Sitting of 20 December 1999

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

    Television Licences
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What arrangements he is making to ensure that rights to free television licences apply for those who are obliged to purchase a television licence covering periods both prior to and after their 75th birthday. [101995]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): The Government anticipate that the arrangements for free television licences for pensioners aged 75 and over will incorporate provisions for refunds for unexpired licences. We intend to announce shortly full details of the scheme's operation.
    Mr. Barnes: I welcome that reply and the movement towards free television licences for those aged 75 and over. Has not that provision established an important principle—that, in some circumstances, people can get free television licences? We can build on that in future and on the principle of benefits being provided on a universal basis.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. The intention of the concession is to help older pensioners who are more likely to rely on television for information and entertainment. They are also more likely to live on low incomes: nearly half the pensioners who are over 75 are in the bottom three income bands. The concession will assist some 40 per cent. of pensioner households.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Does the Minister agree that all those who are to get free television licences—a measure that I support—and, indeed, those who are not, are entitled to expect value for money from the BBC? In the light of the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which was published this morning, does she agree that the BBC should show that it is eliminating waste before it demands more money? It should seriously consider scrapping News 24 and use the money to support BBC local radio and BBC World, both of which valued services are underfunded.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are keen for the BBC and anyone else to take
    506
    steps to eliminate waste. We shall make our decisions on the Davies proposals in January and we shall take account of the Select Committee recommendations.
    Angela Smith: Does my hon. Friend know that there are currently concessions on television licences for pensioners in sheltered accommodation, but that when someone who needs sheltered accommodation but is not of pensionable age moves into the same complex, it puts the concessionary television licence in jeopardy for everyone in the complex? My local authority is experiencing increasing problems with that, and I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that she will examine the matter.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that continuing problem. The Government were the first to realise that the current system is anomalous and unfair. We are still considering the recommendations of the Davies report on existing concessionary arrangements in the light of responses to the public consultation. An announcement will be made in January.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Does the Minister agree that it would be ironic if television licences were free for over-75s, while everyone else, rich and poor, was hit by a digital licence fee? Does she realise that, if such a fee were introduced, it would be wholly characteristic of the Government in that it would amount to yet another stealth tax?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman should not be too presumptuous. As I have already said, the Government are still considering the Davies report recommendations, and we shall make an announcement in January.

    Tourism (River Thames)
    Mr. Keith Darvill: If he will make a statement about the promotion of leisure and tourism services on the River Thames, with particular reference to the role of London River Services. [101996]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): The Government are keen for the vast tourism potential of the River Thames to be maximised in a sustainable way. We are supportive of the work that London River Services has undertaken towards furthering our objective of improving and enhancing the river. We are confident that it fully shares our view that the objective includes promoting the use of the river for tourism and leisure purposes, as well as transport. I was glad to have the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those important issues for London.
    Mr. Darvill: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. She will appreciate the fact that the River Thames attracts more than 2 million sightseeing and restaurant cruise passengers every year, which generates some £30 million of revenue. However, does she agree that, when granting licences to river operators, London River Services should take account of existing contractual arrangements as well as past investment and future planned investment?
    Janet Anderson: Precisely for those reasons, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport

    507
    and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), recently wrote to London River Services. He said:
    "We recognise the wish to protect"—
    the investment that has already been put in
    "and the need, in promoting new services, to have regard to the well-being of existing operators, and I know you are taking steps to ensure these matters are evaluated systematically when new licences are being considered."
    I reassure my hon. Friend that, because of my Department's interest in tourism, we shall keep a close watch on developments. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognises the importance of tourism on the Thames, particularly for the millennium year, during which we anticipate that about 2.4 million extra visitors will be attracted by the millennium dome, which is now the international symbol of the millennium.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: I am grateful to the Minister for her paving answer. Can she now tell us whether the Under-Secretary has received a reply from London River Services?
    Janet Anderson: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed with my reply, but I have given him all the assurances that he needs. He knows, too, that he came to see me, with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), to discuss the issue. I am confident that we have assured him that the Government recognise the importance of tourism and of continuing to maintain those services on the River Thames.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Now that Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry has confirmed that the river is safe for use for the millennium festival and beyond, can the Minister ensure that information is easily available and accessible on websites and elsewhere so that there is maximum use of the river to provide an alternative to road and land-based transport throughout next year? Will she and her colleagues get on with putting the final safety measure in place and take the legislation through the House quickly to make sure that people cannot drink and drive on the river, just as they cannot drink and drive on land?
    Janet Anderson: On the latter point, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will, of course, do everything they need to do and can do to ensure people's safety on that important occasion. A number of websites make available the information to which he refers and I shall, if I may, write to him with the details of those.

    Museums
    Ms Linda Perham: What support his Department gives to local museums. [101997]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): My Department directly sponsors 12 national and five non-national museums and galleries. Its support to the wider museums sector is channelled via the Museums and Galleries Commission.
    Ms Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. My local council in the London borough of
    508
    Redbridge will open its first ever museum in spring 2000, after many years of campaigning by local people. Will he join me in congratulating the councillors and officers of the London borough of Redbridge and the local groups and individuals who have worked hard for this much-wanted facility? What support does his Department give to local museums at local level?
    Mr. Smith: I can certainly join my hon. Friend in heartily congratulating the borough of Redbridge on its initiative in establishing a new museum in Ilford central library. I am pleased that it has received a grant of £182,000 from the heritage lottery fund. That has been matched by a contribution of £263,000 from the borough itself, which speaks volumes for its commitment.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What confidence can we have in anything that the Secretary of State says about museums? In the first three months of this Parliament, did the Government not give a pledge that there would be universal free admission to the nation's galleries and museums by 2001? Has that pledge been dropped?
    Mr. Smith: No such pledge was given. Indeed, I shall quote to the hon. Gentleman from our document "A New Cultural Framework", which we published in summer 1998. It set out our programme for the succeeding three years, and said:
    "In order to widen access to our great national collections, extra funds have been allocated to the national museums and galleries which charge for admission to allow free entry for children from next year,"—
    that is done—
    "and for children and pensioners in the following year."
    That is shortly to happen. The document continues:
    "These are the first stages in our programme of broadening free access to the great national collections; funds have also been set aside to take this programme further in 2001."
    That will be done.

    Public Libraries
    Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to encourage greater use of public libraries; and if he will make a statement. [101998]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We have raised the profile of the public library service through the introduction of annual library plans and the forthcoming minimum service standards. We have also, through the new opportunities fund, committed significant direct investment to enable libraries to offer a new range of information technology services, along with funding to promote reader development programmes.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that many families, particularly those on low incomes, have relied on library services not only for factual knowledge but for access to the world's great literature, and that they were seriously hampered by the scandalous neglect of the book stock under the previous Government? Will he assure me that he will continue to monitor library services and ensure that they

    509
    receive resources adequate to provide a varied supply of books in good condition, so that readers can once again make proper use of our great public library system?
    Mr. Smith: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Work currently under way with the Local Government Association and the Library Association on the setting of minimum standards will ensure that the maintenance of a comprehensive book stock that is in good condition is very much one of the standards that we expect libraries to meet.
    I have responsibilities under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to ensure that library authorities provide a full and comprehensive service to their local population. The work on the setting of minimum standards is the first time that a Government have taken this issue seriously and set about defining what those minimum standards should be.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Is the Secretary of State aware that last year a mobile library service in Suffolk was shut by the Labour-controlled county council, and another is threatened for closure this coming year? Will he assure me that he will speak to the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that Suffolk gets the standard spending assessment that it deserves, so that it can continue to fund mobile library services?
    Mr. Smith: This year's settlement for local authorities has been better than for any of the previous seven years. It is up to individual local authorities to decide their own spending priorities. However, earlier this year we were concerned about the plans for the future of library services in a number of local authorities. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the action that we took at that time, six of those library authorities have now dropped their closure plans.

    Disabled Sport
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas(Harrow, West): What plans he has to increase support for disabled sport. [101999]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Through our Sport for All policy, we are determined to promote sport for people with disabilities. In this financial year, more than £1 million of Exchequer funding will go to sport for people with disabilities, which is an increase of about 28 per cent. In addition, from November 1997 to April 2000, the British Paralympics Association will have received more than £1.8 million from the world-class performance funding programme.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she join me in congratulating the local partnership of Harrow council, Harrow Mencap and Harrow special olympics committee on successfully securing Millennium Commission funding to develop a new and expanded Harrow special olympics in September next year aimed at disabled children and children with learning difficulties in my constituency and the neighbouring area? Is not that precisely the type of partnership that we should encourage to promote access
    510
    to Sport for All? What other action has she taken, and what further action does she propose to take, to promote such partnerships?
    Kate Hoey: I certainly want to congratulate everyone in Harrow involved in that partnership to ensure that Sport for All really means sport for all, including people with disabilities. Since I became Minister, I have made a point of visiting as many of the disabled events around the country as possible, including the cerebral palsy European athletic championships. I was pleased about the launch of the English Federation for Disability Sport. For the first time, disability sport is speaking with one voice. A united voice for disability sport will be heard, especially by the Government.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Like me, the Minister has had a long-standing commitment to helping with disabled sport. Is she embarrassed by the fact that, before she became Minister for Sport, the Government's raid on the national lottery resulted in sport's total share of lottery funding falling from 28 per cent. to 18 per cent? Is she concerned that the Government's obsession with their pet project is having a knock-on effect on disabled sport, which is dear to her heart as it is to mine? Will she ensure that that cut is reversed in the Government's future programme? Will she also try to ensure that, in future national sporting projects, including the Wembley fiasco, proper facilities are available for disabled sportsmen and sportswomen?
    Kate Hoey: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, because he should be aware that more than £1.9 billion from the national lottery has gone into sport over the past five years. Money from the new opportunities fund is going to after-school activities, which include sport. People involved in sport at the grassroots feel much more confident about its future because of national lottery funding and because the Government are determined to make sport a huge priority among our other priorities. Within that, disabled sport—about which the hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, feels strongly—will be protected.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: Does the Minister recognise that sport for the disabled—along with, probably, many other kinds of British sport—is particularly successful in terms of the winning of gold medals? Should we not ensure that people take up sport as early as possible, especially in our schools? Will the Minister ensure that the schools co-ordinators who will be appointed later this year and next year have a specific responsibility to ensure that sport is played by disabled people from an early age? Will she also ensure not only that such sport is played between schools but that facilities are available locally so that disabled people can continue to play subsequently?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right: what happens in our schools is the bedrock, or foundation, of our country's sporting future. I hope that the co-ordinators will consider their job to be promoting sport between schools

    511
    throughout the country and ensuring that sport for disabled young people is just as high a priority as sport for everyone else.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We appreciate the money that has been invested to help those with disabilities to participate in sport, and the Minister will know of the thrill felt by people, young and old, who now have that opportunity. In her capacity as Minister for Sport, is she keeping in touch with those in devolved regions to ensure that equal opportunities prevail throughout the United Kingdom?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is crucial for all of us in the United Kingdom to work together to ensure that people with disabilities can fulfil their potential. Part of the role of the "sports cabinet" is to bring together representatives of different parts of the United Kingdom, and to prevent the difficulties envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. The aim is to unite in ensuring that people with disabilities have opportunities, and we are clearly going to do that.

    Opera Tickets
    Mr. David Rendel: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use of public funds to ensure that tickets at the Royal Opera house are being sold at a lower price than before the refurbishment took place. [102001]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We believe that the board and management of the Royal Opera house have responded to the Government's desire for Covent Garden to be open to a broader audience and for the public to have the widest possible access to performances—for instance, through lower ticket prices. I understand that the Royal Opera house will keep the pricing structure under review and will continue to ensure that tickets are available at a wide range of prices.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Secretary of State realise that a couple on the basic state pension would now have to spend about a third of their weekly income to buy a couple of tickets for the Royal Opera house, even at the lowest price? How does that square with what was said by the Minister for the Arts in an Adjournment debate on Government funding for the arts only three weeks ago? He said then that he was
    "unashamedly committed to making culture accessible to the many, not the few".—[Official Report, 26 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 914.]
    Does that mean culture, except the Royal Opera house?
    Mr. Smith: No; it means culture, including the Royal Opera house. In fact—this may be of particular interest to the pensioner couple to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—222 tickets are available, at £6 each, for matinee performances of a full-length opera there.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is good news for all of us, including the impoverished and the old.
    512
    Will my right hon. Friend talk seriously to those at the Royal Opera house about provision for the disabled? There is a real problem in that regard, and, if they are genuinely concerned, they must allow free access for all. I sent in some distressing details today, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a right go at them.
    Mr. Smith: I very much take on board my hon. Friend's point. The issue of access to the Royal Opera house for those with disabilities is crucial. The building work that has been undertaken has resulted in substantial improvements, but there is room for further progress, and I will consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is it true that the Secretary of State has sought an assurance from the Royal Opera house that there will be no more "black tie" evenings? If so, why?
    Mr. Smith: No.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I welcome the new price structure, which is definitely an improvement, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Opera house has discontinued the practice of selling a number of tickets in the gods on the day of performances? Does he agree that that limits accessibility, particularly to those less well off opera fans who do not have the luxury of planning their lives for months ahead? Will he use whatever influence he has to try to make the Royal Opera house think again about that practice?
    Mr. Smith: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of the Royal Opera house authorities. However, in their defence, for the first three months of programming since the Royal Opera house re-opened, some 88,000 tickets have been available for public sale at the box office.

    Tourism Promotion
    Mr. Andrew Miller: How he is encouraging the use of IT to promote tourism in England. [102002]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The Government's strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", has many IT initiatives for tourism in Britain. The English Tourism Council is working with industry partners to help tourism destinations to make appropriate use of IT, both for consumers and to sustain competitiveness.
    Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend has seen some of the exciting new tourist attractions in my constituency, which, incidentally, attract some 5.5 million day visitors, for which there is little recognition through the standard spending assessment. Does she agree that Warner Cinemas, Blue Planet, Cheshire Oaks and others could benefit from working together, using some of the new technologies jointly to promote those superb new facilities?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. I had the opportunity only last week to see at first hand the successful co-operation between my hon. Friend, his local

    513
    council, Warner Cinemas and Cheshire Oaks retail development to attract millions of day visitors to his constituency, but the use of IT is important in further developing tourism. That is why the English Tourism Council, through its tourism technology working group, has already produced guidance entitled "Impact Through IT" for England's tourism organisations. We will provide a progress report on the development of Destination Management Systems for the tourism summit on 1 March next year.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I wonder whether the Minister can help me. When will the English Tourism Council be allowed to market itself and its services?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Lady will know that we were keen to ensure that the English Tourism Council provided much-needed research for the industry throughout the country, which it had been difficult for the English tourist board to do. She will also know that the establishment of the council has provided additional funding for the regions. We are looking to the regions to improve their marketing as a result of that additional funding, and we shall make announcements shortly.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend think that there is a place for developing IT for specialist tourism industries, such as industrial heritage? I particularly have in mind the designated status that the cotton mills in her constituency and mine have received today, which is a welcome move.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. His constituency is next to mine and we both welcome that announcement because we have many industrial heritage attractions. He is also right to highlight the importance of new innovative forms of tourism. The British Tourist Authority, to which the Government recently allocated an additional £5 million, is launching 36 new websites that will highlight those new forms of tourism, which have huge development potential. He mentions industrial heritage. Other forms of tourism that the Government are anxious to promote are sport tourism—I am discussing a strategy on that with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport—and film tourism.

    Wembley Stadium
    Mr. John Greenway: If he will make a statement on the report on the future of the Wembley Stadium project. [102003]
    Mr. James Clappison: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new National Stadium project at Wembley. [102004]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We have now received comments from all the relevant parties on the Ellerbe Becket report. I am grateful for the detailed work that has been undertaken by everyone involved. Although many of the issues have been resolved, concerns remain about the quality of the sightlines, the costs and time involved in reconfiguring the stadium for athletics and the long-term value for money involved.
    514
    My statement to the House on 1 December and subsequent work have ensured that all parties are now working closely together to find the best possible solution for both football and international athletics. Further detailed work is under way. I hope to be in a position to report good progress within the next few days.
    Mr. Greenway: The whole House will be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's answer. However, how often has he discussed the project with the Prime Minister—bearing in mind that, on the world cup 2006 bid brochure, the Prime Minister's photograph was taken against an artist's impression of the revamped Wembley stadium? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the project could be built on time to secure the world cup 2006 bid? If not, and if the whole thing goes belly-up, does he agree not only that he and his Department should be in the dock but that the matter should be seen as a major embarrassment for the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Smith: Wembley remains the centrepiece of our world cup 2006 bid, and one of the strengths of that bid is that the Government continue to give it the strongest possible support. Yes, Wembley will be there in time to form the principal stadium for the 2006 world cup, which we hope to secure for England.
    Mr. Clappison: Is there still a place for future Olympic games at Wembley?
    Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to my previous answer. As I said, concern remains about sightlines and cost in relation to international athletics events at Wembley. Those issues are currently under very detailed analysis.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his remarks about being on track for the world cup in 2006, which I am sure will be well received by everyone. Will he just confirm that his Department will continue to liaise very closely with Sir Nigel Mobbs and the Wembley task force to ensure that, in the reconstruction of the stadium, sight is not lost of regeneration of the whole area—which the Wembley task force has been established to procure?
    Mr. Smith: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have met Sir Nigel Mobbs on three occasions in the past two weeks, and we are absolutely determined that the future of Wembley as a premier stadium—be it only for football, or for football and athletics—should enable wider regeneration of the area around the stadium, which is so greatly needed for my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, if it is true that Twickenham is to get the world cup athletics, before that announcement is made the Government will provide no money, and no lottery money, until a proper infrastructure report has been done on Twickenham?
    Mr. Smith: Twickenham is, indeed, a potential option that is being considered as an alternative venue for international athletics. We are still undertaking substantial detailed work on the matter, but shall of course want to

    515
    ensure that absolute confidence can be had in Twickenham's suitability for athletics in all its aspects before lottery money is committed.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: In the light of the almost unbelievable shambles surrounding the project, what assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of his own credibility as Secretary of State?
    Mr. Smith: Excellent, as always.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am afraid that that will not do. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever he may think of his handling of the Wembley project—he may think that it is excellent, but he is the only one who does—the entire sporting world regards it as a painful embarrassment.
    Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the last two words more accurately describe the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is wriggling badly, but he will not get away. Is it not the case that, in May, he knew that there were serious problems; in July, he described the design as "stunning"; in November, his Minister said that the design was no good; and, in December, he proclaimed a 15-day deadline to sort the whole mess out? The 15 days of dither have ended, but no solution has been found. Every day that passes represents another blow to our bids for the world cup, the world athletics championship and a future Olympic games. Having floundered around looking for solutions, the Secretary of State is now on the lookout for scapegoats. May I suggest to him that all he has to do is look in the mirror? If he cannot get a grip of the project, why does he not make room for somebody who can?
    Mr. Smith: Oh dear. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not playing silly games but conducting the serious business of sorting out serious problems. We are close to a solution of those very real problems, and, as I said in my initial answer, I hope to be able to report good progress within the next few days.
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: Should not my right hon. Friend ignore the comments of the Conservative party? The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is merely talking down Britain's hopes of staging international competitions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he can make the correct decision by bringing football and athletics to the proper arenas—a separate football stadium at Wembley and provision elsewhere for athletics—and if he carries on ignoring the Opposition by getting on with the job that he is doing excellently, all will be well?
    Mr. Smith: I should prefer not to ignore the Opposition as I should prefer an Opposition who would approach matters sensibly and constructively. Sadly, we do not have them.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that if he wants a premier stadium at Wembley, we will need facilities to allow people to reach it by road and rail? What is being done in that regard?
    Mr. Smith: That issue is of course important to any major stadium. The flow of people to and from events in concentrated numbers during concentrated periods is one of the major issues that must always be considered, and we must do so for Wembley. That is why Sir Nigel Mobbs—together with the London borough of Brent—has been asked to establish a Wembley task force so that the wider regeneration of the area and infrastructure issues can be addressed.

    Arts for Children
    Mr. Colin Burgon: What plans he has for new initiatives in the arts for children as part of the reorganisation of the Arts Council for England. [102005]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the Arts Council's announcement last week included an additional £300,000 over two years for young people's theatre, in addition to large increases for several arts organisations working with children.
    Mr. Burgon: I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome the fact that, under the Labour Government, funding for the arts is running at record levels. However, the recent Gulbenkian Foundation report "Crossing the Lines" highlighted worrying trends in gender, age and class when it comes to access to the arts. What would be the best strategy to confront those worrying trends?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Gulbenkian report, which is an extremely interesting and challenging document. It is precisely because we share some concerns highlighted in the report that we have established the new audiences fund through the Arts Council. It provides grants to pilot projects aimed at attracting new and younger audiences. We are also backing the new generation audiences scheme, which will provide free tickets to cultural events for schoolchildren and encourage them to exchange information using the latest technologies. That is why the funding agreement that we have put in place with the Arts Council requires an additional 200,000 educational sessions to be secured for the extra funding that we are providing.

    Lottery Spending
    Mr. David Watts: What assessment he has made of public attitudes towards spending lottery money on health and education projects. [102006]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Lottery money for health and education is distributed by the new opportunities fund, set up by the National Lottery Act 1998. The fund's establishment was supported by 92.5 per cent. of those who responded to the White Paper that set out the Government's proposals before the Act was passed.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend, but does she agree that most people in Britain would rather see their lottery

    517
    money spent on health and education projects than on some of the side issues currently and regularly funded, and would want more money to be spent in that way?
    Kate Hoey: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is true that people like to see national lottery money spent on something of which they approve. Money going through the new opportunities fund will cover a variety of ideas relevant to a range of activities including those for after school and at healthy living centres, and people clearly feel strongly that they want money to be spent in that way. The money is, of course, additional and it is important to note that it does not in any way replace Government expenditure.

    Opera Tickets
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What discussions he has had with the board of the Royal Opera house on the level of ticket prices. [102007]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I have discussed ticket pricing with Sir Colin Southgate, other board members and Michael Kaiser on a number of occasions. The board and management of the Royal Opera house are committed to enabling the public to experience world-class opera and ballet at affordable prices.
    Mr. Leigh: But the truth is that there would have been many more seats available at affordable prices if the Secretary of State had not raided the national lottery so that the money available for good causes such as this has decreased from 28 to 18 per cent. Is it not the case that once the friends and corporate entertainers have taken their share, there will be a limited number of tickets at prices people can afford? Getting one of those tickets will mean joining the new ruling class, either by working for the likes of Bernie Ecclestone or marrying into the Sainsbury
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman confuses his capital and his revenue. The funds for the refurbishment of the Royal Opera house through the national lottery were funds for capital building work. Funds to support cheaper ticket prices at the Royal Opera house come through annual revenue subsidy from the Exchequer. We have increased those funds by 25 per cent. between this year and next year.

    Museum Entry Fees
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the future of entry fees for museums. [102008]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Funds have been made available to permit free access for children from April this year and for pensioners from April 2000 to the currently charging national museums funded by my Department.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is not this another example of the Government's policy being in utter chaos? Before the election, they promised universal free access to museums. When they came to power, a study found that the cost
    518
    involved was simply unsustainable. In 1998, they did a U-turn to allow free access to children and, next year, pensioners. Could the Secretary of State tell us what the policy will be in the future? Is not the present policy unsustainable, and unfair to those on low pay and to disabled people?
    Mr. Smith: First, we made no such commitment in our manifesto before the election. Secondly, we have done far better than we set out in our manifesto. I should have thought that a 22 per cent. increase in the number of children visiting our national museums and galleries since April of this year, as a result of introducing free admission, is something to be proud of, not carp about.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Charging entrance fees is a way for museums to raise money to balance their budgets and manage their business. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent furore caused by the revelation that the British museum was hiring out the Duveen gallery for corporate functions. Given the sensitivities raised by that revelation among the many hon. Members who place a great value on the Parthenon sculptures, would my right hon. Friend convey to the director of the British museum their concern that the museum chose to inaugurate the recent conference of experts, convened to examine the damage done to the Parthenon sculptures during their time in the British museum, by holding a function with refreshments in the Duveen gallery?
    Mr. Smith: I am indeed aware of the concern to which my hon. Friends refers, and I am sure that the authorities at the British museum will note what he has said. However, I believe that the Parthenon sculptures in the British museum, which are available for free to 6.5 million visitors every year, are in the right place.

    Tourism (East Midlands)
    Judy Mallaber: What strategies he is using to promote tourism in the east midlands area. [102009]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The measures the Government and the industry are taking under the national tourism strategy "Tomorrow's Tourism" will help to promote the well-being of the industry in all regions, including the east midlands.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she note the recent report commissioned from the heart of England tourism board showing that tourists spend £61 million a year in Amber Valley and support 1,900 jobs? That is a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure over the past four years, and is largely the result of the mix of countryside, historic buildings and, increasingly, our industrial heritage.
    Will my hon. Friend also note that we do not have high-expense venues such as the Royal Opera house that

    519
    attract major funding, although we have benefited from the smaller awards of the lottery scheme? Will she promote our industrial heritage as a major part of our tourism strategy? Will she especially consider an early promotion for the national heritage corridor in the Derwent valley from the tentative to the final list of world heritage sites? That area was a cradle of the industrial revolution, with the historic mills of the Arkwrights and the Strutts. It now has museums that preserve our transport heritage.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend will of course know that the designation of national heritage sites is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. I will bring her remarks to his attention.
    My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of tourism to Amber Valley. I pay tribute to her support for the development of tourism in her constituency. As she will be aware, all regional tourist boards have recently submitted proposals, which will form the basis of their work for the next three years, to take advantage of the additional funding that the Government are providing for tourism in the regions. Is not that further evidence of the Government's commitment to the development of tourism—the fastest growing industry in the world—in stark contrast to the record of the Opposition?

    Heritage Lottery Fund
    Mr. Peter Brooke: If he will make a statement on the role of the heritage lottery fund in purchasing important works of art. [R] [102010]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The heritage lottery fund has so far committed about £59.9 million to support the purchase of works of art by museums and galleries throughout the UK. Heritage lottery fund trustees have agreed to set aside £10 million a year to support museum and gallery acquisitions of all kinds, including works of art, which will add to the enjoyment of visitors and encourage an increase in their numbers.
    Mr. Brooke: Although I am aware of some notable contributions by the heritage lottery fund—notably for the Botticelli in Edinburgh—there has been some unpredictability in the fairly recent past. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the decision of the heritage lottery fund in making so firm an announcement?
    Mr. Smith: I do indeed. I also very much welcome the grant that made possible the purchase of the Botticelli, thus saving it for the nation. By contrast, I note that the annual report of the National Art Collections Fund for 1994—a year that the right hon. Gentleman may recall—stated:
    "We very much regret the reduced Government support for national museums in the 1994 budget."
    That is something that we are trying to put right.

    National Lottery Licence
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the rules and specification for the renewal of the national lottery licence. [102012]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new national lottery licence will be awarded by the National Lottery Commission. The commission published its invitation to apply on 30 November, which sets out what bidders for the new licence are required to do.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the Secretary of State for that information. Would he prefer the licensee who operates and administers the national lottery to do so without profit, or does he hope that the operator will be the person who brings in the maximum revenue to the Exchequer and good causes? Alternatively, is he keeping his fingers crossed and hoping for both?
    Mr. Smith: We have consistently said that we would welcome a good, not-for-profit bid for the running of the lottery. However, the prime test must be the amount of money raised for the good causes. The best way to secure that is through strong competition between potential bidders.

