ago—that government resources should be targeted efficiently to areas of greatest need; that more people should have access to justice; that areas covered by pro bono work or by law advice centres should be properly funded.
We agree that the provision of legal support in such areas as refugees, asylum-seekers and the disempowered, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, is haphazard. We welcome in particular the commitment of the Lord Chancellor to maintain the same level of resources as at present for the provision of legal services, even if the organisation and targeting in those resources is to be changed. For that reason, we welcome reform of the legal aid system and the introduction of a legal services commission with a broader and more flexible remit.
The interests of the consumer of legal services must be paramount, but it is very much in the interests of the consumer that there should remain a strong, skilled body of lawyers whose professional expertise, exercised on behalf of the consumer, is adequately rewarded. As the noble and learned Lord said, while it is true that the state cannot match the private rates of lawyers, the gap between those who are remunerated privately, by commercial concerns and insurance companies who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, in themselves derive their funds from citizens as ordinary consumers or premium payers, must not be so large as to divert talent away from serving the generality of the public.
In the clash with authority in judicial review applications—whether with local or national government, with various courts, or with insurance companies on behalf of clients injured in personal injury cases, it cannot be right that the consumer, the ordinary citizen, should be served by second-rank lawyers. There has to be equality of arms. But the way of the world is such that those attracted into the bureaucracies may well be adventurous, idealistic youngsters, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham suggested; but, unhappily, adventurous, idealistic youngsters fail to become tenants in chambers or partners in solicitors' firms.

1189
We are here not to support or maintain any existing structure of the legal profession if it is failing the public. That is the question: is it failing the public in any sense other than that it is expensive? Is the quality of justice today not being served by the lawyers who are practising?
It is worthwhile spending a moment considering the qualities of the profession as it exists. I of course declare an interest, having practised for five years as a solicitor and for about 20 or 30 years at the Bar. Quality at the Bar has been and is assured by high standards of entry and by intense competition for pupillage, for tenancies and then for work. The ultimate test of success as a lawyer is, "Can you persuade the tribunal before which you are appearing? Have you the trust of that tribunal?". Another assurance of quality is that instructions are received not from lay people who cannot choose between individuals but from professionals who can pick and choose those who are most likely to persuade in the particular kind of case, or who have recognised and earned expertise for the purpose of specialist advice. The cab rank principle, to which my noble friend Lord Meston referred a moment ago, is an important principle in ensuring fairness and the distribution of quality between cases and between members of the Bar.
All this is supported by a strict and pervasive disciplinary code, a code that derives from the pressure of colleagues, from the need to preserve a reputation for one's self and for one's chambers, from the views of one's seniors, particularly the head of chambers, and of course from the disciplines exerted by the judges, the Bar Council and, in the very last resort, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's secret files, to which none of us has access. There is a tradition of independence in which the duty of the advocate to a wider concept of justice comes first, then duty to the court and then duty to the client, whether it is a prosecuting authority or a lay client.
I do not believe that this existing quality of representation can be assured by the mission statement in Clause 36 of the Bill. Nor do I believe that a bureaucracy, such as is provided by the Crown Prosecution Service or the proposed defence service, can ensure it. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who I see is now in his place, the Crown Prosecution Service has had a series of strong directors backed by a talented group of lawyers, but many believe that the size of the organisation and the extent of the bureaucracy have militated against efficiency. Furthermore, its decisions and the decisions of the Serious Fraud Office have not been without controversy. It is rather strange that an extension to the role of the CPS is proposed at a time when urgent reforms have been brought to that service—to regionalise it, to provide the equivalent of district attorneys, and so on.
When one looks at the existing organisation of the legal profession, one has a country-wide service. Around 11,000 legal aid outlets are provided by solicitors with access to the highest expertise. That is the service which the Bar provides. A solicitor can go to the most qualified barrister in the particular area. That may arise perhaps only once in his career. The structure
1190
is something like a pyramid. In advocacy terms, the base is the solicitors who do the preparation; the advocate, the sole practitioner, leads in court; in a heavy cast, junior counsel provides in valuable research, support and advice; and the lead advocate concentrates upon presentation and argument.
That structure has not grown up by chance. When we hear talk of restrictive practices, the suggestion is that the legal profession is a crusty out-of-date organisation. The fact is that it has arrived at an efficient and economic way of presenting litigation. It does not pay an ordinary solicitor, whose hourly rate is much greater than that of the vast majority of counsel, to hang about in court waiting for cases to come on. On the other hand, as counsel are not supporting a large bill for staff costs, their charges are lower and they can move quickly from case to case and gain in expertise.
I have never opposed the removal of restrictions on solicitors' rights of audience. Those solicitors who can compete at the highest level should compete. But the economics of the whole profession do not make it possible for them to do so. It is not worth their while. It is far better to have a young advocate to do that kind of work than for the solicitor to attend court himself.
In the course of the debate today three issues have given rise to the greatest controversy. Perhaps I may refer to them briefly. The first is block contracting. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked a question to which I should welcome an answer. Is it proposed that the block contract will be an exclusive contract; that is to say, a contract for a geographical area for a fixed period of years? Does it envisage a block of cases at a fixed price, inclusive of advocates' fees? If that is the case, there is the geographical problem of having one firm of solicitors in, for example, the area in north Wales where I have practised as a solicitor. If there is only one designated firm and legal aid is needed on both sides, to which firm does the other party to the dispute go? The system provides no room for the unexpected, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. It shifts the advantage to the insurer or to the large defendant who can ambush with procedural applications and delays and exhaust the budget that has been given to any particular case within that block contract. It will also see the end of mixed practices—a point to which my noble friend referred—the kind of practices where perhaps only 10 or 15 per cent. of the work is legally aided. Clearly, that kind of expertise will no longer be available if exclusive block contracts come in. We shall be examining that issue with considerable care.
The second issue is rights of audience for the CPS in all the courts. Successive Directors of Public Prosecutions have called for the extension of the right of audience in the higher courts to their staff. The motivation has always appeared to be, to me at least, improvement in the standard of recruitment, retention and morale. That ought not to be a major factor influencing policy. Those who accept employment with the CPS do so for the security of a salary, pension and employment rights. Their promotion depends on performance. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, there is no yardstick of performance in prosecution work

1191
save for the number of convictions that are obtained. There is no open competition. Those are the forces which at the independent Bar ensure quality.
I have seen in Hong Kong how the system adopted by the Attorney-General's chambers can breed difficult prosecutors who will over-charge—that is to say, put in a higher charge in the hope of a lower plea. The case of Hui Chi Ming is an example of that. It is noteworthy that in a forthright letter which he wrote to The Times some time ago, Mr. Michael Thomas QC, who was Attorney-General of Hong Kong and head of the prosecution service, firmly opposed the concept of having a similar service in the United Kingdom. If the proposals of Lord Justice Glidewell produce a two-tier Crown Prosecution Service, which consists of a pool of trial advocates who are serviced by a base of instructing lawyers and support staff, what is being gained? If, on the other hand, it is not organised in that way, and each lawyer carries a caseload which consists both of preparation and advocacy, how often will that individual lawyer appear to conduct a serious case at Crown Court level, much less appeals to the higher courts?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to his experience in the Army Legal Service. I have perhaps a little more recent experience of courts martial in the Army Legal Service. I have noted a disadvantage as regards those able and competent lieutenant-colonels and colonels in the Army Legal Service—about whom I cast no aspersions—in that they may perhaps deal with one murder case in a year or in two years. In other words, they do not have the day in, day out, high responsibility of heavy cases. Problems have arisen from that situation.
The third area of controversy is that of the criminal public defender system. With my colleagues on this Bench, I believe that it is a matter of principle that the state should not control the defence of individuals who are themselves charged with criminal offences by the state. But even if one were to have such a system, it would have all the problems that I have mentioned in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service; namely, bureaucracy, no competition and no independence. I accept entirely what my noble friend Lord Goodhart said; namely, that experience in the United States shows that these public defender systems are notorious for incompetence.
Public confidence in the criminal justice system is essential. It impinges upon more people than any other area of the law and its consequences for them and for their families are, by and large, more dire. Victims will not report crime; witnesses will not come forward; and juries will not convict if confidence in the criminal justice system is diminished. Nothing is perfect. There have been miscarriages of justice under our present system. However, I believe that the unlimited extension of rights of audience to the CPS and the creation of a state Crown defender service will destroy independence and impose a bureaucracy which, in my view, will be to the detriment of justice.
I refer to the cardinal principle—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has termed it—which appears to us to be a serious breach of constitutional
1192
principle. I can understand the impatience of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to move forward on the issue of rights of audience. I have shared that impatience. I have spoken on the topic and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember that he supported me when I moved an amendment to extend the rights of audience of solicitors in the higher courts in some of the earlier legislation in the previous term. Although he may be impatient to move forward on the rights of audience, why does he require for that purpose sole power to alter the qualification regulations and the rules of conduct of the Bar and of the Law Society?
It has been said that the affirmative resolution procedure is of little value as a safeguard in your Lordships' House. I agree with that. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said in full support of Schedule 5 to this Bill. I wondered what on earth was wrong with the clauses upon which he expressed his reservations. It seems to me that this matter must be carefully considered by the whole of your Lordships' House. We on these Benches welcome some of the principles which are contained in the Bill.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we have now debated this Bill for nearly six hours and I think the kindest thing I can do for your Lordships is to speak briefly. I have just four points to make.
The first concerns the nature of the Bill. The Bill is a skeleton Bill. It contains no fewer than 17 new powers for the Lord Chancellor to exercise either in the form of statutory instruments or in the form of directions. It will be extremely difficult to scrutinise this Bill properly in Committee unless the noble and learned Lord can give us some indication of the content of those instruments and directions. I hope therefore that between now and then he can be as helpful as possible in this regard. If I mention Clause 9 and the approval he has to give to the funding code, I refer to only one of the most important ones.
It is not exclusively the fault of the present Government that far too many of the Bills of the past decade have been of the same nature. I would not like to suggest for the moment that one of the reasons the Bill is in this form is that the noble and learned Lord has not yet made up his mind about what he wants to put into it. I shall assume that it is all in his head and the homework will be easy to complete by the middle of January when the Committee stage starts.
The second point that I want to make relates to the interventions made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner, Lord Lane and Lord Mayhew, and, I think, by a number of other noble Lords, too, on the separation of powers. The separation of powers is both the most important and the least visible part of our constitution. Its principle is simple. The legislature and the Executive do not interfere in the conduct of the courts, and the judiciary does not interfere in the conduct of the legislature. For about 200 years this principle guaranteed freedom in this country before we had democratic elections. Nowadays, when in another

1193
place it is no longer possible to control the executive by the democratic process, the only way in which executive decisions by Ministers are controlled is through the courts, through the judges, and through the submissions made to those judges by the Bar.
The courts, the judiciary, the Bar, and the solicitors who instruct the Bar, are therefore at the very centre of the individual liberties of the citizen of this country. It is no wonder, therefore, that many noble and learned Lords are concerned about the treatment of the separation of powers in the Bill.
It is my submission that if the Lord Chancellor insists on approaching the matter in the way that he explained to me in the debate on the gracious Speech, he will be in breach of our constitution. He may continue to disagree with me, but I hope that he will reflect carefully on the matter over Christmas and the New Year.
The third point I wish to make concerns the definition of "competition" in regard to legal services. Here I was struck by a number of excellent speeches from noble and learned and noble Lords. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out that as a result of the Bill there is likely to be a substantial reduction in the number of solicitors who would be the beneficiaries of block contracting. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, underlined the point.
In the excellent briefing I received from the Law Society, I understood that the figure was to drop from 11,000 to 6,000; but the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, suggested that the fall would be even more alarming. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord intends to use other ways of providing legal services to those citizens in need of them. It may be that the difference between 3,000 and 11,000 will be made up by other providers of legal services. We need to know the answers to those questions.
We also need to know what happens when a provider of legal services runs out of money but still has clients who fulfill the funding criteria. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will be in a position to respond immediately; but at Committee stage we shall have an opportunity of dealing with the matter in more detail.
The next point about the provision of services was brilliantly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. It is the importance of defining the quality of the provision of those services in the block contracts. It must be right that in the Bill, whether in a main clause or an annex, or even in a direction made under it, there is a clear definition of what is expected of those who benefit from public money in providing the services to the public. That is the crucial issue which was extremely well explained. I shall not attempt to embellish it.
A further point I wish to make in respect of the provision of services is about the profession itself. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor frequently draws parallels between the legal profession and the medical profession in order to explain how much more money members of the legal profession receive than the medical profession. That may or may not be true; but what is true about the medical profession is that it is divided between generalists and specialists, general
1194
practitioners and consultants. To become a consultant, one has to study and serve apprenticeships of between 10 and 15 years after one qualifies as a doctor. How does the noble and learned Lord see the future of the legal profession in the light of his decision to give rights of audience not only to solicitors but also to employed lawyers? Does he still see the legal profession as a profession divided into generalists and specialists along the lines of the medical profession? Alternatively, does he have some other vision?
In my submission, it would be a great mistake to allow the profession to develop in a different direction from the way it has developed so far. I can quite understand the merits of solicitors being able to compete equally with barristers in order to become specialists; but I can see no value in allowing the high standards the profession has had throughout the centuries to fall or, to use the contemporary expression which I do not much like but which is effective, to be dumbed down. I would not like to see cheapening of the standards as a result of the changes. I am sure that the Bill can be amended in such a way as to ensure that that does not happen.
I am not an enthusiast about CFAs. My main reason is that it turns lawyers into speculators. It also tests the ethics of the members of the profession to the limit. If their livelihood depends on the outcome of a case, there will be a terrible temptation to all of them—to which I hope none will give in—not to disclose documents which would have a crucial bearing on the outcome of the litigation.
I am also unhappy about the extent to which the noble and learned Lord has been able to research the availability of insurance at the right price. Nor do I think we are yet sufficiently well informed about the degree of risk aversion of those solicitors who will be responsible for doing CFA work. I am extremely pleased, therefore, to see that the noble and learned Lord has caught a whiff of those concerns and allowed for them in Clause 7(7) of the Bill. I shall be most interested to hear at Committee stage how he views the relationship between that clause and the main provision in Schedule 2.
Finally, there seems to be a movement towards the nationalisation of the legal profession. It is quite clear that the noble and learned Lord is enthusiastic both about the availability of state employed defence advocates and state employed advocates for the prosecution. I am bewildered by that for two reasons: the first is ethical, and the second is practical.
The ethical reason was made outstandingly well by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I shall make no attempt to improve on that. It is clear that state prosecuting organisations have particular policies about prosecution; and those must conflict with the duty of an independent advocate to represent the case for the Crown in a court. I find it hard to understand how that cannot be so. In any case, as we all know from the Glidewell Report, the prosecution service has many other worries of an administrative nature which might make it extremely difficult to add the task of advocacy to its role.

1195
It may well be that, so far as concerns the defence service, state defenders are simply employed to fill up gaps in the system left by the operation of independently employed private barristers and solicitors. The Bill is not clear on that and I would welcome clarification from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
The system that we have at present has lasted for 50 years. On the whole I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, when he says that it has served us extremely well. It may not be as cost-effective as the system which will replace it—if we get the system right. But we should not decry the enormous achievement of what was one of the central planks of the welfare state. I should be loth to see its departure unless I were satisfied that what was going to replace it was much better.
9.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we have had an extremely good debate. Not only have many distinguished lawyers and judges taken part but also a significant number of noble Lords who are not lawyers or judges. Every single one of those noble Lords from both sides of the House who is not a lawyer or a judge has greeted the proposals of the Lord Chancellor with enthusiasm.
It is worth pointing out why we have introduced the Bill. The position at present—I do not think that anyone seriously denies it—is that many people are put off obtaining help for legal problems because they think, in many cases rightly, that the legal system is slow, expensive, difficult to understand and unresponsive to their problems. Only the very poor now qualify for legal aid. Many of the very poor who qualify for legal aid do not know that they have a legal problem and have no realistic means of discovering whether they have a legal problem.
By the Bill we seek to create a new legal aid system and a new community legal service which will try to ensure that the needs of individuals are properly assessed and that public funds are spent in providing the help that people need in a cost-effective way.
We think that many people do not need to go to court to solve their problem. What many people need is help in dealing with an organisation or a body that is causing them a problem—a benefit agency, a housing association or a local authority. That is why we are committed to developing a community legal service which will improve access to information, assistance and advice services. Those who get into a confrontational situation may be better helped by mediation rather than by going to court. Those who need to go to court will be helped, we think, by the progressive introduction of conditional fees which will provide new ways of funding litigation and of opening up civil justice to those who are currently denied it.
We hope—very much thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—that the modernisation of the civil justice system will mean that court procedure will be quicker, simpler and less expensive. We also believe
1196
that the taxpayer has been paying more and more for legal aid while fewer and fewer people have been helped by it. We believe that contracting for legal services will introduce competition to the market and help to ensure that public funds are spent in a controlled way on quality assured legal services. We hope that if the system works public funds will be targeted on cases of highest priority and that cases will not go to court if there is a better way of resolving the problem.
Throughout in preparing these changes we have been motivated by the needs of the users of legal services. We believe that to be the correct way to approach it. In the course of the debate no one sought to take issue with those principles. The few attacks on the Bill were related to points of detail or high principle. I shall not deal with every point that was made but with the main threads of the debate.
The first suggestion made with great force by a number of speakers, in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, Lord Lane and Lord Ackner, and to a lesser extent the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, that it was a constitutional insult for rights of audience to be determined by the Lord Chancellor and that it offended against the separation of powers in this country. I deal first with the constitutional argument and then the argument based on practicality and utility. The noble and learned Lords to whom I referred elided the independence of the judiciary with the question of who had the right to determine who could appear in court.
Historically, there is no justification for the assertion that it is the judiciary, and only the judiciary, that determines right of audience. I have a long list of Acts of Parliament that go back to 1836 in which Parliament has determined rights of audience. I shall not weary the House with all of them. Section 2 of the Trials of Felony Act 1836 allowed barristers and attorneys rights of audience in the magistrates' courts. In 1846 Parliament legislated to enable barristers to appear in the Court of Common Pleas, which had traditionally been reserved to sergeants of law. When the Crown Court was established in 1971 the Courts Act enabled the Lord Chancellor to direct that solicitors should be able to appear in any description of proceedings that he might specify. Rights of audience in the county court were dealt with in the County Courts Act 1984 and before that in the Acts of 1934 and 1959. These are not newfangled introductions by the Executive.
As early as 1574 the Privy Council issued instructions to the Inns of Court on various matters including rights of audience. The order giving that direction was signed not only by Sir Nicholas Bacon but also by Lord Burghley, the then Lord Treasurer and ancestor of the late lamented noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Historically, there is no constitutional bar on Parliament determining rights of audience.
What is the present position in relation to rights of audience? They are determined and governed by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which designates the Bar Council as an authorised body to determine who may appear in court and permits the Lord Chancellor, with the designated judges, to determine changes in