    Millennium Dome
    Ms Bridget Prentice: What assessment he has made of the extra visitors to and money to be spent in London and the UK next year as a result of the millennium dome. [102015]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The British Tourist Authority has estimated the number of overseas visits to the UK in 2000 at 27.5 million. Of these, the New Millennium Experience Company foresees that 2.5 million will visit the dome.
    Ms Prentice: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but I wonder whether she would expand on it. Given the success of yesterday's exercise, in which local people saw and experienced the dome and its contents, does she agree that, as there is a debate about not only a north-south divide but a regional divide in this country, the experiences of the local people in Greenwich and Lewisham will be greatly enhanced by the extra money that will come into the area?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is quite right. The British Tourist Authority has estimated that, as a direct result of the millennium experience, an additional £300 million to £500 million of overseas tourist revenue will be brought into the UK economy as a whole, but that the halo effect of those activities could double that figure.
    I invite Opposition Members to join us in—in the words of the Prime Minister—celebrating a triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness and excellence over mediocrity, and to get together with us to celebrate something that has become the international symbol of the millennium.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the
  Church Commissioners, was asked—

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Investments
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of Church investments in the world's poorest countries. [101985]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners have a small number of investments in emerging markets but risks are obviously higher in those areas and their duty as trustees constrains them to concentrate on the better established and more liquid markets.
    Mr. Prentice: I think I heard my hon. Friend say that the Church had a small number of investments in the poorest countries. That disappoints me. After the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the weekend that Britain will extinguish the debt of 25 of the poorest countries, surely we could capitalise on what the Church did so magnificently with the Jubilee 2000 campaign.
    I understand that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development are to meet Christian Aid and other Church leaders on Tuesday—tomorrow. Would not it be a magnificent tribute for the Church to tell the Chancellor that it was going to re-balance its very large portfolio to benefit some of the poorest countries?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that Christian Aid and the Church were in the vanguard of seeking to have third-world debt wiped out. We are very grateful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer followed the lead of the Church in that matter.
    As far as our investments are concerned, the Church Commissioners are always conscientious concerning issues that relate to not only environmental performance but human rights. We are sensitive to the communities and the countries in which they operate.

    Millennium
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What initiatives the Church Commissioners are taking to mark the millennium in a permanent way. [101986]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church has concentrated its efforts on making a permanent impact on people's lives rather than on material objects. This is encompassed under the NewStart banner: NewStart with God, with the world's poor and at home.
    Hon. Members may like to know that the national gallery in Trafalgar square will mark the millennium by the Seeing Salvation exhibition, which will explore how the figure of Christ has been represented in the western tradition.
    522
    In addition, the Open Churches Trust is giving encouragement for every church bell in the land to be rung on new year's day, followed by a short time of prayer.
    Mr. Hughes: That is welcome. In 12 days' time we begin the celebration of the millennial year. Sometimes people suppose that the millennium is 1 January, but the millennium is actually Christmas day next year, and the whole year builds up to that. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to put to the Church Commissioners a proposal that might be a bit more permanent? Will he suggest that they invite the leaders of the Church around the world to address the following question: how will they follow the command,
    "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth"?
    The Church is very wealthy, and much of that wealth should not be held by the Church. How can Church leaders put it towards winning people for Christ, instead of keeping themselves in finery for the next 100 years?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting the scriptures and for referring to one that I like very much. The other one that I like is to the effect that we should not store up treasures where dust and moths may consume them. However, let us leave dust and moths aside for one moment, as I deal with the hon. Gentleman's question.
    The millennium and the Christian celebrations of it will be a year-long and not simply a one-day wonder. Faiths throughout the world have recognised fully that it is a very important Christian event; it should be supported by Christians and respected by other faiths. As the hon. Gentleman said, we, as Christians and members of other faiths, should all come together to alleviate poverty throughout the world.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my, hon. Friend accept that most people would very much welcome his statement that it is much more important to spend money on tackling real problems in the world than it is to build an obelisk or a memorial that would be a total waste of money?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Archbishop of York wrote an interesting article in a Sunday newspaper in which he said that the millennium dome was important, but that the dome at St. Paul's was equally important. When it comes to spending and investing money, the responsibility of the Church Commissioners is to pay the stipends and the pensions of the clergy and bishops, and even the bishops' expenses.

    Church Investments
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What progress has been made on reducing VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [101987]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The hon. Lady will recall my recent Adjournment debate on this subject in which she reminded the House of her long and active involvement in this matter. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General, responding to the debate, acknowledged the existence of a report published by the joint committee of the

    523
    national amenity societies which seeks to quantify the VAT on repair costs borne by the Church and others with regard to listed buildings.
    Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am also grateful for his support for my campaign and for allowing me to intervene in his excellent Adjournment debate recently. Could he join forces with me to convince the Paymaster General that churches qualify as historic buildings for the purposes of the annexe to the European directive under which we seek to reduce VAT rates on church repairs? Does he not agree that perhaps the best way to mark the millennium year is by lowering the rate of VAT on church repairs?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. The Church at all levels, from the parishes and dioceses to central bodies and specialist advisory bodies such as the Council for the Care of Churches, will continue to call for fairer VAT treatment. I very much support their continuing efforts and those of the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Over the Christmas recess, will my hon. Friend look at the remarkable book by Mr. Simon Jenkins on his 1,000 favourite churches? One realises from that book how many of those churches are in areas that in mediaeval times were very prosperous, but that are now depopulated and where the congregations simply are too few to support the necessary repairs that must be made. In those circumstances, are not the alternatives either to do something about the problem through VAT or to lose the glories of mediaeval architecture across Britain?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter in the context of the Church's history and tradition. We, as Church Commissioners, have always said that there should be a reform of VAT that helps with church repairs. We are mindful of the fact that £12 million has been made available through English Heritage towards the repair of churches of all denominations and religions—Christian and non-Christian—and of historical places of worship. Despite the input of English Heritage and the commissioners, the heavy burden of VAT on repairs makes it very difficult for us to fulfil the tasks to which my hon. Friend referred.

    GM Organisms
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If the commissioners will make a statement on the proposed use of genetically modified organisms on their land. [101988]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners are currently awaiting advice from the Church of England ethical investment advisory group, which develops a co-ordinated ethical investment policy for the Church, and which is currently involved in a detailed study and consultation process regarding genetically modified organisms.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I wish the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Church Commissioners the compliments of the season.
    In view of the widespread interest in and controversy surrounding genetically modified foods, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what was agreed at the ethical investment advisory group meeting on 1 December?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. No policy decisions affecting genetically modified organisms were made at the meeting on 1 December. At that meeting the members had an opportunity to discuss collectively the evidence presented so far and to weigh up, from a Christian perspective, the potential benefits and risks attendant on the technology.
    The Church Commissioners are grateful to receive the best wishes of the season, and we extend such wishes to the entire House, including all right hon. and hon. Members and their staff.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Government Resources and Accounts Bill
    Mr. David Rendel: What increase in spending will be necessary to accommodate extra duties placed on the National Audit Office by the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. [101989]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Public Accounts Commission has taken account of the growing work load of the National Audit Office, and we have recommended additional funding. That is partly as a result of the introduction of resource accounting as set out in the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. At the commission's meeting on 2 December to consider the NAO's new estimate, it approved an additional £1.3 million for 2000–01.
    The other new duty placed on the Comptroller and Auditor General by the Bill is to audit and account to the whole of government. As that will not come into force until 2005, it is too early to say what the resource implications will be. Both the Public Accounts Commission and the Public Accounts Committee are seriously concerned about the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, which does not empower the CAG to scrutinise as full a range of public spending bodies as CAGs have done over the past 130 years. Representations have been made and are continuing.
    Mr. Rendel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that excellent reply, with which I fully concur. Has he made an estimate of what extra spending would be necessary if the National Audit Office were to audit all spending of taxpayers' money? I believe that the sum would be quite small.
    Mr. Sheldon: Indeed it would be. If the NAO were to audit every single aspect of government spending through all the various bodies concerned which are not audited by the CAG at present, it would cost no more than about £1 million. The important point is that the Bill could be improved in a number of ways. It could grant to
    526
    Parliament's auditors the same rights of access to public spending that Departments grant themselves. The Bill should replace the present illogical arrangements and make the CAG the auditor of all non-departmental public bodies. The CAG should audit publicly owned companies and the new departmental performance measures.

Point of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday afternoon there was a press conference at which the Foreign Secretary outlined the British-crafted United Nations resolution on Iraq—to the effect that there could be light at the end of the tunnel. Since then, Baghdad has refuted the resolution—in my opinion, for understandable reasons. [Interruption.] Yes, for understandable reasons. This is an extremely important subject because of the on-going military action against Iraq and because of the appalling difficulties for the children of that country, which have been movingly described in the Sunday press and elsewhere. Have you, Madam Speaker, had any request from a Foreign Office Minister wishing to make a statement on that subject before we go into recess?
Madam Speaker: No. I have not been informed by the Foreign Office or any other Department that Ministers seek to make a statement—at least, not today.

Point of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    POLITICAL PARTIES, ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS
    Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Mandelson and Mr. Mike O'Brien, presented a Bill to establish an Electoral Commission; to make provision about the registration and finances of political parties; to make provision about donations and expenditure for political purposes; to make provision about election and referendum campaigns; to make provision about election petitions and other legal proceedings in connection with elections; to reduce the qualifying periods set out in sections 1 and 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 34].
    PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES
    Mrs. Ann Winterton, supported by Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. Joe Benton, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Jim Dobbin, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the names of public houses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 April, and to be printed [Bill 35].
    FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP (ARMED FORCES)
    Rev. Martin Smyth, supported by Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. Jim Dobbin, presented a Bill to amend and clarify the law to permit those serving in the armed forces openly to follow the religion of their choice; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 May, and to be printed [Bill 36].
    HALOGEN LAMP REGULATION (MOTOR VEHICLES)
    Mr. Jim Dobbin, supported by Mrs. Ann Winterton, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Clive Efford, presented a Bill to regulate the intensity of motor vehicle lights; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 37].
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY
    Mr. Clive Efford, supported by Mr. Keith Darvill, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. David Chaytor, Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Cynog Dafis, presented a Bill to make further provision for energy efficiency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 38].
    ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING)
    Mr. Clive Efford, supported by Mr. Keith Darvill, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. David Chaytor, Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Cynog Dafis, presented a Bill to make further provision for energy conservation related to housing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 39].
    SCOTTISH ADJACENT WATERS BOUNDARIES (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood presented a Bill to amend the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 in so far as it relates to the East coast border between England and Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January, and to be printed [Bill 40].

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
  Consolidated Fund (No.2) Act 1999

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is being announced on the electronic news media that the Solicitor-General said half an hour ago that there is to be no prosecution of Melita Norwood, the exposed spy, or of any other people connected with the matter. Have you received any request from any Minister to make a statement in this House. Surely a statement should have been made here before there was an announcement to the electronic news media—especially on an important matter that was the cause of much controversy and previously dealt with by Government statement—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard from any Minister seeking to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have answered the point of order; I have not been told by any Minister that he wants to make a statement. I cannot take the matter any further.
Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, it is separate.
Madam Speaker: Will the hon. Member please resume his seat?
I answered the point of order put to me: I know of no Minister who is seeking to make a statement in the House. I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm, and can take the matter no further until I leave the Chamber, when I might find a Minister who is willing to make a statement. At the moment, I have the business to get on with and know of no Minister wanting to make a statement. I shall take a different point of order.
Mr. Hughes: There is a written question on today's Order Paper, which was tabled on Friday, on the subject just raised. Will you confirm your previous advice that it is the practice of the House that written questions should be answered at 3.30 pm, after Question Time, and that statements to the press before answers are made available to hon. Members should be made only after that time?
Madam Speaker: That is quite true. Questions are not to be answered before 3.30 pm; the hon. Member is perfectly correct and I am grateful to him.

Orders of the Day

  Transport Bill
  [Relevant documents from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee: Third Report of Session 1997–98, on The Proposed Strategic Rail Authority and Railway Regulation (HC 286-I); Fourth Report of Session 1997–98, on Air Traffic Control (HC 360-I), and the Government's response thereto (HC 843); Third Report of Session 1998–99, on The Future of National Air Traffic Services (HC 122), and the Government's response thereto (HC 794); Ninth Report of Session 1998–99, on the Integrated Transport White Paper (HC 32-I), and the Government's response thereto (HC 708); Minutes of Evidence taken before the Transport Sub-Committee, Session 1998–99, on Railway Regulation (HC 585-i); and Twenty-first Report of Session 1998–99, on the Railways Bill (HC 827), and the Government's response thereto (Cm 4538).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I must inform Back Benchers that I am afraid that speeches must be limited to 15 minutes. I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang).
  3.37 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.
  This is a proud moment for me, as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This Transport Bill is the first major Bill on the subject in more than 30 years. For me, improving transport goes to the heart of my politics. All issues for change in transport have been controversial but, in time, have been accepted.
  I was a seaman, and I became a Member of Parliament at the end of the 1960s as one of the politically motivated few because I realised that only through Parliament could one reform and modernise the 19th century merchant shipping laws, reverse the decline of shipping and make life at sea safer. That has now been achieved.
  In the 1970s, as a member of the former nationalised industries Select Committee, I recognised that public sector transport was in decline because it was restricted by silly Treasury rules and therefore unable to raise the necessary capital investment. In the 1980s, as an Opposition Front-Bench transport spokesman, 1 warned about the environmental consequences of just building roads to solve congestion and of ignoring the importance of public transport networks. That issue is now centre stage.
  I was also an early advocate of public-private partnerships, when the major political parties—including my own—were opposed to them. Indeed, in 1991, I advocated the leasing through private finance of an order for Network SouthEast Trains. The Tory Government at that time eventually adopted the idea during the election campaign. The option not only provided new trains for the south-east through private financing, but saved the York works from closure. Unfortunately, within a very short period, we were back to old public sector financing arrangements, under which

  531
  money was denied and the plant—which we desperately need today to enable expansion of the railways—was closed. In the 1990s, I warned of the effects of letting, privatisation, deregulation and uncontrolled markets, which ruined the bus and rail networks.
  I do not intend to waste time on the Tory record. The other week, during the debate on the so-called confidence motion proposed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whom we welcome back to the Opposition Front Bench, I said that I was happy to compare the Tory 18 years to Labour's two and a half. I think the House gave its judgment that night, as did the press the following day. In a depressing speech, the right hon. Gentleman failed to offer any alternatives. The Times had been right earlier, when it summed up his plans as:
  "cheap populism, muddled thinking and a breath of stale air".
  I trust that his response today will be different, but his articles in the weekend press about the rail industry did not make encouraging reading—especially from a man who is a Fellow of All Souls.
  Mr. John Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong even about that, but we shall leave that aside. Will he explain why, three days after claiming victory and assuring us that he was now safe in his job, he was stripped of most of his transport responsibilities? Will he tell us whether or not there has been a U-turn toward motoring and the car?
  Mr. Prescott: I am the Secretary of State for transport, the environment, and the regions. I have transport Ministers who are responsible to me for the implementation of the strategic policy outlined in our White Paper. In addition, I reported to the House almost 12 months ago on my intentions in respect of local transport plans, which have recently been produced and which contain some of the road and bypass plans. Nothing has changed: we are carrying out our policies to reduce congestion, create a better public transport system and improve the environment, all of which objectives are opposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  For far too long, politicians have dodged the hard decisions and sacrificed long-term gain for short-term popularity. I have no intention of doing that. I am determined to make transport in this country modern, integrated, efficient, reliable and, above all, safe. We have made a good start and reversed decades of decline. We now have more buses, more trains, more passengers and record levels of investment in our public transport system. We are negotiating public-private partnerships to finance £7 billion-worth of tube investment. We have negotiated another public-private partnership to rescue the channel tunnel rail link, which had failed under the contract negotiated by the previous Administration. That deal is now on budget and on time and the risk is to be carried by the private sector.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: But there is a £5.6 billion Treasury guarantee.
  Mr. Prescott: No, the private sector bears the risk. In addition, we will not pay the extra £1 billion requested for the rail link, but will direct that money to our education and health priorities.
  532
  As Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my approach on taking office was to set out a clear strategy for a better integrated transport system. Our White Paper "A New Deal For Transport: Better for Everyone" did that, by building on the consensus in favour of better integration of our transport system. The right hon. Member for Wokingham is outside that consensus, which was established under the previous Administration, and is leading his party further away from it. He is the extremist, just as his party was revealed to be this weekend by the ex-Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward).
  We have set out the policy and much of it is already being implemented. Alongside that policy, the Bill reflects our radically new approach to funding public transport. That approach is based on public-private partnerships, which will combine the best skills of the public sector in providing public service with the expertise of the private sector in efficiency, innovation and project management. We shall ring-fence any future real increases in fuel duty for public transport and roads, and introduce new income streams of revenues from congestion charging and workplace parking to improve local transport. That implements the principle of hypothecation—a truly radical move, which no British Government have done before.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether or not the Government remain committed to adopting national road traffic reduction targets? If they are, when will they be published?
  Mr. Prescott: The Government were never committed to that. When road traffic reduction legislation was considered by the House, we made it clear that we would report within one year on our proposals and on other means by which we could achieve the objectives of reducing congestion and environmental damage. The Commission for Integrated Transport has just reported to me, making it clear that those objectives can be achieved without banning the entry of cars into towns on the scale suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Last Monday, I launched our 10-year programme to revitalise Britain's transport system.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying
  "I will have failed if in five years' time there are not far fewer journeys by car"?
  Does he know that the new Minister for Transport has said that of course there are going to be more journeys by car? Is that not a U-turn and has the Secretary of State not been overruled?
  Mr. Prescott: The Minister for Transport said that there probably would be more cars. That is due to the success of our economy over the past two years. I said that there would be fewer car journeys. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Manchester, Brighton or Leeds, he would see that public transport has been improved. People are changing from using their cars to using public transport. That means that there are fewer journeys by car and more by public transport. That is being proved around the country. If he visited such places, he would be better informed.

  533
  For the first time, we will give transport the long-term stability and certainty that it needs, building on a strong and stable economy. We are prepared to take the difficult long-term decisions needed to improve the quality of public transport and reduce congestion through public transport plans. That is the basis of the approach to improving local public transport outlined in part II.
  Part II includes our proposals to improve local transport services, particularly buses. The new local transport plans are the centrepiece of our approach to providing integrated transport at local planning level. They are the key to providing local solutions for local problems and set out our policies for the promotion of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities in each area. The Bill puts them on a statutory footing.
  Last Thursday, we announced a local transport settlement for 2000–01 of £755 million. The total over three years for local transport will be £2.4 billion, including £700 million of additional expenditure. The Bill requires authorities to develop a bus strategy to ensure good quality bus services tailored to local circumstances. It puts the current voluntary quality partnerships on a statutory basis. That will allow all parties to invest with confidence. It will mean that local quality standards can be imposed to help reduce congestion and improve air quality in our towns and cities.
  The Bill provides powers for local authorities to require bus operators to participate in integrated joint ticketing and bus passenger information schemes. It allows local authorities to enter into quality contracts for bus services to determine networks and service levels.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: I have never known a common-sense intervention from the hon. Gentleman in the past, so I have no desire to give way.
  Such contracts will be subjected to a strict public interest test and will require the prior consent of the Secretary of State or of the National Assembly for Wales.
  The Bill honours our promise to introduce a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fare schemes. That will guarantee all pensioners at least half-fare on local buses if they buy the bus pass. That will benefit around 3 million pensioners. We think that that is right, and a good example of a good transport system meeting people's needs.
  Part III introduces a radical new approach to road user charging and the workplace parking levy. It is clearly controversial. The Bill will grant powers to local authorities similar to those included in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Such powers can be used only at the direct request of a local authority. The Bill provides that every penny of the net revenues raised from new charges will be retained locally and ring-fenced for spending on improvements to local transport for at least 10 years. Local authorities will have to submit their plans for charging and the use of revenues to improve local transport to me or to the National Assembly for Wales for approval. I am pleased to say that 25 local authorities have said that they are interested in road user charging or the workplace parking levy.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the charge that would need to be imposed by a local authority in, say, London or Manchester, to reduce traffic on the roads by 10 per cent.?
  Mr. Prescott: The calculations have been done by the local authorities that have chosen to use the scheme, based on the consultation document. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who produced the Green Paper on transport for the previous Administration, had arrived at the same conclusion—that greater priority should be given to public transport and the possibility of congestion charging. Perhaps he has a better idea as a result of his analysis, but I have asked local authorities to examine our consultative document. At least the right hon. Gentleman and I are at one, though in total disagreement with those on the Opposition Front Bench, who are opposed to congestion charging and the improvement of public transport.
  Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: Clearly, the consensus has ended. We now know where the extreme position is held: on the Conservative Front Bench.
  I shall deal now with our proposals for air traffic services, which are also controversial. Air traffic services are covered in part I.
  Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear that the hon. Gentleman has never made a sensible intervention. I have no intention of conceding to him. [Interruption.]
  Part I provides powers to proceed with a public-private partnership for the National Air Traffic Services. The Civil Aviation Authority and NATS provide a world-class service, but there are three reasons why we believe that change is necessary.
  First, the existing public sector framework is inadequate to deal with future growth. NATS is denied access by restrictive Treasury rules to new forms of financing to fund the £1.3 billion of investment required over the next 10 years.
  Secondly, there is a clear conflict between the obligation to provide air services while regulating safety. The Bill addresses that as the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs recommended. Thirdly, project management of the new Swanwick and Prestwick centres has been poor, with five-year delays and a budget overrun of more than 50 per cent.
  Under the PPP, NATS, which is already a private company but publicly owned, will be jointly owned by the Government, a strategic private sector partner, and its employees. It will not be unique. It will be designated to the private sector, like the air traffic control at many of our major airports—for example, at Belfast and Bristol, to name just two. There are 35 air traffic service providers in the UK, most of which are privately owned.
  We have always made it clear that we saw a PPP as the solution for NATS, rather than the wholesale privatisation demanded by the Opposition. When my right hon. Friend

  535
  the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) was the Minister for Transport, he stated on 11 June 1998:
  "The Government believe that the level of investment and efficiency that we need in our National Air Traffic Services can best be achieved through a partnership between the public and private sectors."—[0fficial Report, 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637W.]
  That partnership will ensure that NATS is able to finance its future investment within a stable regulatory framework. I agree that that is somewhat different from the amendment before the House today.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What rate of return is expected on the large sums that will have to be provided for the necessary capital projects?
  Mr. Prescott: That has not yet been established, as bids must be made by companies interested in operating as a strategic partner. Let us be clear about one thing: whatever the rate of return, the price will be determined by the regulator—the CAA—which can already take into account a sensible rate of return, as in the case of the BAA. That is its obligation. There will be regulatory control, as there is in comparable industries.
  Air traffic control is all about safety—
  Mr. James Gray: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he explain how the risk transfer will take place, with regard to the privatisation of NATS, and in particular, what will happen to the company's current debt of £300 million?
  Mr. Prescott: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks such a question. When the Conservative party was in government, it was well practised in—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to what I am about to say. The debt can be treated in the way that I outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). We have made it clear that a mistake was made in the double calculation of debt. The return from the sale of the proportion of shares that we propose must take into account the level of debt, the level of income, and the price that is likely to be obtained. The company's debt will be transferred and paid over a longer period, which will be negotiated as part of the contract. [Interruption.] If hon. Members consider the price, it is a balance between debt and equity, and there is an assumption by the company about the income stream that can be achieved by that. Debt is only a small part of the proposal and it will be taken into account in the negotiations that will take place after the House has agreed the proposal.
  Air traffic control is all about safety, which must be paramount. Hon Members rightly want to ensure that safety is maintained, and I am happy to assure the House that safety will continue to be the overriding priority. The company is—and will continue to be—regulated to a high standard of safety by the CAA.
  Once the PPP is effected, the company will also be subject to a licence while ensuring that its service standards are maintained. The Secretary of State and the CAA will be able to take enforcement action if the licence conditions or statutory duties, including maintaining a
  536
  safe service, appear at any time to be compromised. In the event of a severe breach of a licence, a comprehensive special administration regime will safeguard the delivery of those services.
  The concern that the profit motive will undermine safety is not proven. At the moment, the CAA is the public regulatory body that regulates companies—be it the BAA or airports authorities—with clear profit motives. In those circumstances, the BAA and the airports authorities are controlling companies that have a profit motive but maintain a high standard of regulatory safety.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is important to register that if the CAA or the BAA want to expand, the BAA could offer more commercial opportunities in shops. Although NATS can offer management elsewhere, it is impossible for it to expand on a commercial basis in the way in which my right hon. Friend suggests. He is not comparing like with like.
  Mr. Prescott: I agree. It is not proposed that NATS should be involved in the commercial operation of opening shops and creating extra income flows. We want to ensure that safety standards are maintained; that there is proper equipment and that the staff are properly trained. The CAA has established that. It has a safety function as well as a regulatory and economic function. The authorities have spelt out to the Transport Sub-Committee, which my hon. Friend chairs, the sort of checks and controls that they undertake. I believe that they meet the safety requirements. Safety regulation is safer than previously, because we adopted the Committee's recommendation.
  The CAA's safety regulation group, which is relevant to the matters that we are discussing, will retain safety oversight of the 35 United Kingdom air traffic service providers, including NATS. The Bill will give the Government power to issue directions to NATS in the interests of national security. The licence conditions will also lay that down. We intend, through the PPP, to secure a long-term strategic partner, which will commit to investing in and delivering an air traffic control system for the next century. The new PPP company will have a proportion of directors appointed by the Government, with the Government holding a special golden share and having a separate partnership agreement with the strategic partner.
  Those two instruments will protect the Government's interests in key areas such as the business principles of the company, the transfer, issue and disposal of shares and the completion and maintenance of major projects such as Swanwick and the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick. While I am on the subject of Swanwick, I can confirm that NATS expect the centre to meet its operational target date of winter 2001–02.
  The new Scottish centre demonstrates our commitment not just to maintaining safety, but to enhancing it. That commitment also underlies our decision to proceed with a PPP.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he explain the use of a golden share that he is obviously planning to get rid of?

  537
  Why does clause 49 make provision for him to waive the rights under the golden share? Indeed, there is a shortcut provision for him to
  "amend or repeal this section"
  of the Bill. If the golden share is so important, why is there a fast-track provision to enable him to rid of it?
  Mr. Prescott: There is clear provision for fast-tracking on national security matters, but the golden share will define those conditions in which the directors acting on behalf of the Government will be able to intervene and uphold those conditions of national interest that we have laid down. That is not unusual. I believe that the previous Administration used the golden share in a similar way, and we have made it clear that that is how we will maintain control in the company. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to press those points in Committee.
  Mr. Michael Portillo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: No.
  Under our proposals, the main strategic decisions of the NATS board will require a unanimous vote of all directors, including those who will be appointed by the Government. Moreover, by retaining a substantial shareholding we can ensure that the Exchequer—and hence the taxpayer—shares in the future profits of the company. That is an important point in respect of the priorities of public expenditure. Chancellors have many pressures on them to invest in education, health, pensions and all such areas. A special role can be played by those public sector industries with an income stream that can raise their own investment requirements instead of adding to the pressure on the Exchequer, and it is right for them to do so.
  Mr. Portillo rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I believe that that is a proper consideration to take into account regarding the priorities of public expenditure. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way!"] No, no.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe set out the Government's preferred option in July. Under those proposals, the Government will retain a 49 per cent. stake in NATS, while NATS staff will have a 5 per cent. share. A private sector strategic partner will take the remaining 46 per cent. We are having discussions with the parties concerned and will be reporting back to the House on the detailed conclusions. The House will have an opportunity to vote on the shareholding arrangements of the company, as about every decision on this matter. I can reassure the House that it will not be a rushed sale without the safeguards that we were used to seeing under the Conservative Government.
  Finally, part IV relates to our proposals to improve the railways. The House has, of course, seen those provisions before and the Railways Bill, which I introduced to the House during the summer, has undergone scrutiny by the
  538
  Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. In its report, the Committee said:
  "We welcome the Railways Bill, which we believe is a practical way of addressing the problems of a restructured railway."
  As ever, I am grateful to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and her Committee. As a result of the Committee's hard work, I believe that we have a better Bill that enjoys considerable consensus of agreement, both inside and outside the House, with the exception of the Opposition, who once again have adopted the more extreme position.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On part IV, may I point out to him that many members of the passenger transport executives are deeply concerned about the present wording of clause 215? Their fear—which I believe is legitimate—is that their rights to set local railway services may be diminished by the Strategic Rail Authority. Will he look again at the serious complaint that they make?
  Mr. Prescott: That is indeed a serious point and I am well aware of it. In this matter, although passenger transport authorities in Scotland and in England have some concerns, we shall be giving the grants to the Strategic Rail Authority and it will negotiate with the PTAs about the provision of services. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall be giving the matter proper attention in Committee. We are well aware of the problem and members of the Committee will have a chance to examine that complaint.
  The Bill establishes the Strategic Rail Authority and sets out its powers to improve services for rail users. The Conservative party planned for a static railway; its solution was to price passengers off the system, rather than invest for growth. Privatisation fragmented the industry into many pieces—[Interruption.] It is not in doubt that the railway system was fragmented into many pieces by privatisation, which created millionaires and millions of dissatisfied passengers as well a decline in performance and investment. The industry was subject to constraint by the limited franchises that the Conservative party imposed on it. Labour's priorities are exactly the opposite.
  Joan Ruddock rose—
  Mr. Prescott: We will promote and develop a growing, safer, better invested railway that is committed to delivering improved performance, quality and capacity.
  Mr. Jenkin: Behind you.
  Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
  Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the railway company Connex, which has today threatened that there will be no new year services for passengers in my constituency and elsewhere? Does he understand the fury of my constituents? That threat comes on the back of the company's practice of shutting out disabled

  539
  passengers earlier this year, and running trains with so few carriages that there has been massive overcrowding. Three weeks ago, in an apparent attempt at virtual punctuality, it removed all the clocks at Lewisham station.
  Mr. Prescott: That is a proper answer to those who make claims about the joys and successes of the privatised railway industry. The Strategic Rail Authority will be able to deal with such matters and with the renegotiation of franchises, which will improve services. It will have powers to enforce the franchisees to deliver what they have promised. As I understand it, that railway company suffered a fine of £1.4 million. Under the Bill, that money will not go to the Treasury: such fines will be reinvested in the railways. That is an obvious improvement.
  The Strategic Rail Authority will put railways at the centre of an integrated transport system, with proper public accountability and investment, putting the passenger's interest at the top of the agenda in a long-term strategic framework with the focus on a plan for growth.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State rightly proposes a large investment in the railway infrastructure. What plans does he have for any stake to be taken in Railtrack by the public sector, so that we can guarantee that the money invested by the public does not end up in the pockets of the shareholders of Railtrack or train operating companies?
  Mr. Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the money that was given by the previous Administration under the negotiations for the franchises was a form of revenue support for the companies to maintain the price structure forced on them by the Railtrack agreement. That is a matter of some concern. I have instructed the Strategic Rail Authority and the regulator to consider this matter in the further agreements with Railtrack and the rolling stock companies. We do not envisage taking any share in Railtrack. I am not sure that many people would want to do that at the moment, and I am not convinced that there is a case for the Government to do so.
  I am glad that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has already set to work on strategic planning with such good effect. In his articles, the right hon. Member for Wokingham complained about the rail franchises. It was the Conservative Government who negotiated rail franchises that were limited to seven years and which, according to the companies, stunted investment. That is their complaint and why they agreed to renegotiate the franchises.
  Mr. Redwood: They should get on with it.
  Mr. Prescott: They are getting on with it, although the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of that. They have seven-year contracts, and I agreed that we should start early negotiations. The Strategic Rail Authority is doing that, but the right hon. Gentleman will apparently vote against that body.
  Renegotiating the franchises will create greater commitment to quality and investment over a longer period. The Strategic Rail Authority will take over consumer protection functions from the rail regulator.
  540
  The Strategic Rail Authority and rail regulator will have enhanced powers to deal with poor performing companies.
  The rail regulator, confirming his role as an economic regulator, will have a new power to require facility owners, such as Railtrack, to enhance facilities or to provide new facilities. The rail regulator will work to facilitate the SRA's strategic approach, balanced against his other duties.
  As I said, the SRA will retain the penalty income from enforcement action, including enforcement by the rail regulator. Penalties will be kept for investment in the railway, and not returned to the Treasury.
  We have also responded to the Select Committee's other concerns. We have given the SRA wider powers to encourage rail freight, we have ensured greater transparency and accountability and we were happy to include in the Bill the other recommendations made by the Transport Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
  During the Second Reading of last Session's Railways Bill, I undertook to return to the issue of the borrowing powers available to the SRA—I think the matter was raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. The SRA's borrowing limit is that of the British Railways Board which it replaces and is to be set at £3 billion, part of which will be swallowed up by the board's existing debt of half a billion pounds.
  We are now providing the necessary flexibility for the SRA to accommodate the outcome of the current negotiations on franchise replacement. The existence of a £3 billion borrowing limit does not mean that the SRA will need to borrow £3 billion or any other amount. We should not anticipate the results of the negotiations.
  The measures in the Bill bring public accountability back to the railway industry. It will allow the SRA to plan for an expanding network. It will require those who own the network to meet their obligations and fulfil their promises, and it will require train operators to fulfil their franchise agreements. It will return the concept of "public" to the concept of a public rail service.
  The railway industry has been subject to plenty of criticism, much of it deserved, but there are now positive signs of a revival of Britain's railways. Figures for performance and for signals passed at danger are encouraging, although we still have a long way to go. The Strategic Rail Authority will be the new guardian of the public interest: it will plug the loopholes in the last Government's rail legislation, and will provide tougher enforcement to protect the passenger.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Should not the authority be obliged to listen carefully to what is said by the Welsh Assembly about the needs and priorities of services in Wales? What mechanisms will the Secretary of State introduce to ensure that it does so?
  Mr. Prescott: I believe strongly in consultation between the Welsh Assembly and the SRA. Indeed, I am currently considering a proposal that the authority should include a member representing the Welsh interest.
  We have further enhanced the powers of the passengers' representatives, now renamed rail passengers' committees, by providing a statutory basis for their work

  541
  on bus-rail links, interchanges and new integration. Given those new powers, it is no wonder that the rail passenger watchdog has described the Bill and the SRA as
  "the best Christmas present passengers could have".
  The Bill will help to provide a quality integrated transport system for the 21st century. It gives us the means to rebuild our transport industries, to reduce congestion, to improve the environment and to provide a transport system that is good for people, whether they are motorists, bus or rail passengers or, indeed, pedestrians. Despite the transport mess and the decline in quality over the 18 years that we inherited we have, in just two and a half years, begun to turn the corner. There are more passengers on trains; more goods are carried on the railways; there are more bus passengers, reversing the decline; there is cleaner air in our cities; and there are record levels of investment. All that is within a longer-term framework. The Bill takes a further step towards the establishment of a modem, integrated, properly financed and properly regulated transport system to rival the best in Europe.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests, including the fact that my wife works for British Airways. However, I speak not on behalf of those interests, but on behalf of the many hard-pressed travellers who will be given a rotten deal by the Bill, and on behalf of the overtaxed motorists who will be taxed again and again if the Bill is passed unamended.
  It is a pleasure to see the Deputy Prime Minister attending a transport debate again. I have read many obituaries of him as Transport Minister over the past week and I have seen the briefings. We now know, notwithstanding the briefing that he gave after our last transport debate, that he had lost at No. 10. Much of his power and responsibility has now been transferred to a Minister in the other place. It is great to have the right hon. Gentleman back with us, singing his swan song. We all remember some of the great refrains: I particularly enjoyed the little passage about the static railway. There could hardly be a better phrase to sum up all that the right hon. Gentleman has done for the railway industry so far.
  We are about to see a vision of Labour's future transport policy, before the Bill has even been passed by the House. I ask hon. Members to think forward to millennium night in our great capital city. We are told that we will not be allowed to drive into London and that many central London streets will be closed. We are told that we will not be allowed to take a car to the Dome or anywhere near it, on pain of being fined for daring to do so.
  We are then told that if we nevertheless manage to get into the centre in time for some of the celebrations, 24 tube stations will be closed in the busiest places to make it as difficult as possible for us to get home. In the meantime, Westminster tube station, which will be closed to everyone else, will be open so that members of the Cabinet can take a special ride to the Dome on the Jubilee line. That is not travel for the people, it is travel for the privileged few. It is like Moscow in 1960, not London in
  542
  2000. Ministers should be ashamed of themselves because they are closing public transport when the public want to use it and they are stopping people using their cars.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Two weeks ago, after the right hon. Gentleman's last abject performance in the House, his excuse was that he was suffering from flu. Does he have a similar excuse prepared for today's debacle?
  Mr. Redwood: Labour Members do not like it when I am scoring, and they know I am scoring. They know that, on the previous occasion, the Deputy Prime Minister overspun his alleged success and was sacked three days later. If, every time I bring a Minister to the Dispatch Box, he gets sacked three days later, I will regard that as a success, given the dreadful Ministers and the dreadful policies that are brought before us.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wishes to remind us of that Opposition day debate, when I asked 10 crucial questions but received no answers. Again, today, we have had no answers from the Deputy Prime Minister. We now know, of course, that we have to go to another place to ask the true Transport Minister for some of the answers.
  Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I wish to deal with the point about the previous debate and then I will give way to the hon. Lady. I remember that she was very patient on that occasion. I will not make her wait quite so long this time.
  To come to a judgment about the Bill, we need to know the answer to many important questions about the Government's plans for our transport system. When will there be a tube public-private partnership? How much more delay will there be? How much cash does the Secretary of State have for the tube over the next two years? We were told last Wednesday that he had zero in the budget for next year and zero in the budget for the year after. Is it still zero? Nothing will come of nothing—he has been filleted by the Treasury.
  Is the Secretary of State able to offer any new tube lines, in the way that we can with our Londoners tube scheme? When will he come to a decision on Railtrack payments? It has put a sensible proposal to him, which will enable it to get on with the job of increasing capacity. He and the new Minister for Transport have been unable to come to a decision.
  When will the Secretary of State extend the franchises of the train operating companies? They are claiming, rightly, that his delay and the indecision of the new Transport Minister in the other place are stopping them getting on with the level of investment that they would like to make.
  When will the right hon. Gentleman have something positive to say about proper car parks at stations? When will he rule out 550,000 houses on the green fields of the south-east, which would make a mockery of any attempt to control the congestion problem? When will he announce policies to improve access to stations, rather than trying to stop people driving into towns, where most stations happen to be? When will he announce new road

  543
  schemes in the trunk road programme? When will he admit that trying to privatise National Air Traffic Services on the cheap is a very foolish policy?
  Those are 10 important questions. I will ask them again and again until we start to drag some answers out of this miserable Secretary of State and the new Minister in the other place, who has taken most of his job away from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I will give way; I did offer to do so.
  Ms Ward: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for remembering my persistence during the last debate and for giving way so easily this time.
  As we are on the subject of repeating questions, perhaps I can repeat my question from last time: why is the right hon. Gentleman so opposed to the Strategic Rail Authority when it will provide the protection that passengers need and ensure that, where fines are levied, they go back into investing in that important service?
  Mr. Redwood: We think that the authority is a cop-out by the Secretary of State and the new Minister for Transport. They should make many of those decisions and regulators exist to deal with the regulatory issues. The authority is a great red herring. It involves delay, but we need Ministers to make some decisions now so that the railway industry can get on and invest. We do not need a year of delay, the setting up of a new body and then some decisions from people who have been chosen by the Minister for Transport, or perhaps on the advice of the Secretary of State if he is back in favour by then. They will be people whom he wishes to control and who are unnecessary intermediaries in the process of the Government making some decisions and the railway industry investing.
  Mr. Prescott: Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that renegotiations are handled by the franchising director. Ministers did not do that even under the right hon. Gentleman's legislation, but he does not appear to be aware of that.
  Mr. Redwood: Of course I am aware of that. However, as I said, we do not need more regulators; we need the Government to make some decisions and to give strategic direction. Everyone in the industry knows that the Deputy Prime Minister and the new Transport Minister are failing to give the necessary direction, which is why we are seeking it.
  This morning, I turned on my radio to listen to the "Today" programme and I felt sorry for the Government when, sure enough, just after 8 o'clock the prime slot was about transport. Although I was very pleased to note that the day's big issue in Parliament was being picked up by the BBC's flagship morning news programme, what did I hear? I heard not the Deputy Prime Minister—of course not—but the true Minister for Transport, the man whom No. 10 Downing street trusts. And what did I hear him saying? I heard him wriggling every which way, trying to
  544
  change the rhetoric and the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. Above all, I heard absolutely nothing about the Transport Bill.
  Today, the House is considering a non-Bill from a non-Minister who is being airbrushed out of the script. Although a Minister appeared on the "Today" programme, he did not mention the Transport Bill, which is being debated today on the Floor of the House. I can quite understand why the Minister did not mention the Transport Bill: it will make matters worse and it is an embarrassment. The Bill will tax people off the road and clog up the railways with more regulation. There will be no decisions. The Bill also sells National Air Traffic Services on the cheap.
  In his speech, the Deputy Prime Minister struggled over the NATS issue. I was therefore pleased to see that 50 Labour Members have today had the courage of the convictions of the whole Labour party before the general election and tabled a reasoned amendment on the sale of NATS. Opposition Members look forward to a lively debate among Labour Members on that particular problem.
  Mr. Prescott: There will not be any debate among Tory Members.
  Mr. Redwood: As the Deputy Prime Minister should well know, Conservative Members do not disagree about NATS. We know exactly what we should like to do with NATS, and it would not be what the Government want to do with it.
  We remember only too clearly a senior Labour spokesman saying before the general election that our air would not be for sale under a Labour Government. Two and a half years later, we have the effrontery of Ministers presenting to both Houses of Parliament proposals to sell it on the cheap.
  Ms Sandra Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if his preferred option of full-scale privatisation were to proceed, there would be no new Scottish centre at Prestwick?
  Mr. Redwood: That is a false assumption. We would not sell NATS on the cheap. If we were to proceed, we would wish to protect all the important interests, including safety.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is in a terrible muddle over the sale proceeds from NATS. The Bill's financial memorandum states not only that the gross proceeds will be £350 million, but that NATS has outstanding loans of about £300 million, which will have to be settled either by refinancing, repayment or writing off. If we write off £300 million, but raise only £350 million from the sale—and if the costs amount to £35 million, as we are told they will—we would be selling off NATS for £15 million net.
  When I first pointed out the position, the spin from the Department was that it would not write off £300 million at the taxpayers' expense, despite the very clear language of its memorandum, which it has still not amended. Is the Deputy Prime Minister therefore saying that clause 55 is redundant? That clause strengthens the impression given by the financial memorandum because it gives him the power to write off that debt. Presumably, he seeks that power because he thinks that he may need to use it,

  545
  in which case he will be selling NATS at the devastatingly cheap price of £15 million net—[Interruption.] Labour Members say that that is ridiculous. It is entirely ridiculous, but it is what the documents say. The Deputy Prime Minister has been unable to clear up the uncertainty.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman the same person who, as a Minister in the previous Government, authorised the selling off of British Rail and the extinguishing of a debt of £19,000 million? British Rail was sold for a fraction of its true worth.
  Mr. Redwood: I was not the Minister who signed off anything on the sale of British Rail. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in thinking that I was not the Minister. Perhaps he should cross-examine those on his own Front Bench. It is deeply embarrassing because they are unable to explain the numbers. The fact that they are all remaining seated displays that they cannot do so. They have a great problem.
  Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in a letter to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), we explained precisely the mistake that we believe the Conservatives are making. First, their judgment about the £350 million figure is based on present circumstances, not on any judgment by a company that wants to buy. Such a company would take into account debt and equity as well as the income stream that would have to be determined by the prices to be charged. It is nonsense to say that £350 million would be the price. One cannot make that judgment until someone makes a bid.
  As for debt, it can be structured over a longer period, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has already said. Such decisions will be taken during the progress of negotiation as we choose a strategic partner in this matter. Only then can we come to a proper judgment, although the Committee will, of course, be able to debate the matter.
  Mr. Redwood: I am relieved to hear that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to walk away from the clear statement made to the House in the paper tabled on the financial and manpower effects of the Bill. The mistake is not mine, but the Government's. I did not invent the figures, I simply read out what the Government had produced. They say that they will receive only around £350 million. They leave open the possibility—that puts it at its lowest, although I believe that clause 55 states it explicitly—that they will have to pay off £300 million of debt into the bargain. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to tear up those figures, to recognise that the assets are much more valuable, and to sell them differently and for a sensible price. On the available figures and information, our charge stands that the Government's original intention was to sell those assets on the cheap for a net £15 million.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has said, there is also considerable vagueness over the golden share. The right hon. Gentleman seems quite unclear about what the Bill says. It makes it crystal clear that the golden share, which we thought had been included to protect some of the British taxpayers' interests, can be overridden at the Secretary of State's request without the proper protections that we shall demand.
  546
  Clauses 92 to 138 tackle the issue of buses. We object most strongly to the wish of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Transport to bring back the monopolist to the bus industry. The kernel of the proposals would, in given areas, enable quality contracts to lock out competitors for up to 10 years. Competition is best for the traveller and the passenger, so we shall fight that proposal tooth and nail. In addition, it may not be permissible under European law, and we look forward to exploring that issue.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the 10 years after the Tories deregulated bus services outside London, there was a consistent fall in passenger usage? Meanwhile, in London—the one place where bus regulation was maintained—there was a consistent increase in bus usage. Is that not the answer to the problem?
  Mr. Redwood: I remember deregulation of the buses producing a lot of new services and retaining passengers who would otherwise have been lost. It is true that during the Conservative years people became a great deal more prosperous and many of them decided to buy and use cars. We see nothing wrong in that even if the Government, speaking with one of their voices, have trouble with that idea.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I know that the right hon. Gentleman studies very closely the reports of the Transport Sub-Committee, which I Chair, and I am exceedingly grateful to him. He will therefore acknowledge that the evidence that we received on areas in which privatised bus companies operated revealed the astonishing fact that, somehow, very few of them managed to compete with one another in the same places. As we looked at the map appended to our report, we might almost have thought that the companies did not want any real competition among themselves.
  Mr. Redwood: That is not a good argument for trying to prevent competition by legislating for lock-outs of the kind envisaged in the Bill. [Interruption.] Ministers may suggest that I am shifting my ground, but that is not so. There are good examples of areas in which competition worked extremely well before Labour councils caught up and wrecked it. In Oxford, for example, there was tremendous bus competition until a Labour council arrived recently and tried to stop buses moving around the streets, as well as cars. That has begun to undermine the good work that deregulation undoubtedly did.
  In my local area, the Liberal Democrat opposition were all ready to run a strong campaign against bus deregulation. Then someone kindly sent us one of their memos, which said "Don't bother with running this campaign, because unfortunately there are more buses around since deregulation, and such a campaign would backfire." At least they were sensible, unlike the Labour party on this occasion.
  One of the Government's big problems is that they cannot make up their mind whether to make a U-turn. I have already asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he stands by the statement in which he said:
  "I will have failed if in five years time there are not far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it. I agree to keep that commitment. Judge my performance in five years."

  547
  Meanwhile, the proper Minister for Transport—Lord Macdonald—is busily briefing everybody that there is no chance of car usage decreasing over a five-year period. Not only is he saying that more cars will be bought, but that, as a result of that and of what he wants to do—which is to make motoring cheaper—there will be more journeys by car. His latest statement on the "Today" programme this morning—the official Government view—was that the best that he could ever do would be to have the odd year of zero growth in car journeys, while most years would see some growth.
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I am still making an important point.
  We need to know from the Government why the previous Transport Minister—now the retired one—still seems to believe that he can reduce the number of car journeys over a five-year period, bearing in mind that over the first two years of the Government's term in office they have gone up substantially, when the true Minister is clearly telling us that there is no chance of achieving that. Lord Macdonald said:
  "You can either try to reduce traffic overall or you can say it's more rational to try to reduce the damaging output of traffic—pollution and congestion. We think that is more realistic."
  He was clearly putting the boot into the Deputy Prime Minister's ambitions.
  Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given his particular concern and interest in the issue, demonstrated by his persistent questioning, could he explain whether he and his party wish there to be fewer car journeys and whether the policies that he has expounded are likely to lead to that?
  Mr. Redwood: We would like a wider range of options so that people can travel more easily. We fully accept that there needs to be a big improvement in rail, tube and bus travel, particularly at peak times, in congested areas. I reckon that as the country gets richer and people acquire more cars, there will be more car journeys. It is not an object of our policy physically to stop people using their cars, or to tax them off the road. We wish to provide them with better choices because we believe, particularly at busy times of day and in busy areas, that the car is not always the best answer. However, the public transport option needs a lot of investment to make it that much better.
  Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that lowering or increasing speed limits, lowering the price of petrol, getting rid of speed humps and building more roads will lead to more traffic and congestion? How can he criticise the Secretary of State on those grounds?
  Mr. Redwood: We want people to be able to travel more easily. There will be times when it is better to travel by bus, train or tube, but that will require massive investment. Nor should we deliberately go out of our way to make the congestion worse, as the Government have
  548
  been doing up to now by trying to force people off the roads, restricting the capacity of the existing road network to no good effect.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend read The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, in which the new Transport Minister—in complete contrast to the views of his predecessor, as he explained—said that it was inevitable that the number of cars in Britain keeps rising. As an amusing aside, Lord Macdonald also said:
  "There were elements of the market philosophy and privatisation that seemed to me to make economic sense".
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not what the Deputy Prime Minister believes?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the controversy raging at the heart of Government. We all know that Lord Macdonald is more likely to win because he has the backing of No. 10, while the Deputy Prime Minister does not.
  We also know that the Bill will continue the same old bash-the-motorist policies—which brings me to clauses 139 to 153, which deal with congestion taxes, and clauses 154 to 173, which deal with parking taxes. We need to know—at the winding-up of the debate or in Committee—how much tax will be required to make an impact. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) made an excellent intervention on that point, but was unable to get an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Experts have suggested that it would take a charge of at least £10 a day to make any visible impact on the number of cars entering a main city such as London or Manchester. How much do the Government suggest local authorities might impose and when do they suggest the charges should be introduced? Has the Deputy Prime Minister read the reports stating that the technology is not yet ready for the introduction of sensible road charging? Presumably, we cannot have toll booths at every road that goes into a main city. When does he think that the technology will be sufficiently workable to introduce those charges? How much does he think a council will want to charge?
  It has been suggested that the parking tax could be as much as £3,000 a space in central London and several hundred pounds in other major towns and cities. [Interruption.] Is that a realistic assessment? How much does the Deputy Prime Minister think should be imposed? Would he accept any cap or limit on what could be enormous charges? When does he think that the charges should and could be introduced?
  The right hon. Gentleman proposes to tax people who drive into towns to catch a train or to pick up heavy loads from shops or from their place of business. He proposes to tax people who drive to the office and park during the day because they intend to work late, when public transport will have ceased to provide a decent service.
  Mr. Prescott: I am not proposing anything.
  Mr. Redwood: The Deputy Prime Minister now says that the legislation is a work of fiction and that he is not proposing anything. If he cares to look at the measures that he is proposing, he will see clause after clause giving

  549
  local authorities the power to impose those swingeing taxes. Why is he introducing the measure if he does not want local authorities to do that? Of course he wants them to impose those taxes on the motorist—but his cowardice is such that he would prefer someone else to take the immediate flak for doing so. However, he will get the flak because the taxes are his wish and are in his legislation.
  Ms Margaret Moran: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is now repudiating the policies in the 1994 Tory manifesto, which advocated congestion charging, and the policies of his erstwhile colleague, Mr. Norris, who supported such charges in 1999? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he said that if private enterprise were given its head, it would build more toll roads and would get Britain on the move? Is not that also taxing the motorist? Does he repudiate his own views?
  Mr. Redwood: That was an extremely feeble intervention. I am making it crystal clear that the Conservative party is against these new taxes on the motorist. We are against congestion charges for the use of the existing road system. We are against parking taxes for the use of existing parking places. The hon. Lady will find that we shall vote against those and the rest of the Bill this evening, and that we shall oppose the measures vigorously in Committee.
  The Deputy Prime Minister, as a defence for all these extra taxes that he has invented, says that he has succeeded in securing hypothecation. He seems to have bought a pig in a poke from the Treasury. If the taxes go through, how do we know that there will be any extra money when he has not secured base budgets for the money that the Treasury already collects from the motorist? Does he not realise that the Treasury collects more than £32,000 million from the motorist and that only about one fifth of that is spent on transport improvements and on the transport system? Most of the motorists' money is taken for other uses. If he does not secure big and sensible base budgets, his hypothecation is absolutely worthless. The Treasury will take away what the Deputy Prime Minister is taking from the motorist. He is not Mr. Hypothecation—he is Mr. Gullible. He has bought this pig in a poke from the Treasury. He really believes that there will be extra money, whereas the Treasury will use the excuse of the extra money from the higher taxes to take away some of the other money that would have gone to the transport sector.
  On the issue of the fuel escalator, Ministers are trying to look both ways at the same time. We are told that they will scrap the fuel escalator, which they raised well after the time that it should have been scrapped—[Interruption.] The Government increased the fuel escalator when fuel taxes were already high. They made those taxes ruinously high.
  We now hear from the Government that they may possibly scrap the fuel escalator, and that the main source of new money to sort out transport problems will be increases in fuel duties above the rate of inflation. [Interruption.] The Government cannot have it both ways— we all know on which side they will come down. They will tax the motorist more. They may hypothecate
  550
  that revenue, but then they will mug the motorist by taking away money that the Government would otherwise have put into the transport system.
  Mr. Paterson: From a sedentary position, the Deputy Prime Minister, chuntering away, said "Perhaps" with reference to the fuel escalator. Table B9 in the pre-Budget report clearly shows fuel duties increasing from £21.6 billion to an amazing £23.5 billion.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has a bull's eye again. That is why I predicted that the Government will come down on the side of taxing the motorist. They always do. What does Labour do best? Taxing the motorist—that is what they are there for and that is what they like doing.
  Finally, I shall discuss the part of the Bill dealing with the railway industry.
  Mr. Don Foster: Only a few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he was not in favour of proposals for road traffic reduction. Will he acknowledge that that is a personal U-turn on his part, and that on 29 May 1997 he wrote to a Mr. Keabie in Reading offering to support road traffic reduction proposals?
  Mr. Redwood: I have set out very clearly Her Majesty's Opposition's policy. We believe that we need to promote more public transport, which is what I was saying then and what I am still saying today. Rumours of my inconsistency have been greatly exaggerated.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: No. I shall now move on to discuss the railways. The hon. Gentleman has had one little shot, which went wrong; he will have to make do with that.
  The Bill gives the impression that a new regulator will sort out the railways, when what we need is someone to sort out the money for the railways. The Deputy Prime Minister savages Railtrack at every opportunity and he has now taken away its opportunity to bid for the tube, having originally encouraged it to do so, wasting £20 million of its money in the process. We have a smooth-talking Minister in the other place who does not seem to think that Railtrack is guilty of all the sins of the railways. I trust that he wins this argument because he is closer to the truth, and his may be a better approach to adopt to improve the railway industry.
  What we especially dislike about the part of the Bill dealing with the railways is the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority will be a pawn in the hands of the Transport Minister, the Secretary of State or his successor. It is given all sorts of grant powers, but we do not know—and still have not been told by the Deputy Prime Minister—whether it will have any money to spend on those grant powers to enable it to do any good. We do not know how the very wide-ranging powers will be used. We shall need to probe in Committee the type of guidance and guidelines that will be offered.
  We know that the train operating companies are rightly complaining about the uncertainty that the clauses are causing, and we know that Railtrack has a rotten deal—one which does not encourage increases in capacity—which needs sorting out. The Government are performing