1197
rules that determine who has the right of audience. Historically, there is absolutely no basis for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said set his hair on end. That is the historical and constitutional position. What about the practical position? In 1990 this Act was introduced. Between 1990 and 1998 every single application that was made to try to extend rights of audience led to a form of guerrilla warfare that ended up with a complete stalemate in relation to any extension.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord is so carried away by his eloquence that he has somewhat exaggerated the position. The rights of audience for solicitors in private practice did not result in a stalemate. Although they did not come immediately there was no stalemate. We have been told that 700 people have rights of audience in that respect. I await anxiously to hear whether the standards to be applied to solicitors in the future will be greater or less than those standards.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention, and I stand corrected. He was right; I was being carried away rather by my eloquence. What I was meaning to refer to in relation to that was that there was an issue about employed lawyers and the extent to which they could appear in court. The position in relation to that was described at some length in an earlier Green Paper relating to rights of audience and the position was that the matter ping-ponged to and fro between the committee, ACLEC and the various professional bodies and the Lord Chancellor over a period of six years. In my respectful view it showed that the system did not work. It was an ineffective way of determining the extensions of rights of audience. That is a view that the Lord Chancellor took. It is not without significance that it is a view that the two designated judges who have spoken in this debate—namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham—have also taken.
As a matter of practicality I would respectfully suggest that the system is not working and needs to be changed. Why is it not working? Because there is in effect a stand-off—not an unpleasant stand-off but an inability to agree—between the Lord Chancellor on the one hand and the designated judges or ACLEC on the other. There therefore needs to be some form of change. The most sensible way to change it must be to give the Lord Chancellor the power to determine—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. There was no stand-off. What occurred in regard to employed lawyers was, first of all, a suggestion emanating in many ways from the then DPP that the use of audience by the CPS should be limited in quantity, and that went back to the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges, who pointed out that it was not the function of ACLEC to suggest amending the Act. It then came back to ACLEC for further consideration. There was a change in the constituent members of ACLEC, and that took some
1198
little time, but ultimately the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges settled on a compromise, which was that the members of the CPS should act rather like juniors in large cases and in due course they would get the experience and no doubt that would justify full rights of audience. That was not a stand-off; that was a compromise. It was a firm decision, and I imagine it has been used.
I should also point out perhaps that in the 18 months before that decision was made it lay in the—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord is abusing the right of intervention.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may put it this way. Does the noble Lord and learned realise that in the 18 months before the final decision the papers remained in the office of the Lord Chancellor without anything being done, and I raised three Parliamentary Questions in the hope of getting a decision?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for describing the procedure over the period of time. I cannot comment on where the papers lay for 18 months, but, even if they did lie for 18 months in one place rather than another (which I do not know), that means that it took four-and-a-half years (ignoring the 18 months) to reach the compromise that he described, which in my respectful submission tends to make out the case that the system was not working as effectively as it might have done.
In my respectful submission, in order to make progress on this matter, we need to have a system which works effectively. The Lord Chief Justice said that in his view the most appropriate course was that there should not be formal power in one place but actual power in another. The most appropriate circumstance and the only real solution is ultimately to give the Lord Chancellor, after the professional societies have proposed changes in the rules, the limited power to alter it if he thinks those rules are too lax or too restrictive in relation to rights of audience.
There are two safeguards in relation to that. First, it must be approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, may regard that as of no importance at all, it is plainly the way our parliamentary system works, for better or for worse.
Secondly, the Lord Chancellor can propose changes to the rules of professional societies only to meet the objectives of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. If it goes beyond that—for example, towards the South African fears or the autocratic fears which have been referred to in our debate—then there is the power of the judges judicially to review such an exercise of the power. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I believe the position to be not at all as it has been described by the noble and learned Lord in the course of the debate and that a sensible solution has been reached.

1199
The second point put with an equal degree of vigour and venom was in relation to employed advocates. The most eloquent exposition of that was by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am not "learned", unfortunately.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. He basically put the proposition, supported by a number of other noble Lords, that one cannot have an employed advocate who is independent because he would owe duties to an employer as well as to the court. With the greatest respect, I do not accept that that is the position. As was pointed out, 97 per cent. of criminal cases in this country take place in the magistrates' courts. In the main, the prosecution is undertaken by members of the Crown Prosecution Service. Those cases are not only driving cases. They include important cases which may affect people's reputation and may lead to them going to prison. There is no suggestion that members of the Crown Prosecution Service are not able to deliver the standards of propriety as well as the standard of independence which would be required from an advocate.
I do not believe that it could be suggested for one moment that Dame Barbara Mills or Mr. David Calvert-Smith, the last two Directors of Public Prosecution, lost their ability to be independent from the moment they came to be employed by the Crown Prosecution Service. Equally, I do not believe that the position of, for example, Treasury counsel at the Old Bailey, who are plainly independent and plainly act in the best traditions of the Bar in relation to independence, could be said to have lost their independence because their sole financing comes from one source.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, that is completely wrong. Treasury counsel are entitled to take on defence work, if they wish to, and to do other work, if they wish to. Therefore, it is not their sole source of income.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that they are entitled to be that, but as a matter of practice they rarely do more than one other case a year, apart from the cases which they present at the Old Bailey. Nobody would suggest for one moment that the fact that they receive all their instructions from one source in any way undermines their independence.
The Attorney-General is an employed member of the Government, as is the Solicitor-General. Nobody for one moment would suggest that thereby they lose their independence. I do not accept the proposition that employment undermines one's independence. History shows us that one can be independent and fulfil the best traditions of the Bar, even though one may be employed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are at the
1200
top of the tree? The problem is not perceived to be with the people who have made it. The concern is in relation to those who are on the way up.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would not regard the CPS in the magistrates' court as at the top of the tree. I do not regard its independence to be in any way defective as a result of the fact that its members are employed. There are significant numbers of chambers in this country in which senior members of the Bar undertake only prosecution work. I do not regard them as in any way having their independence compromised by that. With respect, the fear is exaggerated. From my experience of the Crown Prosecution Service when I was Solicitor-General, I can say that its standards of propriety and independence were extremely high.
As regards public defenders, the Bill proposes that the criminal element of the legal services commission will be able to employ directly people who in certain circumstances would be able to act as defence advocates for people in court. It is not intended that that circumstance should apply to the great majority of cases. It will more likely be filling gaps and, for example, providing defence services in the magistrates' court. I do not believe for one moment that that would lead to a compromise of justice. Nor do I believe that it would lead to "more negotiated" justice. We know from experience that defence and prosecution counsel are often in the same chambers. No one for one moment regards that as an indication that justice is compromised. Again, I believe that fear to be exaggerated.
It was suggested that there was a danger in exclusive contracting. It was put most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that exclusive contracting meant the new arrangement involved one firm of solicitors for each geographical area. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that that is not what was intended. Exclusive contracting means that the only people from whom one can obtain legally-aided services are those who have an "exclusive" contract. But it is not exclusive in the sense of being one for each area. It means that the base for legal aid practitioners will be exclusively those who have a contract. We should have made that clearer at an earlier stage, but it meets the essential point which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was making, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of the Wirral. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that it is not the intention that there should be only one firm of solicitors in the area. What is intended is that in so far as it is possible there should be a choice in as many areas as possible throughout the country.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is it not the case that according to the figures produced by the Legal Aid Board there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of solicitors firms which will in future be available to undertake legal aid work? If the figures I mentioned earlier are remotely correct, will that not mean that in some parts of the country there will be only one firm available?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there will be a reduction in the number of firms which undertake

1201
legal work. However, one should not misread the figures. A large number of the firms which will drop out undertake only a small amount of legal aid work at present. I believe that 11,000 firms were referred to. Of those, only 2,000 or 3,000 undertake the great bulk of legal aid work in this country. The remaining 8,000 do some but only a small amount. A reduction in the number of those firms will not be taking that much capacity out of the legal aid system in this country.
I cannot guarantee that there will not be some parts of the country where only one firm has a contract in relation to legal aid. I believe that such firms will be few and far between. It will probably be the result of the area being geographically remote rather than anything else. Therefore, with respect to the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Hunt, although the point is well made and well taken, the position is not exactly as they described it.
The point was made that there was too much focus on cost cutting and too little focus on quality. The provisions of the Bill make it clear that one of the legal services commission's focuses must be on quality. It is there as an obligation for it to consider. One can do no more in relation to it than that.
We are keen to ensure that quality is maintained. That would be achieved not just by the obligation on the legal services commission but also by the fact that firms which receive a legal aid contract will have to satisfy certain quality conditions, those conditions relating not only to management and process but also to legal ability.
In a number of respects that is quite a good thing. It will ensure, for example, that when members of the public have a problem raising a medical negligence issue they will know to what sort of firm they should go. Many firms could be confronted, quite legitimately, with such a case and, although not experienced enough to deal with it, may not be willing to pass it on. Under the new arrangements, it would have to be dealt with by a firm that was authorised to carry out legal aid work.
There are many more points that I could deal with, but those are the main ones raised in the debate. We shall have to come back to many other points in Committee. I believe that the Bill makes a genuine contribution to making justice more accessible to the general public than it is at the moment. It achieves that by giving the Lord Chancellor, the Legal Aid Board and the legal services commission power to direct more effectively the legal aid resources where they are needed most, which is not the position at the moment. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations 1998
9.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by recording my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to address your Lordships in the House for the first time. Planning matters are not part of my portfolio but, because of the importance of the minerals industry, I have taken an interest arising from my business responsibilities.
I wish to set out briefly to your Lordships the effect of two sets of regulations for Scotland, both of which pertain to minerals development. Equivalent regulations are already in force in England and Wales.
First, the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations are technical and non-controversial, updating existing regulations which date from 1971. Statute has long recognised that minerals development is different from other types of development. Successive planning Acts have contained a power enabling regulations to be made that modify provisions in primary planning legislation, relating to development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 contains a number of provisions which either apply to developments which involve the use of land, or apply exclusively to operational development. The nature of mineral development is such that it does not fit exclusively into either category. While the winning and working of minerals is regarded as operational development, the depositing of mineral waste is regarded as a use of land.
The purpose of the regulations is, therefore, to prescribe how the relevant provisions of the 1997 Act, relating to use of land, apply to mining operations. The regulations update the statutory references in the 1971 regulations and repeal, by omission, those provisions which are now redundant.
The regulations do not, with one exception, contain any substantive change in policy or effect. The exception is the repeal of regulation 5 of the 1971 regulations. That provided that in relation to mining operations an enforcement notice for breach of planning conditions or limitations could be served within four years of the non-compliance with planning controls coming to the notice of the planning authority. The repeal of Regulation 5 means that the time limits for enforcement action in respect of a breach of planning control set out in Section 124 of the 1997 Act will now apply unmodified to minerals development. In effect, this means that enforcement action can be taken at any point up to four years after the operations were substantially completed. That is also consistent with the principle of the arrangements in Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which makes provision for the periodic review of all old mineral planning permissions.
I now turn to the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste Depositing) (Scotland) Regulations. As the regulations are technical, it may be for the convenience of the House if I do not go into a great deal of explanatory detail.

1203
The regulations update, replace and simplify the existing regulations which date from 1987. They update the compensation arrangements which apply when a planning authority exercises its powers to revoke, modify, suspend, prohibit or discontinue mineral working. The arrangements in the existing 1987 regulations are inconsistent with those which apply under a scheme originally introduced by the Environment Act 1995 for the periodic review and updating of old mineral permissions.
All modern mineral permissions have operating and restoration conditions attached to ensure that operators meet modern environmental standards. Most old permissions have inadequate operating and restoration conditions.
The Environment Act 1995 required mineral permissions to be reviewed and updated periodically. The Act provided for compensation to be paid to owners and operators only where new conditions, other than restoration and aftercare conditions, restricts the working rights. That ensures a level playing field between old and new permissions.
However, periodic reviews take place only every 15 years and planning authorities may need to use their existing order-making powers to take action in urgent cases between statutory reviews.
The current 1987 compensation regulations provide for compensation to be paid where an order modifies any existing planning condition, although the amount of compensation can be abated in certain circumstances.
The new regulations will ensure that compensation entitlements following orders are consistent with those applicable at the time of periodic reviews as introduced in the Environment Act 1995. As such, they are consistent with the existing statutory framework and do not introduce further policy changes.
Both sets of regulations have received the consent of the Treasury. They have been the subject of consultation in Scotland with all those with an interest and there was widespread support for their effect. The regulations represent a useful and timely modernisation of the planning controls over minerals development in Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [Second Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, for his excellent explanation of the regulations and I congratulate him on his fine maiden speech. We must not forget the noble Lord's major contribution to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde, nor the great commitment that he has shown to STV and the Scottish media. What is less well known is the noble Lord's dedicated and sympathetic support for the Gaelic College in Skye, the library of which has benefited from his generosity.
I must apologise to the noble Lord because although before the debate I warned him of some of the questions that I was going to ask, another has just come to mind.
1204
Will the regulations have any impact on the application for the super-quarry on Skye? Can the Minister say when that decision will be made? If the noble Lord would prefer to answer that in writing, I should very much appreciate that.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, on his slightly unheralded or covert maiden speech. I welcome him as the 11th noble Lord from Scotland to become a Member of this House since the general election.
I should declare the fact that I have a possible pecuniary interest in an opencast colliery development and also that I shall be living next door to it as well as being surrounded by four nodding donkeys from a coalbed methane project. I have also become a member of the Scottish Environmental Education Council.
These regulations are welcome. They certainly tidy up issues which have developed from the reviews of the older mineral commissions within the context of increased environmental protection requirements and expectations of enhanced reinstatement.
The second regulation clarifies the availability and extent of compensation, sorting out problems currently found between mineral operators and local authorities who are taking part in the review process. The order certainly spells out exactly what compensation can be claimed. I am sure that both sets of regulations will resolve the issues of use, modification, discontinuance, resumption and suspension of commissions. The inclusion of the huge piles of temporary waste will be very necessary and helpful.
At the end of the day success in these issues will depend on getting the balance right between efficient mineral extraction, which is a necessary activity within our economy producing raw materials and fuels, and achieving ever higher standards of environmental protection during the working phase and in the reinstatement phase afterwards.
It is certainly a big issue in the wee county of Clackmannan where there are many opencast mines and quarries in operation and in embryo. That is despite Clackmannanshire being the smallest county in the United Kingdom. But living in the immediate vicinity of a quarry or opencast mine can never be inconsequential for those who have to do so. Every effort should be made to mitigate the effects. I hope that these regulations will contribute towards that.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, may I from the Back Benches issue a word of welcome to the new Minister and congratulate him warmly on these orders. I should mention that my brother's companies have had an interest in mineral rights and the company of which I am unpaid director has had in the past, and it is not impossible it might have in the future. There would be considerable interest if the Minister could say something about the current situation of the Glensanda quarry in the Western Isles because a great many people have a general interest in that subject, especially the islanders of the Western Isles.

1205
I congratulate the Minister on a very positive first performance. We look forward to many more contributions from him in the future.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for his kind remarks. I shall certainly bear in mind what he said about the quarry in Harris. I am advised that the situation is that it is not appropriate to connect the super-quarry with this legislation. The Secretary of State will be able to advise as soon as he himself receives the reporter's final submissions on this matter. I thank the noble Earl also for his comments about my contribution to the Gaelic college in Skye. The contributions would have been scarcely possible without the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I also bear his comments in mind.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The regulations do not impinge in any significant way on the current policy review on opencast coal. Consultations on the consultative draft new policy guidance for opencast coal ended on 11th December. The responses are currently being considered and the conclusions will be announced in due course.
I take the point made earlier by the noble Earl. I hope that he will accept that this legislation is very similar to that already in place in England and Wales and that it has been consulted upon very widely in Scotland with local authorities, industry and other interested parties. Indeed, we received 34 responses in total and the vast majority of those responding confirmed that they were content with what was proposed. Although a number of technical points were made, they did not necessitate the regulations being amended. Therefore, as the provisions are working well in England and Wales, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that there is no reason why the situation should be different in Scotland. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste depositing) (Scotland) Regulations 1998
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1998
9.55 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th November be approved [48th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1997–98].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by providing noble Lords with some of the background which has led to the order now before us. In 1993 the Home Office amended the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970 by the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1993 to give new powers to traffic wardens. Following consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, it was agreed that the functions of traffic wardens in Scotland should similarly be extended. However, in view of the changes made by the Home Office and the changes made to road traffic legislation since the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971 was made, it was necessary to completely re-make rather than simply amend that order. Therefore, the Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1998 brings us in line with England and Wales.
Traffic wardens already play a significant role in parking enforcement and the order will allow wardens to be of greater assistance to the police in the enforcement of parking offences, thereby releasing police time for more essential duties. The order, if introduced, would be available to all police forces in Scotland. It would, however, be for individual chief constables to decide when to make use of it. I shall explain as simply as I can what changes the order will make.
Traffic wardens in Scotland presently issue fixed penalty tickets to vehicles parked in contravention of local parking orders, issue fixed penalty tickets to vehicles not displaying valid excise licences, and direct traffic. All of the offences currently dealt with are non-endorasable. The Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1998 will allow them to exercise the additional functions of the interim removal of illegally parked vehicles and the immobilisation of illegally parked vehicles. This is similar to the powers presently available to police officers under terms of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations which are currently being amended in tandem with this order. For example, vehicles causing an unnecessary obstruction will be a non-endorsable offence. For the first time, traffic wardens will be able to issue a fixed penalty notice for endorsable offences, these being dangerously parked vehicles and vehicles parked in breach of pedestrian crossing regulations. There will also be the power to require the production of a driving licence and, in certain cases, a statement of date of birth if there is cause to believe that one of the endorsable offences has been committed.
The new functions proposed in the order provide chief constables in Scotland with the means to increase the role of their traffic warden forces in day to day parking enforcement. Police officers will be able to focus their time on duties of greater priority. However, we and the police recognise that it is important that the new duties to be carried out by wardens are discharged in a proper way and that training of traffic wardens in the new duties is essential. We shall stress the importance of training to chief constables in the advice that we issue to them about the new order. I believe that the new arrangements have a significant contribution to make to the police service. I beg to move.