  551
  a U-turn in their words but not in their deeds. If there was a U-turn in reality, there would be an end to higher fuel taxes; more roads would be built; there would be more investment in the tube and railways; and, above all, the Government would scrap the Bill.
  The Bill bashes the motorist. It threatens the motorist with more congestion and parking taxes; it gives powers to sell NATS on the cheap; and it shows that Ministers have not a clue about how much they might get for NATS, so great is the muddle and confusion. In addition, the Bill threatens to overwhelm the railway industry with Government interference.
  This is a Secretary of State with two jags, half a job and no money. This is a Department making the traveller pay dearly for its failure with the Treasury. This is a Secretary of State on the wrong track, introducing the wrong Bill, at the wrong time, while he is undermined from above and below. We will oppose it tooth and nail, with vigour.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now.
  4.44 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In the small islands that constitute the United Kingdom, for nearly 20 years we have operated without any clear, coherent or organised plan for transport. It seems incredible that we are entering the new century with the first really useful Transport Bill that the House has been offered for many years. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the first person to plan coherently to initiate a modern and responsive system, and a system of transport that will respond to the needs of our economy, of our people and certainly of our future. That has not been done for so long that I think that he can almost take credit for being a truly unique, sensitive and intelligent Secretary of State.
  Mr. Prescott: I know what is coming next.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: May I just tell my right hon. Friend that in 1840 George Stephenson—not my talented hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) who sits on the Transport Sub-Committee but an equally talented Mr. George Stephenson—wrote to the Board of Trade complaining that, unless legislation was introduced to control safety in the railway industry, its reputation would suffer with the general public? They regarded the fatalities to passengers that resulted from broken rails, fallen bridges and from other disastrous pieces of masonry flying around the system as a real deterrent to travelling by rail.
  This is the first Bill for some time to understand that, unless we are able to plan our transport system, passengers will decide where it will go. The problem will not just simply be that they will take their money and their goods elsewhere, but the economy will not be able to function efficiently. That is why the Bill is fundamental. It deals with many of the difficulties that were politically and pointlessly created by the Conservative Government.
  552
  The railway system is in the most frightful muddle; that is the truth of the matter. Recent terrifying accidents were only a demonstration of that lack of clarity and lack of coherence. The Strategic Rail Authority is not only necessary; it is essential. Without an attempt to put together this kaleidoscope of broken pieces, the railway industry in the next century will be totally unable to serve the needs of the United Kingdom.
  Inside the railway industry at present there is not only a split of responsibilities across the system, but there is evidence that people are not clear about their own role. The Health and Safety Executive has said that, in some instances, working practices are dangerous and that some problems have arisen from the fact that the companies themselves were not clear what they expected people to do. In some cases, it is only too obvious that, because of the practice of contracting and sub-contracting jobs right the way down the system, people believed that, once a safety notice had been issued, that was the extent of their involvement. They did not monitor the work of those employed to do the job and they did not produce the high standard of safety that passengers have a right to expect. The Strategic Rail Authority is desperately needed.
  It is a pity that we have had to wait two and a half years for this opportunity to legislate on transport, although I understand the political reasons for that. However, when we consider the size and shape of the Bill, one realises how much must be achieved in such a short time and why so many things have been thrust into the large basket of transport problems.
  The Health and Safety Executive will need not only extra powers, but will need to be considered in a slightly different way. For example, at present, it is not even able to compare like with like. It does not have the safety standards that applied beforehand, when the old British Railways Board had responsibility for considering the licensing of particular equipment but not for ensuring that it worked efficiently or was solving the problems that arose.
  There have been problems with the role of the rail regulator. I hope that during the proceedings on the Bill, the Secretary of State will spell out the relationship between the rail regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority. It would be unfortunate if clashes were to occur. They might give the impression that the rail regulator were prepared, on occasion, to talk up the situation, but when it came to making difficult decisions or, if I may use a colloquial phrase, putting the boot in, he ran away because he was influenced by political considerations, imposed not by the Government but by others in the railway industry.
  When we talk about integrating transport we shall have to consider the role of the passenger transport authorities and their ability to plan in conjunction with the main rail system not only to provide good systems within their local areas, but to work out how they can integrate planning for roads and the provision of high-quality park and ride schemes. They will also be involved in other basic forms of planning that will enable increasing numbers of the public to move on to the rail system and encourage them not to use their motor car.
  Some of the arguments that we have heard this afternoon are so artificial that they require no refutation. However, while there is not an efficient public transport system, people will hang on to their car, sometimes

  553
  because they have to and sometimes because it is more comfortable to do so. The provision by local authorities of alternative means of transport will be fundamental in changing that situation. That is why the ability in the Bill to introduce hypothecation is a tremendous advance.
  In some countries there has been a clear acceptance of the fact that motorists will give up their four little wheels only when they are equally comfortable using other transport. For example, Scandinavian countries not only accept such planning, but positively encourage it. The city authorities in San Francisco were able, without any feeling that they were making a political decision, to raise the cost of bringing motor cars into the city and lower the cost of travelling on public transport. The response was clear and produced a shift of people from their car to the public railway system. Such planning and imagination will change the situation in the coming century, and it is to be warmly welcomed and encouraged.
  I want to say a little about National Air Traffic Services. I can tell the Secretary of State that the Committee did a lot of detailed work on the railway aspects of the Bill, but we also considered aviation safety and are continuing to look at the public-private partnership for NATS. I know that my right hon. Friend will take seriously those findings and I know that he finds it helpful to have us doing the detailed work. However, I should like, for a moment, to speak in a personal capacity, not as the Chairman of the Committee.
  I am totally opposed to the sale of NATS, and that will not come as any great surprise to my colleagues, who have heard me hold forth on the subject before. There is a kind of logic — it is not acceptable to me—in suggesting that we should sell the whole of NATS, which I understand is the present Conservative party position. That sale would be advised not because of concerns about safety but presumably because of a belief that if a body like Railtrack were created for air services, that would in some obscure way benefit the passenger. We know very well that such a measure would only bring in money from a sale; that body would not be concerned with safety or aviation planning.
  However, there are difficulties with the suggestion that, somehow, the deal that is being proposed will be suitably protective of the interests of the customer, because there will be, first, a golden share and, secondly, an agreement that safety is to be regulated. I do not believe that that is so.
  Unlike the other organisations that we have discussed and the BAA, which owns bricks and mortar and shops and can presumably charge more rent or increase its business elsewhere, NATS is very limited and controlled. Its business—to put it in its simplest form—is to keep planes apart in the air. In order to do that, its operators are extremely well trained, work under tremendous stress and believe that safety is their very first priority.
  NATS has every year seen an increase—greater than in any other comparable industry —in aircraft movements. Its operators cope with that, and they do so reasonably cheerfully because they understand that it is not only their responsibility but one for which they are trained. They find it difficult to understand the Government's suggestion that NATS could be turned into a paying service and that they would be able to provide the same quality and assume the same responsibility for the traveller if they were employed by people who needed to
  554
  make a profit for their shareholders. That is the fundamental difference. There would be a different attitude; we have seen it in other forms of transport.
  I am afraid that the Government are not really matching like with like. I hope that they will very seriously reconsider their suggestion because it is not in the general interest and will not really offer improvements. Nor do I think that the suggestions for the protection of the public interest are sufficient to result in the level of care that we need.
  Mr. Prescott rose—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way; I am very much up against time.
  It does not help the debate to persist in saying that Exeter, Guernsey or Luton airports are comparable to London air traffic space. They are not. The arguments must be better thought out, better argued and, above all, fundamentally examined with great care by a Labour Government before they go down such a path.
  The Secretary of State is the best Secretary of State that we have had for many years. He knows, understands and is totally committed to transport, and he will not be deflected by those in the press who are looking for any Aunt Sally in order to have a go at a Labour Government who appear to be coated in Teflon. More importantly, he should remember that he is a man of courage and integrity, and that those are the qualities that, above all, we look for in him and the future transport industry.
  4.58 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I listened with interest to the Deputy Prime Minister. 1 hope that he will understand what I mean when I say that I was strongly reminded of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.
  I recall the right hon. Gentleman's splenic outbursts during the rail privatisation process, so I could not resist a smile when he told us this afternoon that the National Air Traffic Services could be sold only for what the market would pay for it. He totally denied such a point in our discussions some years ago. I welcome the fact that he has put all that juvenile abuse and offence behind him, and that, to some degree, has cut himself off from the ideological baggage that is so reminiscent of old Labour and is now seeking to address what he and I would recognise as some of the real issues on the railway system. To the extent that the Transport Bill improves what we put in place, I welcome it.
  Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman will recall our saying at the time that it would be foolish to privatise the railways just before the election, because the selling price would be affected—a complaint that has been echoed by Select Committees. The Administration responsible for the privatisation of British Telecom had the sense to wait until after the election. The Government responsible for the privatisation of the railways did not wait, and sold them for less than market value.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I call to mind the efforts made in the City by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to talk down the price as much as they could.

  555
  My first point relates to the background of funding and expenditure to which the Secretary of State drew attention when, with a degree of fanfare, he announced that he would muster£ 80 billion of expenditure, both public and private, to spend on this country's transport system over the next 10 years. I thought that a strange figure, so I asked the House of Commons Library for the figures for total Government expenditure on transport in the United Kingdom under the last Conservative Government. The answer was that, in 1996-97, total managed expenditure was £8.7 billion. For spending to be the same this year in real terms —that is, adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator—it would have to be £9.4 billion.
  If spending were to remain at the same real level over the ensuing 10 years, it would total £105 billion at 2 per cent. inflation, £111 billion at 3 per cent. inflation, and £117 billion at 4 per cent. inflation. I wondered why the Secretary of State was so excited about that £80 billion of public and private money, given that if he simply maintained for the next 10 years the real value of Conservative spending, he would provide about £25 billion to £30 billion more. In the light of those figures, which were produced by the Library, not by some central office research assistant about which he might harbour certain—unjustified—suspicions, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he is robbing the country of between £25 billion and £30 billion of expenditure, both public and private, which would have been made if he had simply followed Conservative plans?
  If the Secretary of State followed on from the latest estimate of expenditure in 1998-99, he would spend, in real terms, £98 billion at 2 per cent. inflation, £104 billion at 3 per cent. inflation and £110 billion at 4 per cent. inflation. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman robbing this country of £20 billion to £30 billion of expenditure that was already in place, but he is making a virtue of it. One of the values of a debate such as this is that we can draw attention to the fact that future expenditure is not as impressive as he and his spin doctors would have us believe.
  Since franchising started, private rail companies have made about £2 billion of expenditure. We can add that to Railtrack's expenditure plans for the 10 years to which the Secretary of State has referred of £27 billion, assuming 30 per cent. growth. However, according to the chief executive of Rai1track, recently revised figures have increased expectations of growth to 50 per cent.; therefore, planned expenditure increases to £34 billion to £35 billion. Adding channel tunnel expenditure to that results in more than £40 billion of the £80 billion coming from the private sector, over which the Secretary of State exercises no control. I have not added in figures relating to the tube, to design, build, finance and operate road schemes, to ferries and docks or to aviation.
  When all those are added in, the Secretary of State is making a song and dance about offering some £20 billion to £25 billion of public expenditure over the next 10 years. Had he followed our plans it would have been about £110 billion; had he followed his own, it would have been slightly more than £100 billion. Alastair Campbell has him dangling on the end of a string for about £25 billion to £30 billion of public expenditure.
  556
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, even that is not from a solid base, so who knows what the Chancellor will actually give?
  Mr. Prescott: Watch this space.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I assure the Secretary of State that if there is one space that we will watch, it is the rather large space that he occupies.
  My second point concerns the regulation of aviation and rail transport. Clauses 200 and 201 give powers to the regulators to penalise train operators. There are no similar powers in respect of plane operators. Let me put this case to the Secretary of State. Two business men have businesses that compete for the same customers in Newcastle and want to go to London. They have a genuine choice: they can fly or go by train. Let us assume that the trains and the planes are equally late. The Bill means that the train operator can be fined a considerable sum for poor performance, but the plane operator cannot be similarly penalised.
  As the Secretary of State would expect, I took advice about that situation. Fares would rise for the man who took the train because the train company would have to pass the bill on to the customer. I took advice about whether that made the Bill hybrid. I am told that in modem Britain, as we head to the 21st century, the view of hybridity means that it is a trains issue or a planes issue, rather than a transport issue. There cannot be hybridity across different modes of transport, even if the Secretary of State puts them in the same Bill. I have to accept that advice, but I have some other advice. I advise Richard Branson, Michael Bishop, Bob Ayling and the chief executives of all the train operating companies that operate over long distances to seek early legal advice because I think that that aspect of this Bill will wind up in the courts.
  My third point is about charging. I asked the Secretary of State what charge would have to be imposed to reduce traffic by 10 per cent. He did not know and nor do the local authorities. Let me tell him something else that he does not know. When I was Secretary of State, I asked a world authority that very question. I was told, "I'll get you an answer for a contract for $150,000, but my strong advice to you is to save your money because no one knows, except that the figure will be so high that it is politically impossible to implement." We must understand that the Bill is not about congestion but taxation. Until the Secretary of State can tell the House how much effect different charges will have in reducing congestion, this will remain a taxation Bill.
  The Secretary of State did not tell us how much it will cost to administer the scheme with all its exemptions, such as those for the elderly and the sick, for people on public service, and for doctors and health visitors. How much will it all cost? He does not know, nor do the local authorities. That also shows that the Bill is simply a taxation measure.
  I put another question to the right hon. Gentleman. What effect will road charging have on the value of properties on those roads, or the rental value of those properties? The Secretary of State does not know, nor do local authorities.
  May I point out one last thing to the Secretary of State? The Bill will charge teachers for the car parking places at their schools. It will charge doctors and nurses for the car

  557
  parking places at their hospitals. It will cost charity workers, such as those at the Royal National Institute for the Blind, for the car parking spaces at their place in my constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was your proposal."] It will cost business for the car parking places at factories. It will cost local authorities for the car parking places of their employees, and the cost will be passed on in council tax.
  The Bill is a mishmash. It is not the answer to what the Secretary of State and I agree are real transport issues. If he is willing to amend the Bill in Committee to meet those issues, I for one will support him, but I will not hold my breath.
  5.11 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, believing that government ownership and control of National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is necessary for national security, acknowledging that the United Kingdom air traffic control system is recognised internationally as the safest and most reliable in the world, and being concerned that the introduction of the private profit motive could jeopardise safety standards in the future, considers that the Transport Bill is not an acceptable measure because it contains provisions the purpose of which is to pave the way for the partial privatisation of NATS."
  The amendment encapsulates the case against the partial privatisation of NATS.
  I strongly support the thrust of my right hon. Friend's opening remarks about the way in which Labour is delivering on transport virtually across the board. It is true that we are getting investment up on the London tube, the railways and the buses, with consequent benefits. It should always be borne in mind that, although the tube and the railways are extremely important, many people live nowhere near a railway or underground station and some do not even live close to a bus service. That is why it is particularly good that we have managed to increase subsidies for bus services, so that more people are now taking the bus. That is an important advance, as my right hon. Friend reminded us. I was grateful for the opportunity to serve with him on these matters in an earlier period in the Parliament.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the day—my recollection of it may be more vivid than his—on which we received the report of the comprehensive spending review in which the Chancellor announced that we intended to consult on the Government's preferred option. My right hon. Friend will remember well that it fell to me, as Minister for Transport, to provide the written answer from which he quoted, which made it clear that we were consulting on the principle, not just the practical implementation. Let me make it clear that I do not intend to break the convention that conversations between Ministers are private. I accepted collective responsibility for everything that happened in relation to aviation, including National Air Traffic Services, until I left the Administration.
  There are three key categories in which we have a strong—indeed, overwhelming— argument against the proposed partial privatisation of NATS. They are: business, national security—possibly the most important category—and safety. The arguments for the latter were
  558
  well presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Transport Sub-Committee.
  I shall make the business case briefly. Hon. Members may know that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions launched an important document produced by Oxford Economic Forecasting, entitled, "The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy". The aviation industry has made a huge contribution, including thousands of jobs. The shorthand document, which was released at the same time as the main document, and is supported by two Departments and sponsored by the industry, states that the aviation industry accounts for 180,000 direct airport jobs, 200,000 indirect jobs through the supply chain, 94,000 induced jobs, and 75,000 jobs in travel agencies. Some people—including, I suspect, some hon. Members—do not appreciate that the aviation sector is as big as the car manufacturing sector in terms of employment and business. Incidentally, I hope that the Government will grant the subsidy to the car manufacturing industry—it is especially important for Rover. But we are not considering a subsidy to the aviation industry.
  Why are the Government not prepared to fund air traffic control in this country? It is argued that, from now on, we are not prepared to allow National Air Traffic Services to continue to borrow within the public sector. NATS runs at a profit, and we are simply asking the Government to allow it to continue to do that. We admit that perhaps £1 billion of investment will be required over the next 10 years, but the new tax that the previous Administration introduced on air passengers provides £700 million of income each year, and that figure will probably increase to £1 billion in two or three years' time, so people will find it difficult to understand that we are not prepared to continue to allow NATS to borrow in the public sector and run at a profit.
  The argument that the privatisation proposal has been made in the interest of obtaining a capital receipt is the worst of financial or business arguments. When we consider debt and the proposed capital receipt, we must ask whether the Government are genuinely suggesting that NATS should be sold before Swanwick is operational, because if they are, the capital receipt will be very small. Swanwick will be a quantum advance in air traffic control in this country, and we must ensure that it is operational as soon as possible. Business supports that view, yet senior NATS officials are travelling around the country making the case for partial privatisation when they should be ensuring that everything has been done to enable Swanwick to come on stream on time. That is a great mistake. Even if I were in favour of privatisation £and I am totally opposed to it£I would still feel that this is the worst time at which to embark on it.
  The argument for the second Scottish centre also relates to questions of business, safety and national security. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) has already raised the point. I remind my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who will remember it well, of the statement that he enabled me to make at Prestwick on 6 June 1997, when we clearly committed ourselves to the

  559
  two-centre strategy. That commitment was not conditional on the private finance initiative or some sort of partial privatisation. The press release said:
  "Dr. Strang's decision confirms the two centre strategy for air traffic control in the UK, with the first centre being built at Swanwick in Hampshire. The New Scottish Centre will replace the existing Scottish Area Control Centre, whose air traffic control equipment is almost 20 years old, and will be run by National Air Traffic Services… a wholly owned subsidiary of the Civil Aviation Authority."
  A note to the editor, which is worth quoting, states:
  "In the early 1990s, NATS developed a long term plan for UK air traffic control. This has been reviewed in consultation with the industry and is known as the two centre strategy."
  Yes, it was the previous Administration's strategy. The document continues:
  "It is envisaged that all civil and military air traffic control operations will be concentrated at two sites—Swanwick in Hampshire and the New Scottish Centre at Prestwick, which would replace the existing centre there."
  We have to be sure that there has been no change in Government policy on that.
  Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I can confirm that, as he well knows, our commitment to a two-centre strategy remains. That is not in doubt, but it is a matter of raising money: the resources raised from the private sector—from an income stream, for example for the underground—can amount to many billions of pounds. If we can secure the income for investment requirements from an income stream rather than putting pressure on the Exchequer, it is legitimate for us to make that argument in respect of expenditure on health, services and pensions.
  On my right hon. Friend's final point in regard to growth in the industry, I want all those jobs to remain—and they will be returned, because this is a growth sector. There are 49 air traffic control centres in Eurocontrol, and it is estimated that the figure will be reduced to three or four in the next few years. I believe that under the proposed formula we can have something that we cannot have under a public sector formula—the opportunity to begin to expand in Europe and provide even more jobs and earnings.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention was extremely long.
  Dr. Strang: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have only a quarter of an hour in which to speak. I say to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that I am hopeful that we can continue the dialogue in relation to the two-centre strategy on military and civil grounds. That has nothing to do with privatisation, nothing to do with the private finance initiative and nothing to do with this so-called public-private partnership, to use the new jargon.
  I shall move on to national security, which is the key issue; if anyone has any illusions about that I suggest that he or she dips into the Bill. Hon. Members will have
  560
  noticed that more than half of it concerns aviation and NATS, although the provisions are very general. Clause 38(3) says:
  "The Secretary of State may give to a licence holder a direction requiring it—

  (a) to do or not to do a particular thing in connection with anything authorised by the licence, or

  (b) to secure that a particular thing is done or not done in connection with anything authorised by the licence".

  That refers to the provider of the air traffic control service, which will be NATS, and, whatever it is called, it will have a private strategic partner, which will run things on a commercial basis if the Government's declared policy goes ahead—although I am pleased that that is not specific in the Bill. The interesting point is that the clause continues:
  "A person must not disclose, and is not required by any enactment or otherwise to disclose, a direction given or other thing done by virtue of this section if the Secretary of State notifies him that he thinks disclosure is against the interests of national security or the interests of the United Kingdom's relations with another country".
  The Secretary of State takes powers to tell people who might be employed by a British or international company based wherever what to do; then he has to tell them not to tell anyone that he has told them what to do.
  There are two important aspects to the security issue. The first is on-going and short-term and includes global terrorism, which fortunately is not a major factor at present. I do not want to be over-dramatic, but there undoubtedly could be circumstances in which we needed to seize control of the air traffic control system immediately if intelligence information was received about a bomb on a particular plane. The second aspect is on-going military-civil co-operation, at which we are the best in the world—not just better than France, which is what is often said. Day-to-day co-operation is so important, particularly as the civil aviation sector is growing, and must be handled properly. We in the UK are good at such co-operation, but after privatisation or partial privatisation there will be less incentive for the new private or semi-private company to co-operate fully with the intelligence services and the Ministry of Defence.
  There is also the longer-term national security aspect—the issue of an international crisis: war may not have been declared but we may be in the run-up to a conflict. I am glad that national security issues have been addressed in the Bill, but the concerns cannot be adequately answered. Once the private set-up has been in control for a few years, we cannot be sure that it will respond as we would want to an immediate direction or request from the Secretary of State or his representatives. National security may well be the reason why the United States has not privatised its air traffic control services, and why the Conservative Government never did so despite the huge privatisation programmes under Lady Thatcher and her successor as Tory Prime Minister. The decisive case against privatisation is the national security case.
  However, there are also safety issues. I shall comment on them fairly briefly, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Chair of the Transport Sub-Committee, has dealt with them fully. The Government's response to the Select Committee is not credible. It is not credible to argue that we are going down this road so as to enhance safety.
  We need to retain NATS in public ownership in the longer term on security and safety grounds. It is vital that the House addresses this issue. I want the Bill to go into

  561
  Committee. We will move forward, and we will have a dialogue. I know that I am speaking for more than 50 Labour MPs when I make this case, and I hope that the Government will listen.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who rightly focused most of his comments on the part privatisation proposals for National Air Traffic Services. I shall return to that theme later.
  There has been a great deal of puff in recent days and weeks about 10-year visions and the great future for transport. The House is glad finally to be tackling serious legislation on transport. As other hon. Members have said, this is the first Transport Bill this Parliament, and many would argue that it is long overdue.
  The House faces a huge task in considering the Bill. It has four major sections, some of which the Liberal Democrats will support, although we believe that the Bill has pulled its punches in certain respects, and that the proposals for NATS are seriously misguided. For that reason, we shall vote against Second Reading.
  Across the country—no matter which part of the United Kingdom we represent— everyone is conscious of transport problems. They are part of people's everyday lives, whether they are stuck in traffic jams, sitting in clapped-out rail carriages, waiting for buses or connections or hanging around at airports. The problems of congestion, crumbling or failed infrastructure, inadequate services and lack of integration face every transport user every day, whether they use public or private transport.
  Ultimately, the reason for many of the problems facing people on Britain's road, rail and air system is that there is too little choice. We recognise and welcome the fact that the Government are trying to redress the balance and to begin to tackle some of these important issues.
  The Bill introduces local transport plans and gives them a statutory basis. We welcome the principle enshrined in the Bill. We think it will be a useful tool to tackle congestion, poor service provision and the lack of integration that typifies many community transport systems.
  We also commend the fact that the Bill establishes targets for the reduction of pollution and traffic at local level. That is very good—although we are disappointed that the logic of that has not been extended to the establishment of national targets for traffic reduction. In recent days, the Minister for Transport has expressed a view which has been echoed here today, saying that the Government's targets now relate to slowing the rate of traffic growth, rather than to an actual and absolute reduction. The Deputy Prime Minister entered the debate this afternoon, but confused the issue again by saying—if I heard him correctly— that there would be fewer car journeys after his policies had taken effect. That sounds to me like a pledge to reduce traffic levels, which all Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly support.
  Funding the alternatives is of course crucial, but many people throughout the country are rightly sceptical about those alternatives, and about the objective of persuading travellers to use public transport. They think that at
  562
  present there is little opportunity for that, and they will continue to be sceptical about the Government's proposals until funds and provision have caught up with need, and real choices exist.
  The Bill contains good proposals for buses. A key aspect of the implementation of local transport plans will be improvements in the quality and number of bus services, and response to customer requirements. We also welcome the huge boost for quality partnerships, which will be a cornerstone of future transport policy. We hope that powers will exist to enforce them, and to ensure that high standards are delivered. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr.Foster) hopes to say something about open-top buses if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will not detain the House by talking about that now.
  We broadly welcome the proposed information and ticketing systems, and the new powers for traffic commissioners—especially the environmental aspects of those powers—but we shall want to examine them in more detail in Committee. We are disappointed by what is proposed for concessionary fares, however. We share the Government's desire for the introduction of such fares, but we are less happy about the delay that has occurred. Concessionary fares were first mentioned in 1998, and their introduction apparently requires only £25 million per annum—so why is it being delayed until 2001–02?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): It is a question of legislation.
  Mr. Moore: The Government have been keen to introduce certain measures ahead of legislation when they have considered them to be a good idea. We wish that they had done the same with the concessionary fares scheme, and we do not believe that this legislation will take a further year to introduce.
  The proposals for road charging and workplace parking will clearly tackle head on the problems of congestion and a crumbling infrastructure. Although the plans are understandably controversial and will have to be implemented carefully, there is growing acceptance that, without charging, congestion will become worse, not better. Even the CBI, in its briefing for today's debate, says that it
  "supports the principle of congestion charging, but only if it brings demonstrable reductions in traffic and the revenue is ploughed back into transport improvement."
  That returns us to the need for an absolute reduction in traffic, rather than a slowing down of the growth in the rate of traffic.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman supports congestion charging because he thinks that it will reduce the amount of traffic. What sort of drivers does he think will leave the roads as a result of such charging?
  Mr. Moore: I have said that I think that until people have alternatives to the car, which many in different parts of the country do not have at present, they will not be tempted to abandon it, but I do not wish to be quite as cynical as the hon. Gentleman: I hope that things will change over the next few years.

  563
  The key to road user charging and workplace parking must be additionality. The revenue must represent an extra resource for transport funding, and must not be seen as a replacement for other Government finance. Ministers have said that that is their intention, but, if that is to be believed and taken on board, we will have to ensure that there are agreed baselines for existing transport expenditure and equalisation between different areas of the country, as certain parts have enjoyed higher investment than others. Indeed, once those systems are implemented, it will be critical that areas with more scope for congestion charging have their revenues shared out and equalised with others that have less scope.
  On the proposals for the Strategic Rail Authority, there is clearly a need to sort out the mess that privatisation has left behind—which is widely acknowledged except by Conservative Members. The Liberal Democrats have supported the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. Legislation for the SRA proper is also to be welcomed and encouraged. However, we require clarification—I hope that, in Committee, we will get it—on the respective roles and responsibilities of the SRA and the regulator, particularly over such things as the national rail inquiry service.
  The Minister will probably be aware of concerns that the SRA's potential direct involvement with Railtrack could undermine train operating companies. Some anxiety has been expressed by both TOCs and Railtrack on that issue. It is important that we get further clarification as the Bill proceeds through the House.
  Liberal Democrats would like to stress in particular that, although there is much to commend in the Bill, we regret the fact that the Government have not taken the opportunity to establish a strategic transport authority. The Bill repeatedly highlights the need to integrate local authorities' provision of transport service. We have already focused on the lack of national guidance or targets for traffic reduction. Opportunities should be seized now to integrate bus and train services and other modes of public transport, so we hope the Government will think again.
  Dr. Godman: On the question of a strategic transport authority, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for many of our coastal and island communities in Scotland, an important element of any integrated transport system is passenger ferry services? Does he agree that the Caledonian MacBrayne company performs that service, requires a decent subsidy and should remain in public ownership?
  Mr. Moore: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose argument will find echoes throughout the country and underlines the importance of a strategic transport authority to cover all the different aspects of transport throughout the country.
  The issue of safety has dogged the transport debate over many years, but particularly since the Ladbroke Grove tragedy. We have heard Ministers talk about the fact that they are "minded" to remove the safety and standards directorate from Railtrack, and Liberal Democrats recognise that inquiries are on-going and that Ministers will wait for the results before they make final decisions.
  564
  We believe that the case for an independent safety body to tackle the issues of air, sea and rail has never been stronger. The Transport Sub-Committee has recommended it and we would endorse that recommendation. Again, we hope that, at some stage in the Bill's passage, the Government will consider the inclusion of such a body.
  Safety is at the heart of the final part of the Bill to which I turn my attention: the part privatisation of NATS. The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that we oppose that part privatisation. Again, I stress the importance of the comments of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  I want to focus on three aspects of the argument: the undoubted need to finance the infrastructure that NATS requires over the next decade; the question whether private sector expertise is to be brought into the process; and the important issue of safety, which must not be forgotten.
  I do not think that anyone denies that NATS needs substantial investment—today, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned £1.3 billion; at briefings at NATS, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and I were told that the figure is £1 billion over 10 years—but we are told that the money is not available, or that it would count against the public sector borrowing requirement, which would be unacceptable.
  I should not like to underestimate the investment required—the sum is substantial, and will make the difference in determining whether NATS is able to progress and develop— but would point out the crucial fact that, at £100 million per annum, it amounts to less than 15 per cent. of the credit approvals announced last week as part of the one-year local transport plans. Therefore—relatively—the sum is not huge.
  If the sum is truly an obstacle and there is no way round it, surely other structures short of privatising the air traffic services are possible and must be considered. The Select Committee drew attention to some options. Liberal Democrat Members favour an independent publicly owned corporation or a trust. However, the key feature in the debate is that, because of regulation and Eurocontrol, NATS has a guaranteed market and pricing, which makes it an attractive proposition for bond financing. Conversely, as other hon. Members have said, the growth potential of NATS is relatively restricted.
  Liberal Democrat Members do not believe that the PSBR rules should get in the way of the investment. If that happened, it would be a case of accountancy getting in the way of real decisions. It would also undoubtedly give rise to the strong suspicion that the Treasury was simply protecting a holy grail, and that no one in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could seriously tackle the issue.
  With a highly regulated market and caps on pricing and growth opportunities, scope for a public-private partnership operator to increase revenue is limited. Consequently, cost pressures increase—which is the point at which concerns arise about safety. I have spoken to representatives of both management and unions at Prestwick, and they— particularly union representatives—do not understand or accept that one can bear down on costs without creating consequences for safety.
  Private sector expertise has frequently been cited as the solution. Although Liberal Democrats would be the first to welcome the suggestion that the private sector should

  565
  have a role, we do not accept that the private sector is infallible. The prospect of using private sector expertise raises two issues: first, the lack of progress at Swanwick, and the major role played there by the private sector; and, secondly, the issue of what will happen to NATS' current management. Are the current management part of the Government's long-term or short-term plans, and who has the upper hand? To outsiders, the situation is very clear.
  Although safety is an emotive topic, and we have to approach it with some sensitivity, the facts speak for themselves: the public sector record is first class, and the ethos of the personnel is beyond reproach. Many ordinary people will ask, "Why tamper with that highly successful arrangement?"
  We are often told that the safety arrangements will not change with NATS in the private sector. Indeed, we are told that, if the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are completely separate and given the infrastructure spending that we are debating today, safety may improve. Liberal Democrat Members argue that both those improvements are possible within the public sector context, and urge both to be developed within that context.
  Liberal Democrats remain concerned that commercial imperatives bearing down on costs will drive straight up against safety—a dilemma that no one should be forced to confront.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman advising other Liberal Democrats to vote for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang)?
  Mr. Moore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Only last Thursday, I had the pleasure of accompanying him on an aircraft up to Edinburgh, and I know how seriously he takes these issues. In answer to his direct question: yes, we shall be supporting the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh and voting against the Bill.
  The public, staff, unions and pilots all oppose the privatisation proposal. Ultimately, for Liberal Democrat Members, it comes down to a simple judgment: we have a world-leading and highly respected air traffic system that requires investment; that investment could be made available, but, instead, we are being asked to gamble on an untried and unproven private sector. Is it any wonder that people are so opposed to the proposals?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Moore: I have two more sentences, I am afraid.
  We would like to support many parts of the Bill, and will return to those points in Committee. This evening, however, we will vote for the amendment and against the Bill.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I will detain the House briefly on just three points. First, however, I declare an interest listed in the Register of Members' Interests as I chair a bus company which is part of the National Express group.
  The privatisation of National Air Traffic Services is the most controversial part of the Bill, has taken up much of our debate so far and is the subject of the amendment
  566
  moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang). I do not want to spend the bulk of my time on NATS, but if any member of the Government can be trusted to act properly on it, it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. He has not come only recently to the principle of private involvement. More than a decade ago, when the Opposition transport team was comprised of him and me, my right hon. Friend, in the face—as now—of scorn from the Conservatives, advanced the philosophy that the Treasury could not do everything. Indeed, he said, if left to its own devices, it would do very little. Private sector finance was needed, he said, for many industries that had been traditionally publicly owned.
  I was subject to enormous pressures at that time as my right hon. Friend sent me—hon. Members might wonder who could have been better—on a charm offensive around some of London's more expensive restaurants to meet captains of industry. Alas, we did not know in the late 1980s that it would be eight or nine long years before my right hon. Friend and my party took their rightful places on the Government Benches. If the captains of industry had known that, they might have been more reluctant to pick up the tabs. So, my right hon. Friend has not come lately to the view that we need some private money. The touching faith of some of my hon. Friends in the Treasury's advancement of moneys needed for air traffic control and other parts of the traditional public sector is somewhat misplaced.
  I have listened carefully to the debate so far, particularly to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. She was somewhat scathing about what she called the Exeter experience. NATS does not provide air traffic control services at the majority of airports in the United Kingdom. Indeed, of the 28 airports that have more than 6,000 air transport movements a year, NATS serves a minority. Seventeen airports employ their own air traffic personnel, and only 11 use NATS.
  To those of my hon. Friends who express understandable concern about safety, I have to say that I remain to be convinced that landing at Belfast international airport, which uses NATS, is inherently less dangerous than landing at Belfast city airport, which provides its own controllers. I remain to be convinced that someone expecting to land at Birmingham airport, which uses NATS—and is the nearest to my constituency—who is diverted for some reason to East Midlands airport, which provides its own air traffic controllers, will grip his or her seat even more anxiously. I cannot see matters that way, and the safety angle, though understandable, has been somewhat overblown.
  Dr. Strang rose—
  Mr. Snape: Although I have only a quarter of an hour, I am happy to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh because he moved the amendment.
  Dr. Strang: Ask pilots. They are frightened.
  Mr. Snape: I do not believe it. I have spoken to representatives of everyone involved in aviation. Many

  567
  prefer the status quo. It is almost always more comfortable to leave things as they are rather than change anything. But, after perhaps too many cynical years in the House, I believe that the long-term income stream needed for air traffic control services in the UK requires us to find a different way forward. I do not want to be personally offensive towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh because I accept that he feels worried about this matter. However, I cannot help but feel that if he still sat on the Government Front Bench, he would troop through the Lobby in favour of the Bill tonight. To personalise this important matter does no service to what should be—
  Dr. Godman: You are personalising this.
  Mr. Snape: I am not. It is true that my right hon. Friend would have voted for the Bill had he still been a Minister. I have to say that it must be a source of annoyance to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), whom I have known for many years, that many of the signatories to the amendment have been voting against Labour Governments for most of their political careers, except, of course, at election time, when they usually have a picture of the leader of the day on the front of their election address. One or two of them do not need any excuse to vote against their own party—it helps them to prove that they are better socialists than the rest of us.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Snape: No, I have already given way once and I only have 15 minutes. I do not include my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in that accusation. I know that he always votes according to his conscience.
  I welcome the provisions on the rail industry. I cannot understand the attitude of the Conservative party. Indeed, I barely understand the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who—temporarily, one hopes—is the Opposition spokesman on transport matters. Two weeks ago, he made a speech and went home ill. He disappeared again after today's speech, leaving the rest of us in that condition.
  The right hon. Gentleman attacks the setting up of the Strategic Rail Authority and, presumably, the work of Sir Alastair Morton, its chairman. I believe that the setting up of the SRA is very much overdue. The work in which the SRA envisages getting involved is essential for the railway system. The Labour party did not welcome the previous Government's rail privatisation. But we are where we are, and it seems that only the SRA has the power to weld together the disparate groups running the railway industry into a national railway system.
  To make trains more attractive to the car owner—I realise that the Conservative party pooh-poohs such a philosophy at present, although it did not in the fairly recent past— we need a networkwide system of express trains which, because of their speed, comfort and safety, attract people who would otherwise use their cars for long journeys. If each train operating company concentrates exclusively on its own geographical area, that will not be achieved. I realise that there is some access between train operating companies and involvement with different train
  568
  operating companies on the provision of long-distance services, particularly cross-country services, but it is not enough, in my view. I hope that the SRA will bring pressure to bear to ensure that a genuine alternative to the car for long journeys is provided.
  I hope that the SRA will consider the seating on new trains. I do not share Richard Branson's view that trains are aircraft that never get off the ground. I certainly do not share his views on ticket prices for some of his services. However, I think that aircraft-type seating, particularly in multiple-unit trains, is not acceptable on a long journey. It is certainly not attractive enough to lure people away from the alternative of using their car. I hope, therefore, that the SRA will look carefully at such services. To get genuine jam-busters for the railway industry, Sir Alastair Morton will have to bring his renowned muscle to bear.
  The SRA has shown a great interest in the provision of rail services in the west midlands, where lies my constituency. The Conservative party has voiced its opposition to the SRA, which has recently set up a review of rail capacity in the west midlands—something that the previous Government never provided. The review will:
  "Consider a broad range of capacity solutions proposed by train operators, Railtrack and others, including how best to develop: terminal capacity at Birmingham New Street, Snow Hill and Moor Street; line and signalling capacity; and train capacity."
  The review will also:
  "Consider capacity solutions which would encompass the role of light rail and the development of terminal complexes."
  The Conservative party is against all that. What sort of transport policy does it embrace these days? Of course, we can all ride in our cars—I have one as well, before any Conservative Member makes a sarcastic comment—but we cannot keep driving into towns and cities at 8.30 or 9 o'clock in the morning and home again at 4.30 or 5.30 in the afternoon and expect to do so in any reasonable comfort, without enormous congestion and pollution resulting.
  Mr. Jenkin: Would the hon. Gentleman, as a director of National Express, welcome a strategic bus authority and a bus regulator with power to fine bus companies for late-running buses?
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman smirks as though he has made a debating point. He might get a laugh at the Cambridge or Oxford debating society for that question, but he is comparing apples with lemons. [Interruption.] Oh yes, he is. The previous Government did not privatise the two industries in exactly the same way. Indeed, they made an equal mess of bus privatisation, which the industry, somewhat belatedly, is doing something to put right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is not in his place, trotted out the old story about bus use declining outside London and increasing in London. Bus usage outside London has been declining for some 40 years and only recently has that decline been stemmed. In the west midlands, there is an increase in bus passengers for the first time in four decades, although I take no credit for that.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his absence that at the time that the franchising system—because that is basically what it is—was introduced in London, the first to suffer were London bus

  569
  drivers, who went from the top of the wages tree to the bottom. If my hon. Friend is advocating that principle in the short term, he should talk to people who work in the bus industry, rather than making speeches in the House.
  The Bill contains provisions for quality contracts, which most people in the bus industry are not mad about. We accept that they are enabling provisions only. Ministers—at least in the run-up period to the Bill—made it clear that contracts could be used, but as a safety net only if quality partnerships were not successful. When the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), replies to the debate will he tell us how he thinks such quality partnerships are operating at present and how he sees them working in future?
  No one would claim that bus privatisation has been particularly successful, because it has not. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his seat. He must also stop that musical box.
  Mr. Snape: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House. I thought that my pager was switched off, and I am very sorry.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is off-message on buses.
  Mr. Snape: That is another witty comment from the Cambridge debating society. I may well be.
  In the two minutes left to me, let me say that there are a couple of matters that should be considered. In Birmingham, for example, we run many bus services. We do not have a monopoly, nor does the company that I chair seek one. We have a problem, however, with certain operators who do not consider starting new routes—which we would welcome—but cherry-pick on certain routes that are operated by Travel West Midlands, the major company. I need hardly add that we pay top wages, provide uniforms, canteens, and so on. Many of the smaller operators do not recognise trade unions-we are fully unionised—and operate only one shift to drivers. When such companies do so on the busier routes they are, in our view, guilty of cherry-picking. For example, on one route, an operator registered in November of this year and will deregister those same services in January. That is no way to ensure continuity and a sensible bus operation. Such operators use vehicles which leave a lot to be desired, to say the least.
  There is work for traffic commissioners and local authorities. I hope that Ministers will, under the Bill, correct some of the anomalies and problems that have cropped up over the years. Overall, I think that the Bill is eminently sensible and will be widely welcomed by railway workers and bus operators. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel sincerely about the future of the air traffic control industry will reflect on the fact that it could not be in better hands than those of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
  6 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: I begin by declaring an interest; as listed in the register, I am a non-executive director of Unigate, which has a transport subsidiary. However, my real interest in the debate is as
  570
  a former Secretary of State for Transport. I always thought that the present Secretary of State—I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber—would not be up to the job, but I thought it reasonable to give him some time to prove himself. During the two years when I served as Secretary of State, we saw the greatest national and local road-building programme of this decade. We implemented rail privatisation, whence have come all the improvements about which the Secretary of State now boasts. We introduced a host of other initiatives and actions to achieve results, including the Jubilee line extension. I introduced local authority transport plans that put much greater emphasis on park and ride, road safety schemes and comprehensive local plans.
  The Secretary of State has held that office for longer than I did; but, during two and a half years, he has been a blustering, dithering disaster. There has been little action on roads, except for the closure of one lane of the M4 for all except the Prime Minister's car. There has been much waffle about integrated transport policy with a series of consultation documents, Green Papers and White Papers; that is no substitute for action. In July, one of the conclusions of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs was that:
  "Unfortunately the Department's achievements, as listed by the Permanent Secretary, have largely been confined to the publication of documents and policy statements and the establishment of task forces. As yet there have been few tangible improvements."
  We can say that again.
  The Secretary of State is still at it. In his speech of 13 December, he announced that he would publish a comprehensive programme for change in the investment programme next summer. Good heavens—that will be more than three years since the right hon. Gentleman took office, only then will he get round to doing that. During the two and three quarter years since Labour came to power, four Transport Ministers have served under the Secretary of State. They are all Scots. Three of them have Scottish constituencies and their interest in transport is now only inasmuch as it concerns their own constituencies. All Scottish transport issues are settled in the Scottish Parliament and those Members have no interest in transport and road programmes in England—and it shows. Recently, The Sunday Telegraph quoted an aide at No. 10, who said:
  "Gus Macdonald is the first Transport Minister who has been up to the job."
  Too true—what an admission—but whose fault is it?
  To the Secretary of State, an integrated transport policy is a slogan; it is a soundbite to be trotted out on every occasion, but it is no substitute for action. We have had a period of indecision and inaction followed by substantial U-turns, because the right hon. Gentleman's earlier policies have not worked, and will not work. No wonder that four fifths of people disagree with his transport policies, and that many in the media and—it seems— the Prime Minister are calling for him to give up his responsibility for transport policy.
  I have examined carefully the right hon. Gentleman's much vaunted speech of 13 December. The comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on the speech were absolutely correct; the amount of money that we put into public transport, during the years for which the Secretary of State derides us, was much greater than the amount he

  571
  proposes for the next 10 years. Every achievement listed by the Secretary of State in his speech resulted from Conservative policies and decisions: in particular, that private rail investment had gone up by a third; that passenger journeys had increased by 25 per cent.; that there were 1,000 extra rail services every day; and that freight had increased by 20 per cent. over the past two years. That compares to a steady decline in every year before privatisation. Rail privatisation brought about a change in culture, putting the focus on the customer and ensuring that services were directed to improvements for the customer.
  Meanwhile, investment in National Air Traffic Services and the Scottish control centre at Prestwick has been delayed by the right hon. Gentleman's dithering over the privatisation of the service.
  Ms Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I shall not give way, as we do not have a long time for our speeches.
  Government investment in the London underground—excluding the Jubilee line—will be much less during the coming year than when I was Secretary of State for Transport. The Government's future plans for the underground are now in disarray because of their U-turn over Railtrack.
  The new local transport plans, about which the Secretary of State has huffed and puffed for two and a half years, differ little from our transport polices and programmes—the TPP. Park and ride and local safety schemes were included in those programmes. The difference was that the amount of money that we were giving local authorities for those programmes was much greater even than that which the Government have announced for the coming year, which they boasted was an improvement. If we compare the figures, we see that it is a good deal less than we gave local authorities every year.
  I welcome the U-turn on bypass schemes, for which I have long argued. During the Conservative Government, 13 bypasses were built in my constituency; I am glad that we have finally been granted one by the Labour Government. However, it could have been started two years ago. Other bypasses and road improvement programmes in Norfolk are ready to be started, but all have been delayed because of the Government's decisions on road expenditure during the past two years. The country needs money, investment and action—not boasting from the Secretary of State about what he plans to do.
  I am not talking about new roads, but—as I did when I was Secretary of State— about bypasses and improvements to the existing road infrastructure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has already referred to the Secretary of State's remarks when he took office. The Secretary of State said that, in five years' time, he would have failed if there were not far fewer journeys by car. As he showed in his speech of 13 December, and in his comments today, he now agrees that there should not be a national road traffic reduction target. However, far fewer journeys by car means a reduction in road traffic. The right hon. Gentleman
  572
  claimed that there would be far fewer journeys by car by the time that he left office, but by abandoning the reduction target, he knows that he has failed.
  Lord Macdonald, now appointed as Transport Minister, said recently that improving the efficiency of engines is a more realistic way than traffic reduction of tackling pollution. We have been telling Labour that for years. The improvements that have taken place since 1992 in car technology have produced a substantial reduction in pollution—as the Automobile Association has demonstrated. That offers the Government lessons not only for the road programme but for the fuel duty escalator. The reduction in pollution resulting from technology took place after the Conservative Government introduced the escalator. The escalator is now irrelevant to tackling pollution.
  We all know that the Secretary of State has been opposed to road building throughout his time in office. Because of that, there has been a complete lack of investment in road schemes, and traffic delays have increased by more than 10 per cent. over two years—as is shown by recent evidence from the AA—another example of failure. No doubt, that is why the Government are coming round to the view that they need to spend a bit more on roads. They should have realised that two years ago. Meanwhile, we have suffered the enormous inconvenience and problems caused by two years of delay and dithering.
  What does the Bill add up to? I agree with the Secretary of State that the measures dealing with NATS are by far the most important. On 11 November, a letter was sent to all Conservative colleagues on this subject, containing one of the most devastating criticisms of NATS. It was written by one of my colleagues and made three major criticisms. The first was that
  "Labour proposed a three-way split of NATS shares."
  As a result of that and the
  "special voting arrangements… to protect the interest of the private sector partner"
  there was confusion as to who would control NATS. The letter asked:
  "Who will take ultimate responsibility? Will a minority stake give majority voting rights?"
  The second criticism was about possible foreign ownership. The third was that
  "in opting for their scheme and abandoning ours"—
  that is the Conservative approach
  "Labour have delayed badly-needed investment."
  How true that is; as I pointed out earlier, investment has been delayed. The writer of the letter continued:
  "In direct contrast to Labour's position, we favour a straightforward privatisation of NATS. Shares would be issued to the public and to staff. We would establish an independent regulator to police the highest safety standards. Significant funds for badly-needed investment in air traffic control would be raised."
  At the time, I nearly wrote to the writer to congratulate him on producing one of the best brief pieces that I had read on the Government's proposals. The letter concluded:
  "They appear to allow a foreign-owned investor to control Britain's airways by holding a minority of the shares. They will not generate as much investment as a simple privatisation. They continue to delay investment… Labour's plans are complicated

  573
  and opaque. The commonsense Conservative alternative would deliver the highest levels of safety and investment through a simple and transparent privatisation."
  The letter described Labour's U-turn since coming to office. It was written by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Last week, I had intended to read it out and compliment him on the succinct way in which he put the case. I have to say to him—no longer as my hon. Friend—that I hope that he will stick to his guns, and that he will support our policies as he did two weeks ago.
  The workplace levy will impose a further burden on businesses at precisely the time that they do not want such burdens. I notice from information provided by the Local Government Association that only a fifth of local authorities are willing even to pilot such a scheme, given suitable guidance, which they do not believe that they have received yet. I believe that, given the formidable opposition that there will be locally, very few of those local authorities will ever put forward schemes.
  If that is true of the workplace levy, it is even more true of the road congestion tax. There are very many powerful arguments against introducing such a tax; let me outline a few. 1 understand that £1 in every £3 of revenue raised will be spent on administration. That must make it one of the costliest administrative schemes in terms of the relationship between administrative costs and revenue raised. Traffic will avoid the areas where there is congestion charging, thereby causing huge congestion just outside those areas. There will be problems about arbitrary boundaries. There will also be tremendous difficulties about deciding who will be exempted froth the road congestion tax—for example, the disabled and those whose journeys are necessary.
  Perhaps the most formidable criticism is that, as the LGA has shown in its survey, only 6 per cent. of local authorities are willing even to pilot a road congestion charge scheme, given suitable guidance. No wonder the Secretary of State is saying that congestion charges will not be introduced until the year 2005. I venture to predict that very few local authorities will introduce such a scheme in the year 2005. As that date will be well beyond the next general election, it is a complete waste of time to include that proposal in the Bill.
  I take a different view about motorway tolling, for which I remain a strong advocate. As I pointed out in the Queen's Speech debate, I had obtained agreement from the Treasury for the hypothecation of motorway tolling, as was made clear in the consultation document that we published. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to that. Therefore, motorway tolling is not a new concept. It is a sensible way of getting extra resources into transport, because the money that is paid by those who use the motorways will be used to improve the motorway system. As every hon. Member knows, so many motorways still need major improvement but are not getting it.
  Motorway tolling is a sensible proposal, and would be workable once the required technology was available. I strongly criticise the Government for running down the relevant technology programme, not pushing it forward. In fact, they are taking up the wrong type of congestion charging. They should have gone for motorway tolling, instead of going for something that poses many more formidable difficulties, which will not work and which will not be introduced any way.
  574
  While I am on the subject of hypothecation, I want to say something about the Secretary of State's proposals on fuel duty escalators and the hypothecation of those revenues. As so many hon. Members have pointed out, the crucial issue is whether those funds will amount to genuine additionality. I have a shrewd suspicion that the Treasury knows perfectly well that the funds will be a replacement for money that it would otherwise claw back. In other words, there will be no additionality.
  The other problem is that such money as goes to transport from the fuel duty escalator will not necessarily benefit the people who have to carry the burden of the extra fuel duty. That is especially true in rural areas. Rural motorists, very often of modest means, will suffer most from that fuel duty increase, and yet they will see no substantial benefits from the revenue. Unlike motorway tolling, this hypothecation does not work; it will not benefit those who have to pay.
  I should have liked to refer to Strategic Rail Authority, but I will conclude. I always recognised that rail privatisation would need development and change as it moved along. I especially support the idea of longer franchises. That is sensible because it enables the franchisees to invest. I had hoped to extend the franchises myself. However, the Bill poses the real risk of too much interference by the Government and too much of a return to public sector interference. I hope that that threat will be probed hard in Committee.
  The Bill simply does not measure up to the claims that the Secretary of State has made for it. Of its four measures, one is badly thought through, two are irrelevant because they will not be implemented, and on rail many questions must be asked to ensure that the legislation will not reverse many of the benefits that we have achieved from railway privatisation.
  6.15 pm
  Ms Sandra Osborne: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Many hon. Members are aware that I have a strong constituency interest in the issue of National Air Traffic Services. Although I agree with my hon. Friends who have welcomed other aspects of the Bill, I want to confine my remarks to voicing several concerns about the proposed public-private partnership for NATS. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to listen to those concerns, which have been expressed by many of my constituents, and adapt their proposals in a way that would enable the Government to achieve their objectives while reaching a consensus among all the parties involved, with the possible exception of the Conservative party.
  NATS has been in the front of my mind for a considerable time—since just before the most recent general election, to be precise—but that is not the only reason why I feel that its future must be resolved without further delay. In particular, I am concerned about the completion of the new Scottish centre and the flight data processing system 2— FDPS2—private finance initiative contract at Atlantic house in Prestwick. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that PPP is the best way to secure that investment.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on the experience of those who actually work in Prestwick. There is a legacy of mistrust dating back to the previous Government, and I must inform my hon. Friends that the work force at Atlantic house no longer believe that the new Scottish