1207
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 5th November be approved [48th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1997–98].—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, to his new role. I do not want to take up time, but there are one or two points I wish to make about the order. First, although the noble Lord has given a list of the extension of powers of traffic wardens, I hope that he will accept that they fall into two distinctive categories. I do not think that anyone would query the extension of powers for traffic wardens to act as parking attendants or school crossing officers and so on, but the second category is quite different. It is a new concept in Scotland that someone other than a police officer could demand the identity of a driver or the production of a driving licence, or could issue a fixed penalty in respect of an endorsable offence. That is a major extension of the role of traffic wardens. It should not be entered upon lightly without some cross-examination.
For example, the question of whether a vehicle is dangerously parked is a matter of opinion. A police officer with training is perfectly capable of advancing that opinion if the matter came to court. I am not so sure that that is true of a traffic warden. I wish to press the Minister to be more explicit as to what training will be given before these extra powers are brought into effect.
Secondly, in England, though not yet in Scotland, I understand, some traffic warden services have been privatised. I would like to be reassured that none of the powers in the order will be transferred to privatised traffic warden services. These have proved somewhat unpopular in some parts of England.
My last point is this. As the Minister said, these powers are permissive to chief constables. It is therefore possible that we could have different police forces in Scotland implementing these powers differently. This could cause some difficulty where people who are used to police officers having the powers in one area of Scotland travel to another area where traffic wardens have the powers. If there is a case for the powers, they should be introduced uniformly across the country and not in a piecemeal manner in different areas where they could give rise to confusion and some public anxiety. I hope that the Minister feels that these are reasonable questions I raise.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. I am particularly pleased that it will enable the police to concentrate on other areas of their activities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said, it is important that wardens receive extra training to carry out these functions. Can the Minister say what the extra cost will be and whether it will be recouped from the extra fines raised? I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, about the order being voluntary. Why
1208
is this so? Why is it not mandatory? Can the Minister explain whether this is the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, these new powers have not been entered into lightly. He will be aware that in Scotland police forces have traditionally been reluctant to increase the powers of traffic wardens in areas which they feel should remain within the domain of the police. It was not until four years after the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971 came into operation that police forces reviewed their opposition to its implementation. The training of wardens is a matter for the police and for chief constables. That should give the noble Lord some assurance.
The order is permissive and it will be for chief constables to decide whether they wish to introduce the powers in their areas. Despite the concerns of the noble Lord, it is better to go with a tradition of pragmatism and flexibility in this matter, and I would rely on the good sense of the Scottish police forces.
On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, our belief is that there will be no extra costs. In fact, what costs there might be should be defrayed by the fact that the wardens controlled by the police will allow the police to undertake duties of greater priority. Therefore, overall, there should be a saving to the public purse.
As to the noble Earl's more general question, I believe that the position in Scotland follows that in the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of the proposed new powers. On the basis of experience to date, we believe that the new powers in Scotland will be a welcome and beneficial advance.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with my point about the franchised or privatised warden service for parking in London? Is it contemplated that such powers will be available in Scotland?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to emulate what has taken place in London. I believe that it is possible in Scotland for local authorities to hire people on parking attendant duties. It would also be possible for them to recoup some of the expenses. But I hope and trust that, with the good sense of Scottish authorities and with the advice of the police, the powers will be used in a practical and positive way rather than in the punitive way the noble Lord implies.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATO
10.6 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they think NATO actions "out of area" must be in accordance with United Nations and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe resolutions and international law.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in an abrupt change of subject, I regard with unconditional horror and loathing the organised slaughter which humanity commits each day and would conceive my life to have been wasted if I had not done what I could to reduce it. That is why I come back and back again in this House to the dialectics of war and peace and of order and chaos.
The organised slaughter has usually been among sovereign states though at the moment it is more within than among states. It was thus that in 1945 one could feel sure that the foundation of the United Nations was not only the best, but was the only hope for the peace, if not the survival, of the human race in the nuclear age. In the UN the states of the world could meet, argue, vote and decide in rough imitation of the model which had proved so successful in some of the single states: the democracies. It was, and still is, the nearest we have got to Tennyson's "Parliament of Man".
And, the supreme element of that great hope, the Americans, were there. The League of Nations had failed because the Americans were not there. They, or rather an enlightened minority of them, had been its midwives. But the Republican Party pulled out before it came alive. The rest of the world did as best it could without them.
After the victory over Nazism, in which the US played a belated but splendid part, the world returned to the League principles. We had learnt the lessons of Versailles—generosity towards those we had defeated, lest the war continue in their hearts and re-emerge later to defeat us all. During the next half century, people were able to hope that the UN would in time be permitted to achieve the virtually eschatological purpose for which it had been set up; and many times over wars were averted or ended, sometimes even by armed force; multilateral treaties were signed, including disarmament measures; subordinate specialised agencies were created; and missions, missions, missions, which, when they could not succeed by private appeal to reason, often succeeded by public exposure to obloquy. War was not banished but a universally valid think-tank, mediator, reporter and, in the last resort, policemen, was present.
In the age of ideological self-importance after 1950 the two super-powers cancelled one another out. They wasted their own and each other's wealth on the grandest and most useless scale, and terrified everyone. On the Soviet side the Cold War provided an excuse for occupying other people's countries; on the American side for developing arms of a horror and expense undreamed of by former generations, and also for more or less occupying other people's countries. One side produced lasting political resentment, the other produced lasting distortion of scientific research and investment. It also produced NATO, to which an anthem was written in the early 1950s. This promised undying loyalty, etc., and was recommended to be sung in schools. It did not catch on.
NATO was a necessity then, but it may soon be a danger. I have often set out here in the past few years why I think this is so. The United States wants NATO to spread round the entire globe, picking up members as it goes, and flexing its military muscles. It would be the
1210
arbiter of disputes within and among its members and in the rest of the world alike and would defend "our shared interests and values" against all corners anywhere. The United States would remain in command and would define the interests and values.
How does this fit with the UN in the American view and in our view? When we in this country consider American foreign policy nowadays we often say, "The Administration is good, it is only Congress under Senator Helms that is bad. The President has a lot of difficulty with the Republicans". That is of course true, and we must sympathise with President Clinton. But however it is arrived at, the foreign policy of a country is what comes out at the end of the pipe and that is what affects the rest of us. The US is a single nation, and presidential smiles butter no parsnips. It is the Senate which today determines the foreign policy of the United States, and this we must recognise. We share few of the values of the present Senate majority, and many of the interests they proclaim, pursue and pass into American law, we must strongly oppose.
Let us indeed continue to co-operate with the United States' Administration whenever we can, but not when it proposes to break or ignore the law, by which I mean international law, including the UN Charter, UN resolutions, conventional law and the United States' own international commitments.
For instance, just what has been happening in UNSCOM, whose American deputy director has apparently been in London to fund and plan with Iraqi oppositionists to topple Saddam Hussein, which is against British law and against international law? We in this House were recalled for an emergency session in the middle of the summer to pass a law precisely against that. Was the gung-ho attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum not enough egg on both our faces, America's and ours?
The rule of law is necessary for the achievement of justice, and justice is necessary for peace. It is thus necessary—using the word in the strictest possible sense—that the rule of law be at the heart of NATO's new strategic concept. Unambiguous support of international law is not now American policy. Senator Helms, the progenitor of the United States' current proposals for the strategic concept, imposed—as the House knows—a legally binding duty on the US which points quite another way. We discussed this earlier this year when the Helms' conditions first appeared and Ministers responded that this was a matter internal to the United States. It is not at all internal to the United States, and it is now central to our own approach to world affairs. It is central to the significance of, for instance, our defence review.
In spite of Helms, the US has not actually left the United Nations. It is grossly in arrears with its debt and dues. Its arrears add up to more than those of all other countries put together. The US is also indirectly in debt to this country, because the United Nations is unable to pay us a portion of what is due for our part in various peace-keeping operations.
Senator Helms has produced this situation. He has also refused to pass any aid appropriation from the US to any country which will not ban abortion. He also