  575
  centre will go ahead under any structure, far less PPP. Previous Conservative Governments made several attempts to privatise air traffic control—all of which met with overwhelming opposition and did not go ahead. Swanwick and the two PH projects that the Tories introduced in Scotland have been unmitigated disasters, and Swanwick was only recently set on track. For many years, the investment required by NATS has been far too slow in coming. When Swanwick was eventually brought on stream, it had totally unrealistic time scales. That was partly due to political pressure. I am sure that, by now, everyone is aware of the situation since then.
  The Tories called into question the two-centre strategy—did we need a centre at both Swanwick and Prestwick? I find it ironic that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) is blaming the present Government for delays in investment. As long ago as 1993, a PFI contract was agreed for the new Scottish centre. As it turned out, that would have been a scandalous waste of public money and would have been totally unworkable. Those of us who are concerned about Prestwick and want it to go ahead bought into the PFI after the general election, initially because it was the only show in town. Every effort was made to make it workable, but we now know that it was not.
  The previous Government must have been aware of the debacle at Swanwick and, for that matter, at Prestwick. If they were not, they certainly should have been. In the past two and a half years, I have had quite a lot of time to reflect on the issue, and I have had reason to wonder why my predecessor had so very little to say, because he was not known as a shrinking violet when it came to expressing his views. What was he doing on a matter so crucial to the constituency? Given all that history and the sorry tales of indecision, delays and absolutely no strategic direction for NATS, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be surprised that the work force is sceptical, frustrated and angry, and that morale is at an all-time low?
  Just before the general election, the Labour party announced that privatisation could not be ruled out. That was in the context of a black hole in the public finances, when the Tories had already included in their forecasts their estimate of the receipts from privatisation. That led to widespread dismay in my constituency at least, given the previous record on the issue.
  The question that must be answered is why something that is so crucial to public safety was regarded as a no-go area one day, but acceptable for privatisation the next. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now proposes a public-private partnership, but says that that is not privatisation by another name. I suggest that some of his difficulties in that regard date back to the first announcement. Unfortunately, the proposal now lacks credibility for those who work at Atlantic house in Prestwick.
  Given all the problems, delays and indecisions that I have outlined, it was never going to be easy for my right hon. Friend to come up with a solution to the problem. I realise and accept, as do most of those to whom I have spoken, that greater commercial freedom is required to provide the necessary investment for the future needs of NATS. No one is opposed to PPP in principle; the issue is the form that that should take. If the Government
  576
  conclude that there is only one viable way forward, they should justify it in detail and tell us why it is better than the other options proposed.
  My right hon. Friend has already taken some of our concerns on board through the stakeholders council, but discussion is needed on its powers. What will it do? He has pledged to protect the pensions of both existing and retired employees. I have raised that issue with him, and I welcome his commitment on that together with his assurances on preventing any surplus from being removed from the scheme through the trust deed.
  Much has been made of the issue of safety, and my right hon. Friend will be aware that air traffic controllers are questioning the proposal. Therefore, I should like to share with the House some of the worries that the air traffic controllers in my constituency have raised with me. They believe that safety will be compromised—not deliberately, but unavoidably —because of the controlling interest of the profit motive and the need to earn dividends for shareholders. NATS cannot boost profits in the short to medium term by putting up charges. Therefore, it is feared that the only alternative is to reduce running costs. For example, the controllers point to the wholesale redundancies in the railway industry following privatisation.
  There have already been cuts in the number of air traffic control staff during the past five years—despite a 20 per cent. increase in traffic over the same period—because of Government and airline pressure to keep costs down. As we all know, controllers and engineers work under immense pressure, struggling to keep pace with record levels of traffic and working with ageing equipment. There is a tremendous fear that that pressure will be added to by a private sector company that is likely to focus on working time as a means to reducing costs.
  Controllers hours are currently regulated to minimise fatigue and to reduce the likelihood of accidents. NATS has enhanced arrangements that recognise the exceptionally busy airspace in, for example, the London area, where controllers take a break every 90 minutes rather than the statutory two hours. That is obviously expensive in staffing terms and is seen as an easy target for a cost-cutting private sector owner.
  It has also been alleged to me that the incidence of air crews in British Airways using the captain's discretion to exceed duty flying time has risen dramatically since the privatisation of the company. Can the Minister confirm that? The fact that private companies own airport air traffic control centres has also been mentioned. I have been informed that most breaches of the regulations covering air traffic control hours investigated by the safety regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority occur in private airports, where low staffing levels can result in controllers working beyond the two hours limit or staying on beyond the end of a shift. The response of such operators is not to increase staffing levels so that they can cope, but to seek changes in legislation to allow them to continue with their current practices.
  There are also concerns that investment decisions will be based on commercial rather than safety factors. The example is cited of the privately owned Belfast international airport, which has already been mentioned in the debate. It refused to pay for a vital secondary radar system, despite a recommendation that it was necessary

  577
  following a serious near miss, because a nearby competitor—Belfast city airport, which is also private—would benefit from the equipment.
  A further issue arises from the relationship between NATS and the general aviation community of flying clubs and small operators. They do not, at the moment, need airline operating certificates. Unless they are in controlled airspace, they are under no obligation to contact air traffic control. However, they are encouraged to do so to ensure that controllers are aware of all the traffic movements across the system. NATS provides several air traffic control services free of charge for that reason. It is thought that charges are likely to be introduced by a private company and that that may result in small operators being less willing to maintain contact with air traffic control, thereby reducing safety for other airspace users.
  We have already heard that NATS management has a first-class operational record, but a dismal record on project management for investment. I agree that that problem should be addressed, but how will that be done in the context of an imperative to expand NATS business? Will my right hon. Friend find a way to access private sector expertise and investment for capital projects, distinct from the operational function?
  I know that my right hon. Friend very strongly refutes the accusation that he is jeopardising safety and that he feels that his plans to separate the safety function from the operational function are sufficient. However, air traffic controllers in my constituency have expressed to me their serious and genuine concerns—and, after all, they are in a position to know. It is incumbent upon me, as the local Member of Parliament, to raise those concerns in the debate, and therefore I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me how they will be dealt with under PPP.
  I return to the issue that is of most concern to me, and which is my priority in the debate. I refer to the completion of two projects: FDPS2 and the new Scottish centre. Over the past two and a half years, I have been given repeated assurances that the projects would go ahead and that the Government were committed to the two-centre strategy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) has already referred to that.
  I have rehearsed some of the history of the projects, but the recent position is that further delays have been caused by the change from funding and the knock-on effect of the Swanwick delays. The first phase has been started with public money, and I very much welcome that, but when will the second phase begin? I am aware that the Government introduced the projects to ensure that the operational infrastructure would meet growing demand and would fit in with their wider plans for PPP for NATS.
  At the time when the original tender documents were issued, NATS estimated that the centre would be needed in about 2000, but the latest estimated date is 2005 or 2006. Is the new Scottish centre being further delayed because of PPP discussions? Does my right hon. Friend and his colleagues understand that that is leading to further disillusionment, and scepticism at Prestwick that there is any intention of ever having a new Scottish centre? My constituents are fed up with the speculation and doubt.
  Again, the centre is being used as a political football in the debate. Parties such as the Scottish National party took no interest in the issue until they sensed the possibility
  578
  of some political air miles. Given the activities of SNP Members, those air miles will not get them even to the end of the runway. They are so interested in the issue that they cannot even be bothered to attend the debate. However, I understand that the SNP intends to raise the issue in the Scottish Parliament, which has no power to deal with it. It should come to Westminster and be dealt with as a reserved issue here.
  In addition to the speculation about the new Scottish centre, I am aware of problems with the PFI contract for FDPS2. Conservative Members have the audacity to talk about a botched PPP and the delays caused by this Government, but they left nothing but disaster in their wake. Will my hon. Friend the Minister inform the House of the current status of the project? Will it go ahead under the present contractor, or is it the intention to incorporate it into the PPP? Will there then be further delays?
  Last week, I heard the Transport Minister, my noble Friend Lord Macdonald, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), give evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee. I join with others in paying tribute to the work of the Committee. It has taken detailed evidence on the subject, which has been useful, and its view should be taken seriously. However, I am worried because my noble Friend inferred that the new Scottish centre would not go ahead if PPP was rejected. I have the same fear about the Oceanic project. I am very aware of the time scales involved, so will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us about the implications for the two projects?
  It was stated earlier that the two-centre strategy may be written into the Bill. Will the Government accept an amendment in my name, at a later stage in the proceedings, to achieve that? That would go a long way towards quelling fears in Scotland, particularly in my constituency, about investment that is so important to our economy.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I must declare an interest as I receive an income from two energy groups.
  I listened to the speech by the Secretary of State and found myself moved by his introductory remarks, in which he catalogued the way in which he has, over several decades, taken an interest in transport policy. He is genuinely an idealist, but he must know, when he looks at himself in the mirror, that the Bill bears no relation to his ambitions and will make almost no difference to transport in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) issued a devastating critique of the Bill and described those parts of it that are absolutely irrelevant.
  I fear that the Secretary of State and his team have simply parted company with reality. During the past hour and a half, while we have been sitting here in air-conditioned luxury, sprawling on our green Benches with plenty of room about us, the experience of our constituents has been extremely different. They have been making their way home from work in extraordinarily crowded conditions. They have been shoved into trains or they have been sitting in traffic jams. Common sense tells us that transport in this country needs not more reviews, which we heard the hon. Member for West Bromwich,

  579
  East (Mr. Snape) call for, or more co-ordination, regulation and interference, as promised in the Bill, but more capacity.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk was Transport Secretary, he gave us more capacity, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) when he was in that post. If commuters on their way home this evening hear that the House is debating the first major Transport Bill for many years—a 258-page Bill of 231 clauses and 26 schedules—will they not ask how much new capacity the Bill will provide, how many new railway lines will be built, and how much easier the Bill will make people's journeys? The answer is that it will make no difference to anybody's journey or to transport capacity.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many miles of new railway were constructed during the 18 years of Conservative Government?
  Mr. Portillo: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many miles were constructed, but I can tell him that we constructed the Jubilee line extension, the docklands light railway, the Manchester metrolink, the new tram system in Sheffield and the channel tunnel, and we implemented the electrification of the east coast main line. Those are all Conservative achievements. In the two and a half years during which this Government have been in power, they have not even mentioned the possibility that they might build more railway lines.
  In an Opposition day debate about 10 days ago, we demonstrated clearly and conclusively that the amount of investment now going into London Underground is less than it was under the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire pointed out that despite the great hype about investment over the next 10 years, the amount is smaller than that in the investment programme that was bequeathed to the Government.
  Over the past two and a half years, we have seen the Secretary of State's transport policy sagging and collapsing like a tired souffle. We have seen him regularly out-manoeuvred by the Treasury. We have seen him denied funds and duped. Quite honestly, I feel sorry for the right hon. Gentleman. The last time that he was here we intimated to him that he was about to lose his job and responsibilities, and he scowled at us—and once he even waved his fist. None the less, there has been a change of ministerial responsibilities since then and certainly a change of rhetoric, if not of policy.
  Last week, we saw the insulting sight of the Prime Minister travelling by tube to the dome. Why was that insulting? Because he did it for the television cameras, as a publicity gimmick, which further demonstrated the extent to which the Government are completely out of touch with what their constituents are experiencing.
  All that the Bill introduces is a call for co-ordination, integration and regulation. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) loves that stuff. She is much more interested in the extent to which transport is regulated, planned and controlled than in how much transport is provided for people to travel on. It is of no
  580
  interest to her that we now have more bus and rail services—something of which the Government themselves boast—because that has not been planned. There was an intimation of what might result from the Bill when the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said that he looked forward to having a Strategic Rail Authority so that it could plan the seats on trains. Is that really the sort of minimalist intervention that we seek from the Government?
  I heard the Transport Minister, Lord Macdonald, on the radio this morning, and it was clear to me that he had effected a major U-turn in his rhetoric. It was, frankly, pathetic and insulting to the intelligence not only of Parliament, but of the people of this country for him to say that he was able to effect that U-turn because he had just discovered that technological changes in the petrol engine would make it possible for us to achieve our environmental target without cutting the amount of traffic. The Government clearly have a dim view of the intelligence of the British people.
  I noticed during the course of that interview that Lord Macdonald seemed to be extremely vague about the details of the Bill. That is all that we can expect now that our Transport Minister is in another place. Why should he care what the Commons is doing today? I have not observed anyone from another place here today to see what we are about. Perhaps that vagueness more precisely reflects the fact that Lord Macdonald does know what is of interest to the travelling public—and he knows that the Bill is irrelevant to that, which is why he is apparently ignorant of the Bill's contents.
  If I am a member of the Standing Committee that considers the Bill, there is something that I should like to discover from Labour Members. I want to know why they have declared war on poor people who would like to drive. The only means that the Government have of controlling the amount of traffic on our roads is to price people off the roads. From what I know of my constituents, as they go up the income scale, they long to achieve greater mobility by getting four wheels. Buying a battered old Datsun and being able to take the family around when they choose, how they choose and whither they choose, is a great step forward. For our constituents, that is the great achievement of freedom. The Labour party's only answer for controlling traffic is to slap enormous charges on those who want to drive.
  We have had an increase in fuel duties. It is no good saying that the fuel duty escalator was invented by the previous Government. Another 12p per litre has been imposed by this Government. Are they going to say that they are absolutely incapable of making any change? That increase was their decision. They have made it difficult for people on low incomes to drive. All hon. Members know that well-off people are completely indifferent to charging, yet the Bill contains proposals to impose more taxes on people who drive. That is yet another example of the way in which the well off will be able to move about at will, while the poor will be denied the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I am running out of time.
  The Bill completely misses its target. We improve transport by providing more capacity. It is possible that some structural changes will increase capacity.

  581
  The structural changes that we made to the bus industry through deregulation, and to the railways through privatisation, meant that new operators came forward and new capacity was provided. The Bill appears to move in the other direction. It will move us away from deregulation and privatisation—the policies that have been successful.
  Ministers often boast about the fact that we have more than 1,000 new rail services and more than 1,000 new bus services, but do they not understand that those have been created by allowing freedom, but the Bill will move us in the other direction? [Interruption.] It is all very well hon. Members shouting at me, but it was the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—as a director of a bus company, he has to be in touch with reality—who pointed out that there were more services.
  One part of the Bill makes a structural change and can improve capacity: the part that deals with NATS. Of course, if one creates a structure in which more investment can be forthcoming and in which there can be greater innovation and enterprise, it is possible to create new capacity. That is why, in principle, we are in favour of privatisation.
  I must echo the words of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) in the letter that was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk a moment ago. This is a thoroughly botched privatisation. What do we mean by that? We mean that the company may be thoroughly confused because it comprises a Government holding and a commercial company's 46 per cent. stake. The commercial company may be British or foreign. If it is foreign, it may not be all that commercial. If it is Thompson CSF, there will be a 40 per cent. French Government stakeholding. What an extraordinary mess to get us into.
  The Deputy Prime Minister clearly did not understand the point about the proceeds. The explanatory memorandum makes it absolutely clear that it is anticipated that the proceeds will be £350 million, but that £300 million of that will have to be paid in debt write-off and £35 million in expenses, which will leave only £15 million. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proceeds may not be £350 million. He is absolutely right—they could be great deal less. The proceeds from the sale could be negative.
  The other point that the Deputy Prime Minister did not understand was clause 49. I could tell that he did not understand it because when I tried to intervene on him, he ran away in terror. He clearly did not want to discuss the point. He had already said—I hope that Hansard bears me out on this—in reply to a question from my Front-Bench team that, for national security reasons, we needed to be able to repeal the golden share clause in secondary legislation. What an extraordinary thing to say. Why?
  Labour Members who are worried about NATS privatisation—the public-private partnership—should consider that the golden share, which is their only guarantee of Government control, can be repealed not by primary legislation, as is usual, but by simply putting an order through the House. The golden share on which they are pinning all their hopes could be repealed by minor secondary legislation. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—by huffing and puffing and blowing, they have changed ministerial responsibility, Government rhetoric and Government policy.
  582
  In Committee, it is possible for the Labour party to change Government policy: it can be done. All that Labour Members have to do is serve on the Committee and vote in the right way. This Government fall over when anyone blows hard enough. All Labour Members have to do is come with us and vote with us. To do that will require courage, and I shall spell that: C-O-U-R-A-G-E. If Labour Members are really concerned about the privatisation of NATS, all they have to do is serve on the Committee or turn up on Report and vote down the proposal. This Government are not as strong as they look. It is in the hands of Labour Members to join us to defeat aspects of the Bill that they find objectionable. If they do not do so, the fault will lie with them and it will be on their conscience.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I do miss the late Alan Clark.
  Given that Heathrow airport and the London area and terminal control centre at West Drayton are in my constituency, hon. Members will understand why I shall concentrate on the parts of the Bill that deal with air traffic control.
  I should say at the outset that I have no doubts about the Government's commitment to safety or about the Deputy Prime Minister's lifelong commitment to the transport industry and safety. What bewilders a number of us is why, so soon after the commitment that we gave that the air was not for sale, part of the air is to be sold. We ask: what has changed?
  I shall deal with some of the Government's arguments that have been set out by Lord Macdonald. The first is that the Bill separates safety regulation from service provision. There is now consensus on that; we support the division and welcome the implementation of the proposal as soon as possible. We believe that it will enhance safety.
  The second argument is that the National Air Traffic Services proposal will make charging policy in the industry more transparent. Such greater transparency is welcome in the industry overall. There have been other proposals in the public sector to achieve that end. Another argument was that the proposal would enable NATS to expand its operation overseas. Although there has not been much evidence of that overseas market, such expansion would not require part privatisation, as the public-private partnership proposal.
  Another argument is that the proposal will free the service from the constraints of the Treasury, and that it will introduce a structure of incentives and disciplines to maximise efficiency. Let us be clear that the objective on both sides of the House is a modern, safe, efficient, well supplied and investment-rich service. We all agree on that. We on the Labour Benches are very clear that wholesale privatisation would be disastrous. We do not want a rerun of British Rail privatisation, from which it appears the Opposition have learned no lessons. A number of us in our constituencies along the Great Western line have learned several lessons from both Southall and Paddington.
  We also agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we need to get round what he described as "silly Treasury rules". There is a need for long-term, stable investment in air traffic control services, for which NATS staff have been crying out. The service makes a profit for the

  583
  Treasury, and it should be able to modernise and be planned on a stable basis. That does not require the sell-off of the majority shareholding; there are alternatives that do not put safety in the skies at risk.
  Our problem is that anyone who has argued for such alternatives has been told that they do so either for industrial or ideological reasons. I regret the allegation that my constituents who are air traffic controllers argue on industrial grounds. Their views, and now those of airline pilots, must be respected as the considered opinions of professionals who are dedicated to the safe and efficient delivery of their services. I resent any allegation that air traffic controllers are motivated by some selfish industrial reasons—far from it. In opposing the sell-off of NATS, they are rejecting the share out of anything up to £25 million-worth of shares. That is not some selfish industrial motive.
  It is also argued that we are opposing the proposal for ideological reasons. It is quite the reverse; this is a mirror image of ideology. The Government's argument appears to be based on an ideological bias against the public sector—public sector bad, private sector good. That runs contrary to everything that the Prime Minister has stated. He has said that we must aim to let the public sector do what it is best at, and the private sector what it is best at. NATS is run efficiently, effectively and, above all, safely in the public sector.
  We take the clear view that, if there are failings of management or problems on project management resulting from a failure to achieve contract management, the management should be changed, not the service sold off. If the management is poor, it should be replaced with a more effective one that, yes, may be drawn from some elements of private sector expertise. However, I give a warning if there is to be blind faith in private sector management—I have worked in both, public and private.
  Let us look no further than the Railtrack investment programme. The Booz-Allen and Hamilton report demonstrated that, as a result of poor management, 22 per cent. of the service was not up to the quality expected. Look at tube service investment by private-sector management of individual projects: a private-sector company, Adtrans, could not even properly measure the gauge in respect of the provision of track and carriages to the London tube, thus delaying improvements to the Central line.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston has argued that there should be a structure for incentives and disciplines to maximise efficiency—in short, the profit motive. However, I believe that there is a potential conflict between profit and safety. The Secretary of State says that the argument that the profit motive undermines safety has not been proven—but it has been proven to the professionals who run the service. In their submission to the Government, they say that the concerns of NATS staff about a public-private partnership are founded on the experience of other privatised industries, and they drew a parallel with Railtrack and the rail industry.
  Mr. Justice Scott-Baker said about the rail industry
  "There may be a conflict between profit and safety."
  584
  On 25 October, the former head of fire safety for British Rail said on the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme that safety standards had been "compromised" by privatisation. On "Panorama", Gerald Corbett, chief executive of Railtrack, conceded
  "It is impossible to keep everybody happy at the same time. It is actually at the moment unmanageable. We cannot… keep shareholders happy at the same time as fulfilling our public service obligations, and that tension is just massive, and it is at the heart of our unpopularity."
  Air traffic controllers are clearly concerned that the profit motive will undermine safety. We should rely on the judgment of those operating the service before proceeding further along the path proposed. In their submission, the controllers state that the primary objective of the strategic partner should be, not profit, but safety of flight, security of investment and sensible capacity for future growth.
  It has been said that there is no safety problem affecting the air industry generally, but I beg to differ. Last week's debate about air safety revealed that commercial pressures put on pilots and others were putting the industry's record at risk; those pressures arise from profit motivation. It is interesting to note that the role of air traffic control is to ensure safety by mediating between different private companies and the pressures they put on air space. Therefore, we are proposing today to privatise part of the regulation service that keeps our skies safe.
  Concerns about safety have not been adequately heeded. We have to listen to what the experts who have, over the years, built up the safety culture are saying to us. We have to ask how we can generate increased stable investment and introduce more effective management while maintaining the safety culture and denying the introduction of the profit motive. There are alternatives. I urge the Government to think again and to review the options that have been put to them. We have to consider how we can introduce a not-for-profit motivation—one that is based on professionalism and regulation, not on the fast buck.
  The future should not lie in the profit ethos, but in consideration of other proposals, such as those that have been advanced by the airline industry. The Airline Group, comprising major airline companies, has submitted a proposal to purchase the shareholding and said that it sees an opportunity to run the service on a not-for-commercial-return basis. Given the participants in that group and their direct interest in future charges for the services, it is not surprising that the proposal has met with a degree of scepticism and incredulity.
  However, if there is to be a purchase, the possibility of a not-for-commercial-return group gives us an opportunity constructively and creatively to examine ways to enshrine a guarantee that the system will not be run for profit in perpetuity, or in the long term. One of the proposals that has been put forward by operators, air traffic controllers and pilots is that the any sale should lead to the creation of a trust, run on a not-for-profit or not-for-commercial-gain basis. In that way, future investment and future safety would be consolidated within a structure in which we could all have confidence.
  The Government and the Select Committee considered the Canadian trust option, and detailed arguments in support of such proposals were laid out by the Committee. However, the Government rejected the Canadian option

  585
  too lightly and too swiftly. I plead for that option to be revisited in the Committee on the Bill. It would provide an opportunity to effect a sale, if necessary, and thus a substantial capital receipt, to introduce an element of new management, to create greater accountability and transparency, and to expand overseas—an objective to which the Government appear to be committed. However, it would also provide a guarantee that the service would not be run for profit and that pressures would not be put on the service and staff to reduce conditions or operational costs in such a way as to put safety at risk.
  At Heathrow, there are 500,000 transport movements every year. Those movements pass over the heads of my constituents, and I cannot vote for a measure that in any way puts at risk their safety. Many of my constituents work at Heathrow, some as air traffic controllers, so I have to listen to their views. Their views are strong and straightforward: they believe that the Government's proposals will undermine the safety ethos. That will not happen immediately, or overnight; it will occur through a slow process of erosion and will, inevitably, put my constituents at risk in their homes and at work.
  I urge the Government to think again about the trust option. That constructive proposal would guarantee safety, provide the income needed and allow long-term investment. In that way, when the Bill returns to the House, we shall be able to support unanimously a constructive plan, instead of having to rehearse the arid arguments of privatisation.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made a brave speech. It will be interesting to see how Ministers respond to his pleas. He clearly conveyed to Opposition Members that good old-fashioned Labour, with its great distrust of the private sector, is alive and well. If the Government allow that mood to spread, where will that leave Labour?
  I do not intend to debate NATS, but to examine the Bill in terms of its relevance to my Lancashire constituency and to the wider transport issues that face the United Kingdom. As I sat on a Virgin train that was an hour and three quarters late getting into London, I thought about what I would say in this debate—other than to vent my anger at the delay in that particular form of public transport getting me from A to B. That journey reminded me that the purpose of a transport system is to enable people to get from A to B as quickly as possible, with minimum environmental impact, at good value for money.
  I have searched the Bill and the preceding White Paper to find a mission statement or definition that reflects most people's expectations of a transport system, but none have I found. Instead, I find that the Bill is an odd ragbag of measures. The Bill shows that, in many of Labour's activities, the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister are still following the Pontius Pilate approach: they wash their hands of the difficult issues and hand them on to someone else.
  As Conservative Members have said, many local authorities will be reluctant to go down the unpopular route of workplace parking or local congestion charges. If nothing else, in competing for business and enterprise, they will suddenly find the town next door saying that it is a charge-free zone. It will be interesting to see how Labour authority will be set against Labour authority by the measure.
  586
  Much of what the Deputy Prime Minister said was an attempt to denigrate the previous Government, as if they had had no transport policy. Our developments of the national motorway network, our opening of the door to more investment in rail, our financing and helping of metrolink in Manchester, the Tyneside light rail system and the developments in Croydon, and so on, show that we nailed our colours to the mast. We believed in public transport and put our money where our mouth was.
  In contrast, the background to this Bill is that the motorist has become the Government's milch cow for cash. As for the logic of their policies, one has only to consider the Deputy Prime Minister's bizarre decision not to continue the treble carriageway route out to the M40. Within weeks of coming into office, despite the public expense undertaken to increase the size of that corridor, one of the Government's first contributions to improving transport was to maintain congestion to the west of London.
  I want to consider the Bill as it affects my constituents. Their problem is getting from north to south on the motorway network. The M6 has become a nightmare. Anyone attempting the journey from Birmingham to Preston on a Friday would have to allow nearly the whole day. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said, the Government have lost two years in dealing with that. My constituents are anxious for developments on the west coast main line and are glad that our privatisations opened the door to more capital for that. The Bill and the accompanying White Paper offer no encouragement for developing a light rail system on the Fylde coast to link Fleetwood, Blackpool, Lytham St. Anne's and Preston. Such a system could revolutionise our area.
  A briefing from the Institution of Civil Engineers brings home some facts. In a country where motor vehicles dominate movements of both passengers and freight, the cost of congestion is estimated at £20 billion. The British road system is the most congested in western Europe. In relation to land area, the British motorway network is one of the smallest in Europe. The state of maintenance of our roads is worse than when the Government came into office. The Bill does nothing to address those problems.
  That is hardly surprising when one considers the research by W.S. Atkins on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in assessing whether anything in the Bill would have a measurable, meaningful effect on traffic growth, particularly in the urban environment. This recently published research suggests that even implementing the most radical White Paper policies, such as congestion charging using the powers in the Bill, would result only in arresting the rate of traffic growth nationally. That means that even if the rate of traffic growth is arrested, we will still face an undercapacity problem in our transport system. The Government suggest no solution to that.
  Going back to the M6, there is nothing in the Bill or the White Paper—apart from the Birmingham northern relief road—that offers one ounce of extra capacity on that vital north-south link. There is no suggestion of additional lanes. I recognise that building a duplicate M6 is off the agenda, but we face serious constraints. The Government should reconsider because their own research shows that we have a serious undercapacity problem in our transport system.