1211
refuses any US contribution to any subsidiary UN body. One recent refusal banned funds for the UN population fund which deals with family planning and, therefore, with AIDS—a scourge which is once more exploding in poor countries. The senator then jeers at the weakness of the United Nations.
The United States does not belong to UNESCO, to which we have now fortunately returned after the Conservative years. Today, unexpectedly, UNESCO is crucial to the future of humanity. A slow-moving crisis is far advanced in the world over the status of patents in biotechnology, including both human and plant genetics and the International Bioethics Committee, which comes under UNESCO, is the right place to discuss this. The chairpersons of the national bioethics committees of the world have recently had an emergency meeting. They are at their wits' end for a forum in which they can grapple directly with the Americans. At present they simply cannot attract attention.
The dominant opinion within the Washington Beltway is profoundly nationalist, irresponsible and ignorant. In the country at large, as polls show, this is not the case. Most Americans have more faith in the United Nations than in their own judiciary. But the Beltway climate shows itself every week in routine decisions on international affairs: Iraq, North Korea, China, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Israel, Sudan, France.
Our otherwise nice, kind and sensible government, as I have pointed out so often, still believes a sleepy and uncritical cheer is the right response. Is President Clinton not a fellow believer in what New Labour believes? There has been one quite striking example in recent weeks of the sleepy cheer which has not hit the headlines. It is this. At the meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in Edinburgh last month there was a draft general resolution before the final plenary which was to be the contribution of the alliance's only democratic body to the formulation of the new strategic concept. Its main thrust was that NATO should now routinely undertake out-of-area operations, which were forbidden by the original Cold War treaty, but are now permitted by a treaty revision. The question was, with what authority?
In the draft of the final resolution at Edinburgh, the familiar view was re-stated: the freedom of NATO to go outside its area was subject to UN or OSCE authority. This seemed obviously right; it stated no more than what must be the case. International law and international assemblies and tribunals exist, and the mightiest military entity in the world must obviously set an example to all others by its scrupulous observance of them.
But an amendment was proposed to this peaceful and normal draft: there was a division and it was carried. The amendment deleted that condition; it deleted the words making out-of-area expeditions subject to UN or OSCE approval. It thus left the partial military alliance called NATO subject, in its own eyes, to no other authority and thus potentially master of the world.
1212
In context, the passage it amended bore a relation to the new concept of "overwhelming humanitarian necessity". This is a useful description of a thing which may happen, does happen, and morally requires whatever remedy we can apply. But, as my noble friend Lady Symons confirmed recently, it is not known to international law. It is glaringly obvious that if it is to be any use in licensing the despatch of armed force, what constitutes an overwhelming necessity must be open to discussion in and confirmation by an international authority, as happened, for instance, with the threat NATO issued to Milosevic a month ago. The amendment I speak of was, in short, a direct blow at the rule of international law.
The proposers of the amendment were two American and two British parliamentarians. The two British proposers were the chairmen of the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. I have given them notice that I would raise the matter here today, and I ask my noble friend what discussion preceded this extraordinary action? Were they briefed by the Foreign Office to go with the US in deleting the authority of the United Nations over the actions of NATO; and to do so in the only democratic organ in NATO in the course of its contribution to the formulation of the new NATO strategic concept?
Has the Foreign Office, or whoever was behind this shameful action, failed to note that it is not nice, preoccupied President Clinton, not sparky Mrs. Albright, not the excellent Ambassador Vershbow, least of all the American people who are behind the anti-United Nations, anti-Europe, anti-human proposal to set NATO above the UN: it is the same spirit of ignorant pride which drew the United States back from the League of Nations 70 years ago and back from the International Criminal Court and the Landmines Convention this very summer. In its present incarnation that spirit is Jesse Helms, US Senator, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in foreign policy far more powerful than the President. He is friend neither of Europe nor of peace.
We owe a loyalty of friendship to the American people, not to the present Senate majority, and for their sake as well as our own, and for the sake of all our children, our best support must go to protecting and building up the rule of international law, and to protecting and building up the United Nations.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this was an important subject and I regret that so few of us are discussing it at so late an hour.
I do not entirely share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, of the United States as edging towards isolationism. Nor do I entirely share his view of the Washington lead as ignorant. He is correct in saying that a certain arrogance of power has invaded the Washington policy elite. But that is different from the attitude of the Republican Right, and in particular of Senator Helms and his friends in the US Senate. I noted that in the last congressional elections the Republicans

1213
did much worse than they had expected. Senator Helms has particular views. He is an extremely elderly man, but he will in time go.
We have to maintain a close dialogue with our American friends. One of the reasons that I and my party welcome so warmly the Government's initiative on closer European defence co-operation is that it seems to us that one needs a more equal dialogue with the United States. On a number of occasions in the past few months when involved in transatlantic discussions I have been struck by the extent to which we are dealing with a benevolent hegemony which has come to assume that it is a righteous nation and that it knows what is best for the world. If I had been French or Italian a hundred years ago I would probably have felt the same about the British. There is a certain overriding self-righteousness within the American policy elite which one has to watch. The remedy for that is clearly a stronger European pillar within NATO, a stronger European dialogue and a more equal European relationship with the United States.
I share some reservations with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. However, I have two opposite sets of reservations on the Motion. I share much of his unhappiness with the current mood within the United States—for example, the extent to which the Republican dismissal of the UN has now seeped through to so much of the policy elite. I note that the draft of a foreign relations report on the future of transatlantic relations due to be published in the new year does not mention the United Nations at all until the last four pages. There is an underlying assumption, even in part of what Madeleine Albright says about the future of NATO and world order, that a transatlantic partnership that is entirely outside the United Nations will come to maintain world order.
The American mood towards the United Nations is unavoidably negative. Clearly, it is something on which the United Kingdom and its European allies should continue to remonstrate with the United States. I recall that one of the earlier activities of Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary was to remonstrate with Senator Helms on this very point and thereupon the latter abruptly terminated the meeting.
The American attitude to international law is also ambivalent. There is resistance to acceding to the Convention on the International Criminal Court. The extent to which the US Supreme Court in its current formation with a number of Republican nominees is inclined to resist international law as a relevant factor in taking US decisions on the grounds that the United States is the world's most democratic country and has the most perfect system of law is something that should worry us all. There are also undertones within the United States in the debate on NATO which imagine an America that maintains an American-led world order with Europeans in support. That is something that our Government, together with our German, French, Dutch and other European allies, should be careful to guard and advise against.
American triumphalism at the present moment is very strong. American dismissal of Europe is exaggerated. Therefore, we must address the balance. There are
1214
concerns here that feed into our worries about discussions on NATO's new strategic concept and getting into the serious business of trying to draft something for publication next April. I worry about American assumptions as to what "out of area" means and new concepts like the "Greater Middle East" or NATO as extending western power across Eurasia, meaning Central Asia, with its oilfields, and the Greater Middle East seen very much through Arab-Israeli eyes with rogue states beyond.
However, on the other side I also worry about the problems of organisations that are blocked by minorities or vetoes of particularly important states. Within the United Nations and the Security Council we repeatedly suffer problems with the Russians and Chinese who are unwilling to go along with collective action. I note that in last Thursday's Financial Times there was a report of a discussion between NATO and Russian Ministers on Kosovo in which it was said:
"Mr. Ivanov reiterated Moscow's view that NATO should have received United Nations Security Council approval for their air strike alert. But he sat in silence as NATO Ministers explained that they had only sidestepped the UN because Russia had blocked action in the Security Council. that the NATO decision had not been taken lightly and that Kosovo would not set an automatic precedent for future NATO action".
That seems to me to be exactly the right balance to strike; namely, that we use the UN when we can and should bypass it only when it is blocked by the veto of a particular great power.
I wish that I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the United Nations has now become the parliament of man. Sadly, it is not a parliament but is still a collection of governments, some better than others and some, sadly, a lot worse than others.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with all politeness and some grief, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. I did not say that I believed that but that it was possible to believe it in 1945.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My apologies, my Lords.
Similarly in the OSCE there was a large question which perhaps the Minister will answer: what is the future relationship between the OSCE and NATO in maintaining order in Europe?
One of the problems with the OSCE is that, given the current state of Russian politics and the various divisions within the Russian state, we cannot entirely guarantee that the OSCE itself will be able to act as a maintainer of order, a vehicle through which one can prevent conflict within the wider European space. We have also, after all, seen problems with minority vetoes even within the European Union and the common Parliament security policy, with Greece blocking progress towards resolving the Turkish relationship with Europe, towards resolving the Cyprus problem, and the United Kingdom and others going into smaller groups—contact groups of one sort or another—in order to evade that veto.
There is no easy answer either way. There is no formula which can answer all of our needs. We do, however, need to maintain a close alliance with the