  587
  In a document deposited in the Library at the beginning of the month, the publication, "Local Transport Today" states that the Commission for Integrated Transport, which was set up by the Government to consider the impact of charging on congestion, said that the
  "evidence shows that with a cordon charge of £2.50 a day in all conurbations, coupled with a £3,000 workplace parking levy and limited motorway tolling, traffic is still set to rise overall by 21 per cent. between 1996 and 2010."
  Whichever way we look at it, independent and objective assessment of the measures put forward in the Bill as the solution to our transport problems shows that they have already been found wanting.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Institution of Civil Engineers. Is he aware that it states:
  "The inclusion in the Bill of powers for local authorities to impose charging for workplace parking and use of roads creates potentially very effective tools to tackle congestion. The establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority should give the necessary strategic leadership to a rail sector which has lacked this since its fragmentation and privatisation."
  There is evidence on the other side.
  Mr. Jack: The people who make up that institution have a vested interest. Most are representatives of, and paid by, local authorities. They are hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds them. It may well be that they are not yet aware of the independent work to which I referred.
  Motorists will resile from the truth about the Government's much professed interest in investing in transport infrastructure. It emerges from paragraph 236 of the explanatory memorandum, which states:
  "The local authority road charging and parking levy schemes might generate up to £1 billion net annually by 2005".
  That is another £40 per motorist of additional taxation. Is it not remarkable that when the Government talk about investment, they mean, yet again, attacking the motorist? As my right hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Chelsea and for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) noted, rural motorists and low-income families are the people most affected by the proposals.
  As for all the guff about the Strategic Rail Authority bringing new investment, paragraph 4.31 of the White Paper says that the franchising director, who will come under the new authority, will have new money to invest in the railway system. However, paragraph 2.37 of the explanatory memorandum states:
  "The creation of the Strategic Rail Authority is not expected to create any significant requirement for additional public expenditure."
  There we have it in black and white in the Government's own material. There will be no new money from public sources to inject cash into the rail system. The Government are fond of their own rhetoric but the reality tells a different story.
  I am interested in some of the details in the Bill about how the proposals will work. Clause 92 deals with local transport plans, which are a key part of the Government's
  588
  approach, especially in respect of road traffic congestion charges, because the money from that and workplace parking is supposed to sustain the plans. It states:
  "Each local transport authority must develop and implement plans for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport."
  What a wonderful sentence, but what is the definition of all that? How will we judge the effectiveness of those plans, when the Government refuse to supply any kind of national benchmark so that we can measure whether their policies are improving the nation's transport?
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: On that point—
  Mr. Jack: No, I am afraid that time forbids me. I have taken one intervention already.
  The Government are fond of league tables of performance in education and just about every other area, to show that their judgment is getting better, but on transport, they are remarkably silent. The only thing that they want is an intermodal change, so that people move from one mode to another, but we do not know whether the fundamentals of the transport system will be improved.
  We find in clause 140, on road user charging, that
  "a local charging scheme may only be made if it appears desirable for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies in the charging authority's local transport plan."
  I love the word "indirectly". It moves us a long way from measurable gains resulting from those charges.
  Clause 145, which deals with charging schemes, reveals that the Deputy Prime Minister will eventually approve such schemes. The clause refers to them being
  "confirmed by the appropriate national authority".
  I wonder what British Aerospace in my constituency, which employs 6,000 people and has a couple of thousand workplace parking places for skilled aerospace engineers from all over Lancashire, will think of that? It will be a huge additional cost on BAe's highly competitive business. There is not a prayer of a public transport system bringing those skilled workers from all over the north-west of England to work at that location. I do not see how there will be any gain from that proposal.
  The Government speak of diminishing out-of-town shopping, and the renaissance of the city centre, but then propose a mechanism to impose a charge on people who will invest in the city centre and build shoppers' car parks. Wait till customers suddenly twig that the cost of goods in Tesco and Sainsbury's will rise because the Government plan to tax the supermarket car park space. It is the politics of the madhouse, but such are the Government's policies.
  In a rational world, peer group pressure exists. Drinking and driving has effectively been eliminated through being perceived as anti-social, because people were convinced by the arguments. The Government must convince people of the benefits of public transport. I believe in it, but it needs up-front investment.
  The capacity of the public transport system must be expanded, if people are to be persuaded to shift from their motor cars. There is nothing in the manana world of the Bill to achieve that. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk spoke of the measures taking

  589
  effect in 2005, he pointed exactly to the Government's problem—long on promises, long on rhetoric and short on delivery.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: After that speech, who could be blamed for believing that the Conservatives left us with a transport system that was firing on all four cylinders, and that the problems on the M6 began in May 1997? How ludicrous! The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke of a light rail system in his constituency, which he knows would be the responsibility of the local highway authority under the local transport plan.
  Mr. Jenkin: The schemes mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and others were funded by us. Where is the money to fund light rail schemes under the present Government? Can the hon. Gentleman name one light rail scheme that the Government have approved?
  Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Member for Fylde mentioned integration. The Commission for Integrated Transport has studied a sample of local transport plans and made a pronouncement: the information is freely available. I suggest that before the hon. Gentleman gets hot under the collar, he looks at information that is in the public domain.
  The former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), had the brass neck to say what he said without accepting any interventions. Despite the fact that, throughout his time as a transport Minister, spending on road maintenance went down, we never get a word of apology from him: he just brushes everything aside. The right hon. Gentleman had the temerity to suggest that local transport plans are no different from the system over which he presided, the TPP—transport policies and programmes—system. Again, that is ludicrous. These days, before any new road is built, a new system of appraisal examines not only transport matters but the scheme's implications for the local economy, jobs, the local environment, wildlife and so on. Those considerations were never built into the system about which the right hon. Gentleman waxed lyrical. His version was not history; it was manufactured.
  I support the Bill—or at least most of it. Local transport plans are long overdue. I support the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority. I support the proposals in the Bill to deal with workplace congestion. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk proposed that in a Green Paper, yet he criticises what the Government are doing as though he had never thought of it himself. The proposal was contained in a document published by the Conservatives when they were in government but, like so many other things, has been airbrushed out of their history.
  I have reservations about the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services, but I am certainly not going into the Lobby with the Conservatives, who want to privatise air traffic control. I am fearful of what would happen if it were privatised. The Conservatives looked into that when they were in government, but they saw the difficulties and backed off. A Government who privatised anything and everything that was not nailed down backed away from privatising NATS as being too hot to handle.
  590
  Amazingly, we are picking up the privatisation issue—hot to handle though it may be. If the air traffic controllers are against it, apparently it is their problem. If the pilots flying the planes are against it, apparently it is their problem. If 50 of my hon. Friends point out that the proposal was not in the Labour manifesto in May 1997, word goes out that it is their problem. I can only say that if the Government do not address the concerns of many people, both in this place and outside it, it will be their problem.
  I pay tribute to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has moved the transport agenda forward. My right hon. Friend said that we needed the PPP to allow NATS to invest, citing the famous Treasury rules, which he said were too restrictive. But we are the Government, and no one has ever explained to me why we cannot change the Treasury rules. Is it impossible, with our majority? I see the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) nodding. I have much in common with Liberal Democrats on this issue, as on some others. Why can we not change the rules? We have again heard the mantra, "Private sector good, public sector bad", which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) mentioned. If project management in the public sector is useless, as we are hearing from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and from those on the Front Bench, the solution is not to privatise but to change the management. It is as simple as that.
  There are penalty clauses in commercial contracts. If one side does not do what it is supposed to do, the penalty clauses are supposed to kick in. Why not use them? We are offered a comparison between the Jubilee line, which was a disaster, and the docklands light railway, run and managed by the private sector, which was brilliant. Everyone recognises—and the right hon. Member for Fylde will know this, as he was at the Institution of Civil Engineers when we touched on this—that tunnelling under London for the new Jubilee line was an immensely difficult engineering task. It is silly to compare the two. I hesitate to mention the TUC but I shall do so sotto voce, to say that it opposes the proposal and believes that the Government should fund the investment directly. They could do that, because they are awash with cash. We do not need to part-privatise NATS; the TUC suggests that it could be turned into an independent, publicly owned company based on the Post Office model. The briefing notes suggest that that is okay for the Post Office, but not for air traffic control.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), who is not in her place, made a suggestion about how to proceed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also referred to it. Let all the options and all the pros and cons be set out, rather than just the preferred option, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, of the Government and the Prime Minister.
  Why are the Government proposing partial privatisation? As I said earlier, it is not because we need the cash. When I met the Minister for Transport with some of my colleagues in the north-west last week, I pointed out that the explanatory memorandum suggested that the Government might get £350 million from the sale of NATS, and that a few weeks ago, the Government decided to spend £350 million to allow all over-75s a free television licence. That is exactly equivalent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) mentioned

  591
  the air passenger tax that the previous Government introduced, which generates more than £700 million every year in revenue. Yet we are told that there is no money to invest in air traffic control. The £1 billion figure does not frighten me: over 10 years, £1 billion is £100 million a year.
  When the Conservatives sold British Rail for a song, they extinguished the entire debt of £19,000 million. I shall repeat that: £19,000 million was extinguished to make British Rail attractive to the private sector. No Labour Member genuinely embraces the privatisation policy enthusiastically; the Labour party outside the House repudiates it. We have been invited to embrace it because my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who constantly reminds us that he espouses traditional values in a modem setting, proposed it. That may work for 99.9 per cent. of the policies that he proposes, but not for this one.
  We will not get anything like £350 million when such constraints are built into the sale. We are told that partnership directors will look after the public interest and will be able to cap dividends and cut the profits that the private sector company would like to distribute. Is that an attractive proposition for the private sector?
  What about the all-important 5 per cent. that is to be shared among the staff? The calculation is this: 49 per cent. for the private sector; 46 per cent. for the public sector; and in the middle, performing a balancing act, NATS employees who get a share. What will happen to the shares? I assume that, at some stage, they will be traded on the market, as BT shares were traded. One day, someone will want to buy those shares. When I raised that with my noble Friend the Minister for Transport, it was suggested—the idea was not fully worked out—that there would be a period of five or seven years during which the shares could not be traded. What happens after that period? The shares will be traded, the private sector will buy them and NATS will be privatised. I do not want that to happen; no Labour Member supports that. Conservative Members who think they have scented blood will be disappointed this evening. For me, at least, the amendment is a shot across the Government's bows. Much debate is yet to take place in Committee to ensure that, whatever argument the Government devise, NATS remains in the public sector and does not generate profit.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I would like to say a few words about the way in which the Bill will affect Wales—and from the perspective of a Member of the National Assembly for Wales. I shall concentrate specifically on rail.
  The Assembly recently debated the Government's legislative programme, and an amendment stating:
  "the Assembly … calls on the First Secretary and the Secretary of State to seek to ensure that all Bills which impact on the functions and responsibilities of the Assembly are drafted in such a way as to permit the Assembly to implement their provisions with the maximum flexibility, and to develop policy in the areas concerned in a way which best reflects the views of the Assembly and the needs of the people of Wales".
  Those words are taken from a Plaid Cymru amendment, which the Government accepted. The amended motion
  592
  was supported by all Assembly Members except the Conservative group. During his contribution to the debate, the First Secretary said:
  "We need to make the case for primary legislation to be framed in a way that allows us to develop policy to meet the needs of Wales."
  He went on:
  "this should involve the whole Assembly, not only myself and the Cabinet."
  That is the answer of the government of Wales to the fact that the Assembly has no primary legislative powers. That should and will be rectified. In the meantime, however, it is important to make the current system work towards the priorities that the Assembly identifies.
  It was agreed during that debate that in the new year the Assembly would agree a response to the Government's legislative programme, for submission to the Secretary of State for Wales. I assume that the response will be carefully studied and that account will be taken of the Assembly's views.
  The Transport Bill is an important test of the effectiveness of the process and of the Government's willingness to respond to the views of the Assembly and the needs of Wales. Transport policy has been discussed in the Assembly in the past three weeks not only in the debate on the Queen's Speech, but in two short debates—the equivalent of Adjournment debates in this place. I initiated one of them and another, on north-south transport links, was initiated by Alun Pugh—in the Assembly, we are allowed to call Members by their names—-who is Labour Assembly Member for Clwyd, West. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and his officials to read those debates. Alun Pugh stated:
  "improving north-south links is a policy objective that unites parties in the Assembly" —
  I am sure that he is right about that. He also pointed to the need to overcome "the real problem" of the Assembly having
  "significant powers for road but few for rail."
  It is easy to understand the problems of developing an integrated transport policy under those circumstances.
  The Assembly should be empowered to develop an integrated transport policy within a United Kingdom framework. The Bill provides an opportunity to empower the Assembly to do that, but it is not so empowered in the Bill as currently drafted, and it should be amended accordingly. The Scottish Parliament is given a powerful role through clauses 171, 175, 183 and 186, and has the power to direct the Strategic Rail Authority on services in Scotland. There is no such role for the Assembly. That is unsatisfactory for delivering policy objectives, and is insulting to Wales.
  A high-quality north-south rail service is an example of an objective that could be more easily achieved if the Assembly had powers over rail. Another good and illuminating example that is worth studying is the ability to choose between options for relieving congestion on the M4 in the south-east and improving access to Cardiff Wales international airport. Many Members will know of the congestion on the M4 as it passes Newport and Cardiff, and two options have been touted for solving the problem: one is to invest £497 million in new roads; the other is to invest less than £400 million in rail and buses plus some road improvement, which represents a mix of investment. There are two sides to the debate, and I am

  593
  not saying that the issue is simple, but whichever side people are on, the point is that the Assembly should be able to choose. In order to choose, it should have powers in relation to rail.
  What changes should we be looking for in the Bill? An amendment to section 9 of the Transport Act 1968 would enable the Assembly to become a passenger transport authority. Such bodies exist, although I believe that they may be slipping out of favour. That option would be best for Wales, as it is appropriate for a small country. Such a PTA would determine the services in Wales, the quality of rolling stock, the opening hours of booking offices and waiting rooms and possibly even fares in its area. It would enable rail policy decision making to be truly local and, through the Assembly, enable an integrated transport policy for Wales to be developed.
  That idea was discussed in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and responded to by the then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who suggested that it involved making Wales, or Wales's railways, a separate entity and would lead to fragmentation. Of course that is not true: it would be no more true of Wales than it would of Birmingham, its trains and the central PTA that is linked to the wider rail network. A PTA for Wales is an option that has been called for in the Assembly by our party, Plaid Cymru; by the Liberal Democrats; and by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who is a Labour Member. Sue Essex, the Labour chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, said that she would
  "not want to be prescriptive"
  about a PTA, but there should be "enabling provisions" in the Bill so that we can consider options and
  "see which ones suit Wales the best".
  That seems all right to me. If such provisions were included, the Assembly would be enabled to establish a PTA if it deemed that to be the best way forward, and I think that many Labour Assembly Members would support it. The Conservatives have not made their views known, but encouragingly they constantly call for policies in all areas that are tailored to the needs of Wales.
  Along with the PTA and the power to establish it, it seems to us that the Assembly should receive Wales's share of the rail services subsidy, which is about £100 million. We have no way of knowing whether that total, which is pro rata for the Welsh population, is spent in Wales, and we think that there would be more investment in Wales if we received that money. Given the Government's attitude to Wales, I now have to go into the unpleasant business of bidding down, which is what King Lear did with his daughters.
  I recognise that the Government are unlikely to give us that money, which is what we ought to get, so let us be a bit more pessimistic: a softer but useful option would be a Wales division of the Strategic Rail Authority. That is worth thinking about; it is the minimum necessary to enable the Assembly to influence rail policy. We are currently discussing who should appoint the Welsh member of the UK SRA, and I am glad that the Secretary of State said that there would be a Welsh member, but that is minimal provision and it is clear to us that the appointment ought to be made by the Assembly. That seems self-evident, but even that is apparently a
  594
  matter of contention. Merely having that individual on the UK SRA is not enough to give us the influence that we need.
  I come now to the absolute bottom line, which has been mentioned by the head of the shadow SRA as a feasible option. It is important to think carefully about it. It seems to us that there must be a clear decision to create a Wales and the Marches rail franchise for all services except inter-city services, for which it would not be appropriate. An all-Wales franchise, including the Marches, for all other services is absolutely essential. It would be easy to operate as it would dovetail with adjacent franchises and take in part of the English Marches. Such a franchise is the only way to rescue Wales's rail operations from their current franchise position on the periphery of the urban network franchises. They are little more than an afterthought—the tail-end of the existing franchises—and that simply has to be changed. [Interruption.] I hope that the Government will respond positively to those proposals, despite the apparent amusement that they are causing among Ministers. They represent a crucial test of the Government's attitude to devolution in Wales, which is currently the subject of considerable interest in Wales, and their decision will be carefully observed. I hope that they do the right thing.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Paul Goggins: It is often said that education and health are the peoples' priorities, yet each day in Britain far more people are directly affected by transport systems than have personal contact with schools or hospitals. My constituency is no exception. In Sale, trams run on the modern metrolink system, which has been referred to, and on the M56 in Wythenshawe today tens of thousands of people—many of whom will have been on their way to work—will have driven into and out of Manchester. Last year, 18 million passengers travelled through Manchester airport. Although the transport debate tends to centre on the need to get people out of cars and on to trains and buses, more than half the households in my constituency do not own a car and therefore have no choice but to use public transport. Too often, it lets them down.
  The system inherited by the Government was a mess. Deregulation and privatisation created a crisis for car owners and public transport users alike. The Tory myths that public transport can be run for profit and that car use has no limits, and which have again been repeated in the debate, resulted in frustration, pollution and the waste of road congestion as well as the chaos of unreliable buses and trains. I can outdo the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) because today my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and I endured a journey on a Virgin train that was two hours late coming to London from Manchester.
  A number of improvements have been made during the first two and a half years of this Parliament. For example, the quality partnership initiative, which was developed on a voluntary basis in Manchester, has shown that it is possible to improve the quality of bus services and develop modern arrangements for ticketing and information systems. The 15 per cent. increase in rail journeys and rail freight is welcome and last week's transport settlement, which put an extra £750 million into local transport systems, reaffirmed the importance that the Government attach to local transport integration and

  595
  long-term planning. Ministers are the first to say, however, that a great deal more needs to be done and the Bill is an important foundation for the 10-year programme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken about again today.
  Having acknowledged those positive developments, I want to use the short time available to me to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two particular issues, which I hope he will comment on tonight and consider further, now and in Committee. The first was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and concerns the relationship between the Strategic Rail Authority and the passenger transport authorities and executives, which cover the six metropolitan areas outside London. From the national perspective, the SRA will provide an important lead in fostering the use and development of an integrated transport system by bringing together a variety of disparate organisations in a common purpose. However, from a local perspective there is concern that under clause 215 passenger transport authorities would be subordinate to the Strategic Rail Authority, rather than in partnership with it. Under the Railways Act 1993, PTAs can specify rail service requirements for their areas. Clause 215 provides that the SRA must not carry out those requirements if they conflict with advice from Ministers—the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), may regard that as fair enough—or if that
  "would have an adverse effect on the provision of services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway (whether inside or outside the Passenger Transport Executive's… area)."
  The Library research paper on the Bill states quite succinctly that that clause
  "clarifies the hierarchy in case of contradictory requirements".
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider this issue carefully. Placing PTAs at the bottom of this hierarchy runs the risk of countering the key role that they will be expected to play in the development of local transport plans.
  A good example of the advantages of local co-ordination is the development of the new station at Manchester airport, which involved detailed negotiations between the PTA, Railtrack, the train operating companies and the airport—which, incidentally, was an important additional source of funding. I have genuine concerns that if the system is not built around local knowledge and relationships, such positive outcomes would be much less likely.
  I believe that the best way to proceed is for Ministers to make it clear to the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and the passenger transport authorities that the Government want a strategic partnership, and to promote dialogue on that basis. PTAs cannot be given a blank cheque, but they should expect their local knowledge and experience to be taken seriously. If the Minister decides that dialogue does not work, perhaps he will consider amending the Bill to make explicit the requirement of partnership.
  The second matter I wish to raise, in common with many of my hon. Friends, is the proposed new arrangements for National Air Traffic Services. I should say at this point that about 300 NATS staff work at Manchester airport in my constituency. I shall first
  596
  underline those matters that are not, as far as I am concerned, in dispute: NATS has the potential to be a world leader in a fast growing market; it needs substantial new investment; much, if not all, the new money will come from the private sector; the management of NATS must start to demonstrate a greatly enhanced ability to deliver on new initiatives and services —the Secretary of State was right to point out that project management in NATS has been poor—and it simply is not true that because a service is in the private sector it is automatically unsafe.
  I should like further information and some reassurance, however, on three other points. The first echoes the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Ms Osborne) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Will the Government publish more details of their analysis of other potential models for the organisation of NATS together with the reasons for judging that the model chosen is the best available for promoting the safe and successful development of NATS as a global company? For what it is worth, I believe that the status quo would make our airspace more unsafe. It is clear that the Government have made a judgment about what they regard as the best way forward. It would be helpful to know in more detail why the proposed model is regarded as the best alternative.
  Secondly, although the regulation of NATS is to remain in the public sector with the Civil Aviation Authority, what action are the Government taking to ensure that regulation goes well beyond the policing of minimal standards. Safety requires much more than just keeping the basic rules. It demands the pursuit of best practice. Will the confidential human incident reporting programme—the so-called CHIRP system of independent and confidential reporting of safety-related incidents—be retained? Will the Airprox system continue? What other proposals, if any, are under discussion? More information on how the Government will retain and enhance the safety culture in NATS would be most welcome.
  Thirdly, will the Minister tell the House how he intends to prevent changes in company structure from disturbing the workplace of air traffic controllers? Anyone who has observed air traffic controllers at work will know how important it is that they are able to work in an environment devoid of any pressures other than those essentially concerned with keeping aircraft safely in the sky. As the public debate on NATS has such a high profile, it is essential that staff are reassured that their workplaces will not be disrupted.
  I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on those important issues, so that with more detail there can be no room for any doubt that safety will come first as we construct a transport system that is fit for the new millennium.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: This morning, I waited some time for my bus to take me to my constituency office. This afternoon, I waited much longer for my train. However, the House has waited a long time for this Bill. My bus and my train eventually got me to where I wanted to go, but I am not convinced that, after this long wait, the Bill will get us to where I would like the country to be in five, 10 or 15 years.
  As hon. Members from both sides of the House have said, the Bill contains some good measures. I am delighted that there is a clear commitment to improving

  597
  our public transport system and our infrastructure. As some hon. Members have rightly said, there is genuine concern about whether the Government's commitment will extend to ensuring that the appropriate finances will be available. We have had the analysis of the £80 billion over 10 years that the Government have announced, and it has rightly been pointed out that that is merely a continuation of, or possibly a reduction in, current levels of funding. We have yet to see—after the next couple of years—evidence that that money will be found. When challenged on that, the Deputy Prime Minister's only commitment was to wait and see.
  There are other good measures in the Bill. I am delighted about the provisions to improve the regulation of our buses. Most hon. Members acknowledge that deregulation did not work. As at least one hon. Member said, the evidence is clear. We know that, as a result of deregulation, the number of bus users was significantly reduced in most of the country. In London, where deregulation did not take place, there was a continual improvement in the number of bus users. I am pleased that bus regulation will be improved, not least through further powers to the transport commissioners and proposals for quality partnerships and quality contracts, although I hope that they will have teeth.
  I hope that the Government will also include proposals, through amendment, to further regulate open-top buses, which currently operate in many of our historic cities without the regulation that I, for one, should like to see. That causes a number of problems. It is ludicrous that a tourist open-top bus can travel around an area almost empty. If it sticks to a timetable, it is entitled to the bus fuel rebate. If the rules were changed, such buses would operate only when they have passengers on board, and thereby relieve some of the congestion.
  I am delighted that we will move towards concessionary fares for pensioners. Local authorities in many parts of the country already offer such concessions. At long last, the Government have promised to provide funding for that—they first promised it in June 1998, and it seems that we shall have to wait a further two years before their commitment will be delivered.
  Concerns have been expressed, especially by Conservative Members, about congestion charging. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats will support the Government in their moves towards the introduction of such charging.
  We are delighted that the Government now recognise the importance of establishing alternative high-quality public transport options before the introduction of congestion charging. We also think it right for the Government to consider other measures to reduce the amount of congestion, by means of local transport plans. What some Members said earlier suggested that they were thinking only of congestion charging, but imaginative authorities are already investigating many other measures and, in some instances, are implementing them. Some have persuaded local firms to implement car sharing and park and ride schemes. In the case of such schemes, there is a stick as well as a carrot.
  Mr. Gray: I live just outside Bath, which is one of the most congested towns that I know of. Which of the people who currently travel to Bath in their cars would the hon. Gentleman like to see off the roads?
  Mr. Foster: A good many. As the hon. Gentleman says, many of my constituents are forced to suffer the real problems of congestion. Nowadays, some people will not even come into my city to use its shops because of the congestion. Many of those who come in to work could take advantage of car-sharing schemes that are already proving very successful, and are delighting many who use them. Congestion could also be reduced by the use of park and ride schemes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have established such schemes in some parts of the outskirts of Bath, and we hope to establish more. There are schemes that are popular with people who want to work and shop in the beautiful city of Bath without having to suffer from congestion.
  Along with many of his colleagues, the hon. Gentleman seems to be besotted with the idea that all we must do is allow for more and more car growth and use of cars. The long-term consequence of that would be a continuing escalation in congestion, leading to an almost solid traffic jam throughout the country. According to the CBI, congestion—apart from all the environmental and health problems that it creates—already costs business £15 billion a year. If we do not start to tackle congestion with a range of measures, that cost will continue to grow.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: Time is short, but I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene briefly.
  Mr. Quinn: Thank you. I have listened carefully, and not once has anyone from your Benches mentioned—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, his phraseology must be right.
  Mr. Quinn: I am sorry. Let me say this through the Chair. I want to raise the issue of freight vis-a-vis congestion problems. What are your party's proposals in regard to the decisions that have been made?
  Mr. Foster: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was, in fact, addressing his question about freight through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me therefore tell you that Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of moving as much freight as possible to the railway, while also recognising that it is an impossible dream to expect all freight to travel by that means. We must consider imaginative measures, such as the use of interchanges outside cities to enable larger lorries to employ our motorways and the main routes leading to the outskirts, and the use of smaller vehicles for the purpose of that distribution.
  As I have intimated, we support parts of the Bill, but we are especially concerned about the Government's proposals for National Air Traffic Services. I recently received a detailed briefing from senior management at NATS. I pay enormous tribute to all who work for NATS: they deliver a fantastic service, and a fantastically safe service, and we should all be proud of what they do. Anyway, the management made it clear that four key things were required for the future of NATS:

  599
  opportunities for real investment, clarity about where NATS is going, access to international markets and access to broader management skills.
  The Government suggest that the only way of achieving those aims is the adoption of their proposals for a public-private partnership scheme. The House must answer this question: are there alternatives that will deliver what NATS senior management understandably wants, while also delivering what I suspect most hon. Members want—an absolute guarantee of the continuation of high-safety standards? My answer is yes. I believe that there are alternatives to be considered.
  In powerful speeches, the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), among others, suggested that there were alternative solutions. Liberal Democrats believe that an independent publicly owned company, or a form of trust, would facilitate the right kind of investment and access to the markets. As the hon. Member for Pendle pointed out, the Government recommend PPP only because there is, they say, a problem with Treasury rules; and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Government of the day can change Treasury rules if they wish. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench that it may not even be necessary to change the rules, because, as I think the House knows, there are other ways round the system.
  Interestingly, in the case of the channel tunnel rail link the Government were prepared to make money available outside the public sector borrowing requirement, on the ground that the risk on the loan was less than 15 per cent. The House will be well aware that the risk in respect of NATS is well below that figure. Even under the current Treasury rules, it would be possible to introduce a scheme whereby, under an IPOC—independent publicly owned company—or a trust, NATS would be able to raise the necessary sums.
  We are extremely concerned about the Government's plans for a PPP. Because of that, and because of other aspects of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats support the amendment, and will oppose Second Reading.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: Along with many of my hon. Friends, I support the vast majority of the Bill. I will speak briefly, because I have already had ample opportunity to express my concerns, especially over PPP for NATS.
  The Bill contains many welcome measures: the good far outweighs the not so good. Who, for example, could not welcome the long-awaited establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority? Surely not my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), or any other Member who suffered—as we did in Reading, and as other communities did on the Great Western Trains line—the consequences of the terrible disaster of the Ladbroke Grove train crash. Never again do I want to see a privatised company such as Railtrack put pressure on safety investigators in the aftermath of a disaster like the Southall crash, when there was a wish to open the lines rather than getting to the core of why the disaster had occurred.
  600
  Which Member representing a constituency served—or not served—by Thames Trains would not long for the powers that the SRA will have to improve services and to require adherence to the franchise regime? Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I support the introduction of measures to restrict unnecessary commuter access by cars to our overcrowded towns and cities; but, like him, I think that we should introduce the public transport infrastructure first. We cannot ask our motorists to leave their cars behind unless they have a viable alternative. The Bill paves the way for such an alternative, and I praise the Government for being brave enough to make unpopular suggestions. Ultimately, however unpopular congestion charging may prove to be, gridlock in places such as Reading, Bath and Bristol will be even more unpopular. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said time and again, doing nothing is simply not an option.
  I represent a highly successful part of the Thames valley. The economy there is booming, but the price of that success is often congestion, which must be tackled—if only because asthma levels in parts of my constituency are double the national average. Young people's health is suffering as a result of congestion in major towns and cities.
  One aspect of the Bill has not been referred to, but is worthy of praise and support: its provisions to ensure that some of the more lousy, mean and penny-pinching district authorities which do not have a concessionary bus fare scheme for pensioners and disabled people are forced to introduce at least a minimum service. It is a shame that that provision has not been trumpeted from the rafters—but then, if we tack air traffic privatisation to a lot of good, worthwhile measures, their impact will be lost.
  I represent some 70,000 constituents, 24,000 of whom have the misfortune to come under one of those mean, penny-pinching Liberal Democrat councils. I refer to West Berkshire district council—some Members were smiling too easily then. The council offers pensioners in my constituency the princely sum of £23 in tokens. If a pensioner wants to go to the Royal Berkshire hospital to visit a loved one twice a week, his annual allocation of tokens expires after five weeks. For the other 47 weeks—whether he wants to visit someone in that hospital or elsewhere—he has to pay the full bus fare.
  It is good that a Labour Government are forcing councils such as West Berkshire to deliver at least something in terms of a minimum concessionary fare. It is not as good as that provided by the Labour Reading council, but that is because Reading has the Rolls-Royce of concessionary bus fare schemes. It is more generous even than that in London. It operates not just at off peak, but at peak times. Pensioners can travel anywhere within the travel-to-work area free of charge. That is how it should be. How we treat pensioners is a mark of a civilised society.
  I welcome the Bill's provisions to put local transport plans and bus service strategies on a statutory basis. Buses are crucial to the future of towns and cities and are central to any integrated transport strategy. I welcome, too—as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House do—the introduction of quality partnerships. Those will lay down minimum standards for bus operations and for defined routes. However, there is a problem. The Bill as drafted—I hope that Ministers are listening carefully—excludes specifically from quality partnerships the inclusion of service frequencies, hours of operation,