1215
United States. It may be a flawed super-power, but it is better than a world without a benevolent and democratic super-power. This is the case of a stronger European presence within NATO and within world affairs as such, for a more institutionalised Europe which plays a much more central role in managing the security of its own region.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, as we draw ever closer to the 50th anniversary of NATO's foundation, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on securing this debate, although I anticipate and hope that we will have further opportunities to debate NATO issues in advance of the 50th anniversary summit to be held in Washington in April.
This evening's debate has provided a timely opportunity to examine the appropriate legal basis under which NATO should take action in today's geopolitical landscape which increasingly poses "out of area" security and stability challenges. It also provides an opportunity to explore the achievements of the relationship between NATO, the UN and the OSCE as interlocking institutions which provide a global framework for respect to human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, security and common liberty.
NATO as an organisation has enlarged, evolved and adapted over the five decades of its existence. The founding fathers of NATO sought to safeguard the freedom and security of all its member countries through political and military co-operation in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. NATO's essential purpose, as set out in the 1949 Washington Treaty and reiterated in the London Declaration, pointed towards the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe.
However, changing times have brought changes to NATO's functions. In the Cold War years the alliance was focused on the development and maintenance of collective defence and territorial integrity of its member states, enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington, and on overcoming the fundamental political issues dividing Europe. At the beginning of this decade NATO underwent a process of far-reaching change to adapt itself to the new challenges of the post-Cold War world and the transformation of the European security environment. In many respects NATO's new strategic concept was introduced at the Rome summit of November 1991. It called for structures which would enable the alliance to respond effectively to the changing security environment by providing the forces and capabilities needed to deal with a wide spectrum of risks and contingencies. This included the capability to undertake crisis management and crisis prevention operations, including peacekeeping, while continuing its core mission of collective defence. This was because, in the words of the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, a ballistic missile attack using a weapon of mass destruction from a rogue state is every bit as much an Article V threat to our borders now as a Warsaw Pact tank was two decades ago.
1216
Largely as a result of this new strategic concept, the alliance has developed procedures and mechanisms for closer co-operation with its partner countries, for example, through Partnership for Peace, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the NATO-Ukraine Charter, as well as increased co-ordination and co-operation with other international institutions, such as the United Nations, the OSCE, the Western European Union and the agreement to make NATO's assets and experience available to support international peace-keeping operations.
Against that background, we are all agreed that it is vital to have a common vision of NATO for the 21st century and to equip NATO to make the maximum contribution to peace and democracy in a Europe that is truly free.
The Washington summit next April provides an opportunity to make sure our road map is leading us to the goal of a NATO strengthened by new members; a NATO capable of collective defence; a NATO committed to meeting a wide range of threats to our shared interests and values; and a NATO acting in partnership with others to ensure stability, freedom and peace in and for the entire transatlantic area.
We are all agreed that today's world of diverse and multi-directional risks poses a very different set of challenges to NATO than the world of 50, 20, or even 10 years ago. Threats to our security are less likely to result from calculated aggression against the territory of NATO allies. Instead, the serious economic, social and political difficulties, including ethnic rivalries and territorial disputes faced by many countries in central and eastern Europe, have the potential to undermine European stability and to lead to armed conflicts, as we have seen in Bosnia and in Kosovo. Those conflicts could spill over into NATO countries and could have a direct effect on the security of the alliance.
There is no doubt that the allies' security is inseparably linked with that of the other states in Europe, underlining the importance of dialogue and co-operation within all of Europe to help defuse crises and to prevent conflicts. There is no doubt that events beyond NATO's borders can affect vital alliance interests. That is why NATO acted in Bosnia, and that is why NATO must be prepared to act in Kosovo. There is no doubt that if such threats are not addressed early and effectively they could grow into Article 5 threats.
In those new circumstances, the increased opportunities for the successful resolutions of crises at an early stage must be grasped. The question facing NATO today is how it can fine-tune its political and military structures to be able to defend alliance interests in the future as effectively as it has defended alliance territory in the past.
Does the Minister agree that the future success of NATO policy will require a coherent approach determined by the alliance's political authorities choosing and co-ordinating appropriate crisis management measures as required from a range of political and other measures, including those in the military field? Does the Minister agree with the US Secretary of State who has called for an updated

1217
strategic concept to deal with instability when it is at arm's length rather than when it is knocking on our door? What assessment have the Government made of fears in some European member countries that the United States' stated desire for NATO,
"to be able to act in the area that it now acts in and able to have missions out of area that affect the interests of NATO members",
is indeed an attempt to create a global NATO or an American-led policeman of the world guided primarily by US global security interests which, accordingly, would downgrade the security of Europe in its lists of priorities? The matter was explored in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet? That raises the issue of mandates for missions beyond NATO's periphery. Article 1 of the Treaty of Washington makes it clear that NATO is bound to act according to the principle of the United Nations as set out in its charter. But can the Minister say what flexibility the Treaty of Washington, by which NATO was founded, offers to adapt the alliance to the realities of the new strategic environment? What assessment has the Minister made of the suggestion that NATO should not need the backing of a United Nations resolution for out-of-area operations, most recently expressed by the US Secretary of State in an interview with the French newspaper, Le Monde, last week, following the meeting of NATO foreign Ministers in Brussels. In a statement to the North Atlantic Council, Mrs. Albright stated that:
"NATO will—in all cases—act in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, while continuing to address this issue on a case-by-case basis".
Does the Minister agree that this is very different from accepting that NATO should only act out of area when backed by a Security Council resolution? Does the Minister agree that NATO should pledge to respect international law, but that the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution should not be compulsory? Can the Minister clarify the position of the Government on this absolutely critical issue which has major implications for future NATO operations.
In response to the crises such as Iraq and Kosovo, time after time the UN Security Council has fractured down familiar lines of dissent. We know from experience that indecision, disagreements, prevarication, even mere shades of opinion within the Security Council can he exploited by the leaders of rogue regimes in a dangerous game of divide and rule. The end result is deeply detrimental to the diplomatic and moral authority of the international community and risks the erosion of its credibility. Does the Minister accept that the requirement for a UN Security Council resolution would make any NATO action vulnerable to vetoes from China and Russia and could threaten to paralyse the western alliance, fatally weakening its effectiveness?
Perhaps I may pursue the example raised this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in Kosovo. During the summer, while Kosovar-Albanians were being murdered in their hundreds, we witnessed months of dithering, delay, disunity and disarray on the part of the international community. Sanctions were imposed, relaxed, then reimposed. In the Security Council there was deadlock with Russia, already dissociated from some of the Contact Group's wider economic sanctions.
1218
Even NATO's response was hesitant, unenthusiastic and sluggish. Having finally drawn up contingency plans for military intervention, its members operated a talking shop for months on the possibility of a preventive deployment force to the Kosovar-Albanian border and bickered over the legal basis for NATO military action. Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, told the UN General Assembly in September that NATO military action could provoke a big war in Europe and he repeated threats that NATO air strikes would be ruinous for international peace and could provoke a return to years of the Cold War. The speaker of Russia's Duma, Gennady Seleznyov, threatened that the Duma could try to rescind the Russia-NATO founding Act if NATO military action was taken.
How far does the Minister believe that Russian Government statements, such as the one on 6th October that:
"the use of force against a sovereign state without due sanction of the UN Security Council would be an outright violation on the UN Charter undermining the existing system of international relations"
were bluster for domestic consumption? How far does the Minister believe that NATO air strikes without prior UN approval, which would be unprecedented although the circumstances demanded such action, did indeed risk splitting the alliance and polarising relations with Russia?
It is no wonder that President Milosevic, scenting weakness and division, ignored all the apparently ritual denunciations by the West and instead chose to tough it out in defiance of the international community until late in the day when his bluff was finally called. The fractured international response and the disjointed policies of NATO and the UN allowed him a window of murderous opportunity.
Kosovo remains the critical test not only for NATO but for Europe's largest security structure. There is consensus that we have a political interest in promoting a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Kosovo based on the fundamental principles of democracy and respect for human rights, while we have a humanitarian interest in seeing an end to the bloodshed and the pain of innocent people. I would be grateful if, in considering this example, the Minister could outline the Government's policy on the legal basis under which NATO may take action out of area, given that its policy must be reconciled with the need for unity within NATO, for without unity the alliance will not have credibility and that it must be consistent with NATO's fundamental objective.
In conclusion, I want to turn to the critical issue of preserving NATO as the linch-pin of European security. NATO is the embodiment of the transatlantic partnership between the European members of the alliance and the United States and Canada. It is the permanent link between the security of North America and the security of Europe. It is not an over-statement to say that NATO is the most successful defence alliance the world has ever seen. Its unique military capabilities, and its politically stabilising framework have given its members unprecedented peace since its foundation in 1949.

1219
On that note, what assurances have the Government given to the United States that the St. Malo declaration will contribute to NATO's vitality and will preserve its prerogatives? What assurances have been given that the Government's initiative on European defence will avoid the US Secretary of State's three Ds: the diminution of NATO, discrimination and duplication? Finally, what assurances have the Government sought from the United States that NATO and the transatlantic link will continue to have the highest priority in America's overseas security commitments?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I add that I heard Carl Bildt talking on this precise issue. He said that there is a fourth D which is also important to avoid, and that is "domination".
10.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for the opportunity to debate this important subject. I am very grateful to your Lordships for the interest which the House has maintained in the affairs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Western European Union and, of course, the emerging debate on European defence capabilities to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred.
That kind of involvement by Parliament and by the public is essential if our defence forces are to enjoy the support—both political and financial—that they must have if they are to do their jobs properly. Thanks to the Strategic Defence Review, the United Kingdom knows in what direction it is heading. We have a clear foreign policy perspective within which to take decisions relevant to our security interests. This process will be mirrored within NATO by the drafting of the new strategic concept, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. This important document will convey a clear vision of NATO's likely role in the first years of the 21st century. It will then enable the right decisions to be taken on the kind of forces with which the alliance needs to fulfil this role.
That is precisely the debate that the Prime Minister has initiated within the European Union—what foreign policy role do we want the EU to play'? That is a debate which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has been kind enough to welcome in your Lordships' House on previous occasions. What procedures and military capabilities are needed to put those policies into operation?
I believe that it is undisputed that NATO will continue to provide the guarantee of the collective defence of the United Kingdom and of the other European members of NATO and, of course, our transatlantic partners.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—I am sure that he will expect me to say this—in answer to the specific point that he raised, that NATO is the
1220
cornerstone of our defence policy. The St. Malo declaration specifically makes that clear. It is being discussed with the United States and the United States has said that it welcomes what it describes as burdensharing, and we shall, of course, continue to discuss the ideas put forward in the St. Malo declaration both within the EU and, naturally, with our defence policy partners elsewhere in the world.
But the world has changed greatly since the last strategic concept was drawn up in 1991. There are new challenges. Bosnia and Kosovo are the clearest examples of the sort of situation that NATO—and the EU—are now called upon to face.
As all three noble Lords have said, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty provides for the defence of any member of the alliance which is subjected to armed attack; any such action would be an exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
NATO involvement in peacekeeping activities is possible with the consent of the parties concerned; this could be given, for example, within the framework of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. As committed members of the United Nations and one of the P5, we also recognise the UN's invaluable role in peacekeeping operations, many of which have been supported by British assets.
In other cases, a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter may authorise the use of force. In Bosnia, NATO led the multinational force that deployed after the Dayton Agreement in 1995. The 60,000 strong implementation force (IFOR) stopped the fighting, separated the warring parties and began the crucial task of overseeing arms reductions.
The legal basis for the implementation force was provided by the Dayton General Framework for Peace and by the UN Security Council Resolution 1031, which was passed in 1995.
In December 1996, after a year-long deployment, the implementation force was replaced by the 50,000 strong stabilisation force (SFOR), provided for in Security Council Resolution 1088. This established SFOR for a period of 18 months; this was renewed in June this year in Security Council Resolution 1174. We envisage a further renewal of the mandate in June 1999.
The IFOR/SFOR deployment has been highly successful, with some 36 nations, including Russia and other NATO/Partner countries, participating.
As I told the House on 16th November, cases have arisen (as in northern Iraq in 1991) when, in the light of all the circumstances, a limited use of force was justifiable in support of purposes laid down by the United Nations Security Council, but without the council's express authorisation when that was the only means to avoid an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. These cases are exceptional and it is not possible to say whether NATO would be involved.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Wallace and Lord Moynihan, all gave examples relating to Kosovo. In its response to the crisis in Kosovo, NATO played a

1221
fundamental role in averting a humanitarian disaster of appalling proportions. Given Bosnia's history, there was a huge incentive not to let Kosovo follow suit. In October, there were still 50,000 people living in the mountains and woods of Kosovo, without access to shelter. That month, NATO issued an activation order for limited air strikes, giving NATO a credible threat of use of force against the former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). This made a crucial contribution to the ceasefire and reduction in FRY forces in Kosovo as required in Security Council Resolution 1199, thus helping to avoid a humanitarian disaster. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that there are now no such refugees living in the open.
The people of Kosovo remain at risk of the humanitarian crisis returning as long as there is no lasting political settlement. Meanwhile, the alliance's enhanced state of military readiness continues.
NATO's actions over Kosovo, as with Bosnia, have been and remain in accordance with international law. They have the strong support of the OSCE and the two organisations continue to co-operate closely together.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the future relationship. I hope that there will continue to be such co-operation. I believe that what we have seen in Kosovo is an indication of that.
The important point is that all NATO operations must have a proper basis in international law. In answer to the specific point raised most cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this need not always be a United Nations Security Council resolution. The legal basis in any particular case is bound to depend on the circumstances. We have to judge each case on its merits and act accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the issue surrounding the relationship of the UK and the US. I thought that what he described was a caricature of that relationship. The Government are wholeheartedly committed to the United Nations. We believe that it is essential that the authority of the Security Council is maintained and that all member states act in accordance with the UN Charter and international law. As a permanent member of the council, Her Majesty's Government take those responsibilities extremely seriously. To suggest that we are somehow subverted in that by our relationship with the United States is definitely incorrect.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the noble Baroness misheard me. I was not suggesting that we were in any way subverted.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I mean the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. It is the lateness of the hour that led to a moment's confusion. I believe that the suggestion was made by my noble friend. He was also anxious about what has happened in relation to the amendment which he tried to move at the North Atlantic Assembly meeting in Edinburgh last month. I understand that his amendment did not attract the support that he would have liked. He was concerned lest
1222
Her Majesty's Government had perhaps brought pressure to bear on Mr. George and Mr. Anderson who opposed his amendment. I assure my noble friend that the FCO officials gave a written, factual briefing to all members of the UK delegation on all resolutions. That included factual advice on a legal basis. But there was no conspiracy involved. The fact is that those members who did not feel able to support my noble friend and his amendment believed that they were doing the right thing. It was not because undue pressure had been brought to bear on them by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the point that I raised was nothing to do with any amendment proposed by me; it was an amendment proposed by Mr. George and Mr. Anderson. The effect of that amendment, as I specified in my speech, was to delete reference to UN authority for NATO action "out of area". My question was whether they had government backing in moving that amendment and deleting the UN from the governing text of NATO.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord may find this painful, but the fact is that Her Majesty's Government did not agree with my noble friend's perspective on this and neither did other members of the delegation. I hope I have assured my noble friend that the other members of the delegation were given factual information. It was not some kind of conspiracy or put-up job. They reached their own conclusions about what they believed was the right thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the Government's view on US suggestions that NATO would defend common US-European interests in other parts of the world. Since the end of the Cold War the allies have recognised that fulfilling the purpose of security around the world depends not just on the defence of allied territory but, as the noble Lord indicated, on efforts to promote security and stability more widely that in NATO's borders. As the noble Lord said, we live in a very different world these days and the fact is that what happens on the other side of the world as regards weapons of mass destruction is bound to have an effect in parts of the world which could be said to be "out of region." It is hard to know what "out of region" actually means when we are talking about those kinds of weapons. NATO's wide-ranging programme of political and military co-operation with non-members through Partnership for Peace is one way that we are trying to address these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also pointed to what he believed were the shortcomings of NATO in Kosovo; indeed, if I may say so, he put forward a very different perspective from that expressed by my noble friend Lord Kennet. I can assure the noble Lord that NATO has not and will not lower its guard in relation to Kosovo. The NAC is keeping the situation on the ground under constant review. If NATO sees evidence of substantial non-compliance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council, it will be ready to use force. Actors for limited operation are still in place and NATO

1223
intends to keep up the pressure on President Milosevic. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the unequivocal assurance which I believe he was seeking.
The noble Lord also asked about the position regarding Russia. NATO does want a real partnership with Russia. We recognise that Russia has some legitimate security concerns and we believe that the signing of the Founding Act in 1997 established the basis of a greater co-operation. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured to learn that NATO and Russia met at ministerial level in Brussels on 9th December and that there was a highly constructive session; indeed, a very good discussion on serious topics at that time, including Kosovo, NATO's strategic concept and CFE. I hope that that serves as an example of how that relationship between NATO and Russia has developed to one of growing trust in the sort of dialogue that can be had.
I have on many occasions been able to assure noble Lords that this Government are committed to NATO as the cornerstone in establishing and preserving security in Europe. By replacing the previous system of national defence policies in Europe with a strategy of collective
1224
defence, NATO has for the past 50 years transformed security in Europe. During the Cold War, NATO stood steadfast against the threat and challenge of the Soviet Union and did so with remarkable success. Since 1945, the countries of the alliance have enjoyed peace in Europe.
However, the world has changed and NATO has had to change with it. NATO will shortly welcome three new members to the alliance—the fourth enlargement since 1949. NATO's door remains open for further enlargement. We welcome the interest of aspirant candidates and we, with other NATO members, are committed to helping them grow closer to NATO through practical assistance.
The tasks of the alliance grow more diverse with the changing international circumstances. I believe that the new NATO is capable of meeting those challenges with the help and co-operation of existing and, indeed, new members; and, of course, with NATO's partners. We are committed to peace and security in Europe. Her Majesty's Government will continue to work for that goal.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: Guidance to Procurators Fiscal
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: Guidance to Procurators Fiscal
  Medical Profession: Self-regulation
  Medical Profession: Self-regulation
  Investment in Culture
  Investment in Culture
  English Partnerships: Inner Thames Marshes
  English Partnerships: Inner Thames Marshes
  English Partnerships: Sustainable Development
  English Partnerships: Sustainable Development
  English Partnerships: Contaminated Land and Nature Conservation
  English Partnerships: Contaminated Land and Nature Conservation
  Rail Passenger Service Franchisees
  Rail Passenger Service Franchisees
  Rail Passenger's Charter: Compensation
  Rail Passenger's Charter: Compensation
  Railways: Removal of Staff
  Railways: Removal of Staff
  London City Airport: Underground Rail Link
  London City Airport: Underground Rail Link
  TWH Management Ltd
  TWH Management Ltd
  Corporal Punishment of Children in Crown Dependencies
  Corporal Punishment of Children in Crown Dependencies
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Home Affairs Council, 3–4 December
  Home Affairs Council, 3–4 December
  Secure Training Orders
  Secure Training Orders
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Defence Medical Services
  Defence Medical Services
  Defence: Post-doctoral Research Fellowships
  Defence: Post-doctoral Research Fellowships
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Non-industrial Civil Service: Permanent Staff
  Non-industrial Civil Service: Permanent Staff
  Northern Ireland: Offences of Violence against the Person
  Northern Ireland: Offences of Violence against the Person
  Mr. David Adams: Allegations of Assault
  Mr. David Adams: Allegations of Assault
  Foreign Visits and Extradition
  Foreign Visits and Extradition
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Corporal Punishment of Children in the Overseas Territories
  Corporal Punishment of Children in the Overseas Territories
  Vietnam: UK Business Success
  Vietnam: UK Business Success