  601
  networks and fares. All those things are fundamental to the delivery of a bus strategy and local transport plan. It is ridiculous to have quality partnerships that allow us to discuss bus lanes, but not the buses that run along them. I urge Ministers to reconsider the scope of those partnerships.
  In support of that point, and taking a fresh look at the scope of quality partnerships, I shall quote briefly from a letter from the director general of the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK to a colleague who chairs a highly successful municipal bus company. It states:
  "Flexibility remains the key word. We can certainly foresee occasions when quality partnerships will contain detailed clauses on frequency, priorities for network development and general fares policy."
  I implore Ministers to consider that point when the Bill is in Committee.
  I come to NATS. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Ms Osborne) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), I have a specific constituency interest. Like them, before the general election I made clear commitments to my constituents and I intend to honour them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, I believe that a more detailed examination of what is proposed within PPP is necessary. Those points have been well made by other Labour Members.
  I do not think that there is any real problem in securing the Government's objectives. What are they? One is to lever in private sector investment. No one has argued against that; it is not a point of ideology. Another objective is to remove the investment requirements from the public sector borrowing requirement. No Member on the Labour or Opposition Benches has argued that NATS should compete with schools and hospitals for hard-pressed public finances. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned that at some length.
  I do not think that any Members, particularly Labour Members, would object to levering in private sector management expertise for project management and finishing off important contracts such as Swanwick. Therefore, if the objectives are not the problem, what is? It is how we achieve those objectives and convince hon. Members that all available options have been tested. For example, there is a huge question mark over the future of the 5 per cent. golden share. Whether that can be ring-fenced and whether we can for ever stop that 5 per cent. from being sold are matters of some debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle said, if it is sold, 55 per cent. will be in the private sector and, effectively, there will be privatisation of NATS.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill specifically does not lay down the detail of PPP. That gives us scope for negotiation. It gives Labour Members some room for hope. I welcome the fact that air traffic controllers and pilots are in detailed discussions with Ministers. Those discussions must continue. I hope that Ministers will at some point be in a position to tell us why they do not think that the trust options are viable and why an IPO—an independent publicly owned company, which is good enough for the Post Office—is not good enough for NATS. I have heard no convincing arguments to knock down those two options.
  I, too, am attracted—initially, I was not—to the proposal from the Airline Group, the not-for-profit company. People I talk to in the industry, in which I have
  602
  worked, are attracted by the wish to keep air traffic services within the industry. They want the people who are to become the strategic partners to have a financial investment in the billions of pounds of aircraft that are flying above our constituencies and that depend on the professionalism of air traffic controllers.
  Only the other month, I had the opportunity to look at another model, which I have put forward to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). That model is the Transport Research Laboratory at Wokingham. It is quite an interesting model. When the previous Administration privatised the TRL, they, too, wanted to lever in private sector management expertise and to free it from the PSBR, but they recognised the unique nature of the TRL. It is where much transport research takes place, both for civil and military purposes. So what did they do? They set up a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, which achieved all those objectives. It produced a more dynamic private sector management and a stream of private sector investment. However, the company cannot be bought by the likes of Asil Nadir, the Hong Kong bank or anyone else who we would not want to run our air space and the planes that fly over the heads of our constituents.
  The amendment has been signed by some 50 hon. Members. I know, the Government Whips know, and Ministers know that considerably more than 50 Labour Members are concerned about the proposals, but it is not the time to press the amendment to the vote. As I have said, we have ample opportunity for negotiation and to improve what is a very good Bill.
  I conclude with a plea to Ministers. There is a deal out there waiting to be done. I cannot believe that any Minister worth his, or her, salt does not want to take with them in the reform of NATS the pilots and air traffic controllers, as well as the vast majority of Labour Members. The crucial issue is corporate governance. There are models that will achieve both the Government's objectives and unanimity among Labour Members.
  8.10 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: It has been a fascinating debate, which began with the Secretary of State introducing the Bill with some of his traditional bluster. Behind his back—he is absent from the Chamber—we saw Labour Members throwing darts, some of which were quite sharp, whereas others had poisoned tips. Although all those Labour Members are seeking to serve on the Bill's Committee, I suspect that, because of their words and actions, they will not be on it.
  Conversely, opposition party Members—particularly Conservative Members—have offered considerable expertise. We have heard, for example, from a former Secretary of State for Transport and at least two former Treasury Ministers. They have struck considerable blows to the Bill, knocking from it some dust and plenty of bluster. As such broad expertise has already been offered—on roads, trains and air transport—I shall, in a very short speech, limit myself to dealing with congestion and workplace parking charging and with the statutory bus quality partnership schemes, both of which were dealt with briefly by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor.)
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said, the Government have an almost psychotic desire to control and direct—which

  603
  explains the huge number of regulations and directions affecting both businesses and individuals. The Bill seeks to extend that control and to increase the number of controlling and interfering bodies, particularly the lord mayor and the Greater London Authority —which have, for the dubious benefit of Londoners, already been given some of the powers proposed in the Transport Bill.
  As one might expect from someone with my background, I am a great supporter of local government. Equally, however, my experience makes me wary of the damage that local government is able to do. I appreciate the tendency of some people in local government to inflict damage at the first possible opportunity. In a few cases, people in local government desire to regulate and control almost to the point of seeming paranoia. The Bill will greatly extend the possibility of such damage, regulation and control.
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk that many local authorities will not implement the Bill's proposals, especially congestion charging. From my experience, I believe that some local authorities will be silly enough to try to implement all the programmes. The Greater London Authority, for example, has been established in such a manner that London could be damaged by a politically motivated but commercially ignorant mayor. I am greatly concerned that only one of the leading potential contenders for that extraordinary post has any real business experience, whereas the other contenders seem to have only public sector expertise—which, in some cases, is also rather dubious.
  The prospect of many local authorities requiring bus operators to co-operate in quality transport schemes will allow authorities in some areas to create a complete monopoly and ensure complete control by politically driven but commercially ignorant councillors. It worries me to hear Labour Members calling for greater extension of those powers—to allow even more power for local government to control in spheres in which they have no expertise—particularly when there is a commercial aspect. Sheffield's tram scheme provides a prime example of how a financial black hole may develop, in which public money is invested to produce dubious results.
  Mr. Mayor—I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am sorry about that—one of the difficulties I have in talking about local government these days is that one has visions of mayors popping up all over the place, although the prospect of a London mayor is the one that really bothers me.
  I recall the damage that politically motivated but commercially ignorant authorities in London did in the late 1970s. As I am speaking only briefly, I should describe a stark contrast. I remember arriving in the United Kingdom and walking down the busy streets of Westminster, which was thriving. In Camden, however, and particularly around Tottenham Court road, the atmosphere was dead. In the late 1970s, for business and shopping, the Tottenham Court road area was semi-derelict. Today, that area is thriving—but it is thriving because local government lost the power to impinge on it. Some of the Bill's proposals, in the hands of some individuals in local government, could produce the same situation that prevailed in Camden in the 1970s.
  604
  Many of our cities, including London, have good or even excellent radial public transport systems. However, few of our cities have reasonable circular systems. Although I accept that circular systems have improved considerably in the past 10 years or so, it has to be recognised that very many people have no alternative but to use a car. Furthermore, despite the Government's soothing words—even the words of an ambitious Secretary of State—there is only a small prospect of major improvements to the transport situation for those people.
  Road user charging proposals, as described in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and in the Bill, will create great difficulties for many of my constituents. My constituency is on the edge of London. Although most of my constituents live just outside the M25, many of them commute to work and to shop in, or simply to enjoy, the wonderful city of London. An irresponsible London mayor, using the powers given to him in the 1999 Act and in the Bill, could cause great damage.
  When it is absolutely unfeasible for my constituents to forgo using their cars, they face increased taxation. Those who are able to use public transportation discover that the current system—which allows little circular movement around London—greatly increases the length, confusion and difficulty of their travelling day. One of our mayoral candidates has already warned us that he has plans to apply charges in the central area. He said that he would try it as a pilot scheme, with the prospect of expanding it. The scheme would probably apply charging even to residents, as it would to those who are forced to travel in or through the charge zone. Such zones evoke visions of merely moving the problem of parking congestion from the centres progressively outwards. Such movement is happening already, particularly in London, as local authorities are able to implement changes in parking systems and facilities. The zones will increasingly move outwards, affecting ever more people who wish to commute into the major cities.
  Many of my constituents regularly have to go for treatment at hospitals in, for example, Epsom, Tooting and central London, but they cannot use public transport. Effectively, therefore, they will have to pay an extra cost—a fee—for the privilege of having a London mayor and for implementation of the Bill's proposals.
  The Government have shown no ability to learn from the past. I therefore anticipate that implementation of those two aspects of the Bill will cause not only considerable dissatisfaction, but the greatest difficulties. Nevertheless, I imagine that the Government will plough on regardless, and that they will apply plenty of spin. However, when things go wrong with the programmes—as they will—the blame will again be laid on local government.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Jim Dobbin: Two former Secretaries of State for Transport, now on the Opposition Benches, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) have referred to workplace parking charges. My former workplace, a national health service hospital, had workplace charges. Patients and visitors were charged for parking. So were doctors, nurses and other health service workers, some of them on extremely low pay. That happened during the early 1990s, under the Conservative Government.

  605
  I should like to turn to local and regional matters. I welcome the Bill, with a single reservation about the air traffic control proposals. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members must not wander about the Chamber in front of hon. Members who are addressing the House.
  Mr. Dobbin: I shall return to air traffic control later.
  Transport will be a central issue at the next election. I am sure that most of my constituents will support the thrust of the Government's 10-year plan. Heywood and Middleton is split by the M60—formerly the M62—and the motorway carries traffic across the country from Liverpool to Hull as well as taking feeder traffic from the M6 and the M 1. It carries a huge volume of heavy goods vehicles. The distribution park network to either side of the motorway generates many vehicle movements 24 hours a day through my local communities. That has been the result, I think, of bad land use planning decisions in the past and a failure to create direct access to and from those parks to the motorway. Some of the best attended public meetings that I have held have been about the continual noise, pollution and disturbance suffered by those communities.
  I therefore support the joint working taking place for the first time between the three Departments brought together by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Consultation between those three arms should help to alleviate the type of problem that I have described. I look forward to hearing the Government's proposals for local transport plans, and the encouragement that those initiatives will offer local authorities to work together across boundaries and to agree an integrated approach to local transport within regional and national guidelines.
  My constituents also complain about bus services. Will buses come in time? Will they be clean? Will they arrive at all? Such questions are especially pertinent at weekends when evening services are few and far between. Bus deregulation and the competitive battle that followed caused confusion. There was a lack of information, and there was certainly a reduction in quality. Greater involvement by local authorities is absolutely essential. Local traffic plans could and would have immense influence on ticketing policies, traffic information and the environment.
  I make a plea for an early decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the extension of metrolink to include the Oldham-Rochdale link and links in other parts of Greater Manchester. Metrolink has been a tremendous success in helping to reduce car journeys in and around Greater Manchester. It has been proven to work. If combined with developments at Manchester airport, where forecasts of increased employment and economic growth are extremely good, metrolink and improved bus services would work together to form a strong integrated approach to transport. Manchester airport is, incidentally, a public sector airport, owned by local authorities. It also has borrowing powers, a point referred to by other hon. Members.
  On a recent visit to Switzerland with the all-party rail freight group, I saw systems for transferring freight from road to rail. I look forward to a growth in strategically
  606
  placed rail terminals throughout the country, as that would go some way to resolving heavy goods vehicles problems in local communities. I am aware that grant funding exists, but wish that local authorities and other bodies were encouraged to take it on board. It never ceases to amaze me that we in the United Kingdom often have difficulty achieving planning agreement for the imposition of double yellow lines or "Give Way" signs, while in Switzerland, tunnels are being driven through the Alps. That shows the difference of approach.
  I look forward to new and imaginative transport policies. I am enthusiastic about the Government's proposals for local integrated transport. However, I am not convinced by their proposals on air traffic control. The primary issue is passenger safety. I have never been convinced by the commercial sector's response to safety. Experience down the years, from the mines being put into private ownership to the North sea ferry tragedies and the Paddington rail crash, shows an unwillingness in the private sector to prioritise safety over profit. In The Guardian today, I read that the Government have accused the nuclear power industry of endangering safety to save money by getting rid of staff. In recent days, the water regulator has instructed water authorities to reduce prices, and the industry has responded by announcing staff cuts that will, in my view, endanger water quality.
  I remain to be convinced that even partial privatisation of air traffic control would not follow a similar course. History tells us that it would. However, I shall not vote against the Government tonight as I want to hear more detail from the Secretary of State on the matter. My right hon. Friend and the Minister of Transport have placed the matter at the top of their agenda, and there is time to reconsider it.
  Finally, I should like the Secretary of State to consider extending Eurostar to the north-west, which would be a tremendous boon to the whole north of England. I want the transpennine rail networks to develop, as that would complete the transport integration policies that I want to see in the north of England.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. John Randall: Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest, as a director of a retail store which has ample free parking for customer and staff alike.
  Despite having been exposed to the Government's breathtaking arrogance and cynical deceit for more than two long years, I was still flabbergasted to read in the Government's annual report for 1998-99 that they had successfully developed an integrated transport policy. Whom are they kidding? Where is it? Is this supposed to be it? Having listened to Lord Macdonald on the radio this morning, I can say that their policy is rapidly disintegrating.
  I suppose that we should at least be grateful that at last, after two and a half years, the Government have got round to introducing a Transport Bill. Their obsession with spin in this case has made them look ridiculous. Millions of people every day are confronted by the reality of congested roads, overcrowded trains and, in London, an extremely busy and increasingly strained tube network. People want solutions to problems, not the strangulated hyperbole of the Deputy Prime Minister. According to a recent opinion poll, the majority of respondents thought that transport would never improve under the Government's policies.

  607
  We realise that the problems are huge; they have not materialised overnight and solving them will not be easy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) reminded us that we have some of the most congested roads in western Europe. The problems vary depending on where people live in Britain—in an urban, suburban or rural environment.
  The Labour party spent 18 years telling the country how awful transport was under those evil Conservatives, but precious little time thinking about how they would solve the problems. Perhaps they were too busy telling us that they would not sell our air, while getting the sale tickets ready.
  Before the election, the Labour party promised immediate changes. Two and a half years later, the Deputy Prime Minister has put that back to 10 years. It will also become increasingly difficult for the House to monitor what progress the Government will make when an unelected peer has been put in the driving seat of the Government's transport policy. That transport policy has seen the expenditure of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on main transport programmes fall by 24 per cent. over the period 1996-97 to 1998-99, at a time when public frustration and impatience are growing daily.
  The gulf between the Government's promises and their achievement is also widening daily. I am sure that Downing street cannot wait for the new year, so that this year—the year of delivery—can be forgotten. If the Government were in business, they would be paying the electorate compensation for their lamentable failure.
  I should like to express my genuine sympathy for the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe that he is sincere in his aim of improving the transport system but he has been isolated and ignored by the Prime Minister. The poor old Deputy Prime Minister has effectively been torpedoed and is now holed below the water-line. All we can do is watch as he slowly and inexorably sinks from our sight.
  I have a number of general remarks about the Bill. Naturally, with regard to my constituency of Uxbridge—which is in London but happily still not run by London—some of its provisions on road pricing and workplace charging have already been covered by the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Sadly, we were denied the opportunity of properly debating the issues by a guillotine motion imposed by this increasingly authoritarian and non-democratic Government. However, the issues of principle and the problems of implementing such schemes are identical, so I shall be discussing some of the implications of these measures.
  First, however, I turn to the part of the Bill that deals with the future of National Air Traffic Services. I have an interest in this because the air traffic control centre, although in the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), is on my doorstep, and many NATS employees live in my constituency. Apart from that, I hardly need mention that a huge amount of air traffic passes over the area daily.
  Many NATS employees have contacted me expressing strong reservations about the plans in the Bill. Naturally, safety is their primary concern, as I suggest it is for all hon. Members. This part of the Bill separates the Civil
  608
  Aviation Authority from NATS. The CAA will remain fully in the public sector while the status of NATS changes through the public-private partnership. I do not want to get distracted by whether full-scale privatisation or PPP is the best mechanism for providing NATS with its future funds for investment, but I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the effectiveness of the safety regime under the new arrangements.
  A constituent of mine who works for NATS in West Drayton wrote to me with details of a case that had been drawn to his attention by a member of his staff. This engineer had joined NATS from a privately run airport which was separately regulated. He was the only engineer for the whole airport and had to repair and maintain all the tower systems and the instrument landing system. During work on the latter, he was instructed to falsify the maintenance documentation so that the safety regulator would not demand expensive, but necessary, flight testing. The company in question is one of the proposed bidders for NATS. My constituent's concern—one shared by Members on both sides of the House who have reservations as to this part of the Bill—is how we can ensure that safety is in no way compromised by the separation of NATS from the CAA.
  The matter is of such importance that the Government should have dealt with the proposals for NATS in a separate Bill. They must listen to these concerns, and must be aware that public opinion shows that there are serious doubts as to the wisdom of their policy.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to go into the details of that important case on the Floor of House, but has he passed them to the Government?
  Mr. Randall: I have not done so at present.
  I have much sympathy with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang). However, if I found myself in the company of the amendment's supporters in the Lobby tonight, not only would it put them off but I should soon become the target of dubious enticements by the Labour party.
  Under the Bill, local transport plans and bus strategies will become a statutory responsibility for all local authorities. The authorities
  "must develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their area."
  That is where we see how cowardly the Government are. We are told that they are serious about reducing road traffic—or rather, they were. As we now know, they have abandoned that policy and have gone into reverse at speed. The Bill is yesterday's Bill. It seems that the Government have realised that congestion charging will be too unpopular and workplace parking charging will be wholly unworkable, so they are washing their hands of the measures. They say, "It's not our job." Local authorities will be left to implement the measures, if they are implemented at all. That will mean that one local authority will be in direct conflict with another; businesses will be forced to migrate from authority to authority like herds of wildebeest on the plains of the Serengeti. That is not an integrated measure.
  Workplace charging will not deter motorists; it will only add to their misery. Motorists will either have to pay out yet again, or will clog up streets and residential areas.

  609
  It is continually said—but it remains fundamental to trying to solve the problem of traffic congestion—that public transport must be dramatically improved. The quality and efficiency of the service, and its price, are of the utmost importance. Sadly, the Government are unwilling to provide real money to deal with the problem, which only gets worse by the day. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs report on the White Paper pointed out that, without spending money up front on improvements to public transport before the introduction of charges, the schemes will be seen by many motorists as yet another attack on the driver. The need for consultation will ensure that local authorities have difficulty in introducing charges against a backdrop of popular opposition.
  Why have the Government suggested only a 10-year period for hypothecation? Does that mean that, after 10 years, the charges will become yet another tax on the hard pressed driver?
  This morning, I heard Lord Macdonald admit on the "Today" programme that the Government had suddenly realised that their policy of last week was flawed. I found it slightly strange to hear the Minister express a desire to see more cars on the roads, although nothing about the Government much surprises me now. The Bill will do little to improve the lot of the travelling public. If the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department had the courage of their convictions on congestion charging and its efficacy, they would not have passed the buck—of sorting out the matter—to local authorities.
  To a great extent, the Deputy Prime Minister's hands have been tied by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. We know that that is why the Bill was delayed for so long. The Deputy Prime Minister is being lined up as the eventual fall guy for the Government's transport failures. The Bill is deeply flawed; by the Government's admission, it passed its sell-by date before even reaching the shops. I suggest that the Government take it away and put some real thought into it before they bring it back. I might then be able to support it. At present, I shall have no problem in opposing Second Reading.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: Two matters of significance have emerged from the past few hours of debate. The first is that although, as those of us with long memories recall, integrated transport policy has been mentioned many times over the years, we have never before had a Secretary of State—as we have now, in the form of the Deputy Prime Minister—with the determination and courage to define "integrated transport policy". My right hon. Friend is therefore to be congratulated on having the courage and determination to introduce the Bill.
  The other thing that is of significance, against the background of congestion costing the country some £20 billion a year, and of an anticipated increase in traffic over the next 10 years of some 30 per cent.—that is another 8 million vehicles on the road—is the mixed message that we have heard from Conservative Members. The do-nothing brigade have said, "Just let things continue as they are". Then we had that notable speech by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), setting out what is best described as a blancmange policy of extra capacity—not thought out,
  610
  and without costings or details. That is the sort of argument that the Conservative party has asked the House to take seriously tonight.
  In the time available, I want to comment on the four parts of the Bill and make some suggestions that I hope that my hon. Friends the Ministers can act on.
  I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and others, who have implied that because there will be a duty on local authorities, local transport plans are, first, a Government abdication of responsibility and, secondly, bound to end in disaster. I see the passing of responsibility to local authorities as a strength, because it is ludicrous that there could be a national integrated transport policy, decided in Whitehall and passed on to local authorities to implement. The strength of the proposals in the Bill is the recognition that if an integrated transport policy is to work—and, my goodness, we now have the best chance in generations to make such a policy work—it must involve differing solutions in different parts of the country. It makes perfect sense for local transport plans to be the bedrock of such a policy, within a national framework.
  However, I remain to be convinced on quality partnerships for buses. I am one of those who supports quality contracts. I like to see franchises. Quality contracts will give local authorities the teeth to ensure that bus operators live up to their contractual terms. They would also provide a golden opportunity to bring education transport—a massive area of transport need, which uses a massive amount of resources—within the ambit of quality contracts. Education transport is left out of quality partnerships.
  The other aspect of quality partnerships that bothers me is that while there is an agreement between bus operators and a local authority, a local authority has no means to prevent a bus operator from withdrawing a service. The operator need give only 40 days' notice and withdraw it, and the quality partnership starts to be adversely affected.
  Three very important points need to be made about road user charging and workplace parking charging. The first has already been mentioned. The idea has been advanced by the official Opposition that such charging is the only shot in the locker—the only measure that local authorities will have with which to affect positively the terrible congestion that we are facing now, which is likely to grow. That is nonsense. A whole range of options is available to local authorities and managing road space is one of them. To try to give the impression—I think that Conservative Members have failed—that the proposal declares war on the motorist is abject nonsense.
  It is important, however, that the Government recognise the importance of three points. First, if we are to achieve public acceptance of what will be an unpopular and controversial measure, there must be broad consultation. Secondly, resources will have to be made available up front. The Government will have seriously to consider allowing local authorities to borrow on the basis of future income streams so that public transport alternatives are in place at least at the same time as, or preferably before, workplace and road charging are introduced. Thirdly, I endorse a point that has already been made. The 10-year hypothecation period seems to be too short. We should think in terms of at least 15 years and probably longer. The issues are long term. Changes will not happen overnight or even in the five-year period that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned.

  611
  I enthusiastically welcome the proposal for a Strategic Rail Authority. I say to those who voted against the proposal for a Strategic Rail Authority on the Second Reading of the Railways Bill, who opposed its consideration in a Select Committee and who have expressed their opposition again tonight, that every private company in the railway industry supports the establishment of such an authority. Conservative Members believe that they know what is best, but they are against the united opinion of every company in the railway sector.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Transport Sub-Committee and he knows full well that I did not dismiss out of hand the principle of a Strategic Rail Authority. However, I wish to make a simple point. Every one of the companies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned thinks, "My goodness—anybody but the present Secretary of State running the railways." They are looking for someone with sense and who can bring parties together to help the railways to operate better. Instead, the Secretary of State just criticises and shouts at the railway companies.
  Mr. Stevenson: I have only 15 minutes in which to speak, so I wish that I had not wasted the past 30 seconds with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Indeed, one of the major transport operators in the country, Stagecoach, wanted the Government to go even further and to give the Strategic Rail Authority more power than it will have. We can give an enthusiastic welcome to the establishment of the authority.
  Mr. Quinn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Stevenson: I am trying to calculate how much longer I have left to speak; I think that I can give way.
  Mr. Quinn: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he aware of the statement by Railtrack, which welcomed the establishment of a Strategic Rail Authority? Railtrack is geared to working closely with the SRA and it looks forward to the authority gaining its full powers. It states:
  "The strategic overview which the SRA will provide will be helpful and we welcome the clarification of"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a mini speech.
  Mr. Stevenson: My hon. Friend simply endorses the point that I made earlier.
  I draw attention to an important point. If we consider Railtrack's investment particularly in the first three years of its existence, the way that it is moving away at a rate of knots from its commitment to expanding freight facilities and the way that it is trying to develop a scare scenario by suggesting that improvements to the west coast main line will cost three times more than it originally envisaged, it appears that it is trying to make the case that it will not be able to invest in the way that we want to invest unless the Government are prepared to put in more money. If that happens, serious consideration must be given to how the public interest will be protected in that scenario.
  612
  I turn now to the proposals for National Air Traffic Services. In a recent sitting of the Select Committee, the chief executive of NATS, Mr. Bill Semple, was asked whether he could name any country that has privatised its air traffic control system. His immediate answer was, "Yes." The next question was, "Which?" His reply was, "Fiji." The chief executive of NATS seriously stated that Fiji is an important factor in his support of the proposals. That is ludicrous.
  The next question was why all other countries, including the United States, had not embraced privatisation of their air traffic control services. It was suggested that perhaps they did not have the courage—as presumably the Government are suggesting that they themselves have—to break the mould. That may be so, but the notion that those countries have not had the courage to break the mould seems worthy of consideration. However, it may be that all those countries had considered privatisation, and rejected it. I suspect that the latter possibility is the more likely. Those countries must therefore have come up with models that meet all the objectives that the Government desire, while retaining the public control that is necessary in the public interest.
  I shall support the Government tonight, but they have a lot more arguing to do on the NATS proposals before they will convince many Labour Members that they have got it right. We shall be watching extremely carefully to see what consideration the Government will give to ensuring that the objectives that they have, rightly, set for the future of NATS are achieved without going down what many of us consider, for many reasons, to be a dangerous road.
  8.53 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to contribute to the Second Reading debate on this Bill, which has been long awaited and heralds the Government's much-promised policies. I declare an interest in that I am married to a British director of a prominent American airline company, and I sit on the Royal Automobile Club public policy committee, which carries certain privileges.
  I regret that the Bill is too ambitious and that the Secretary of State will find it impossible to deliver. In summing up the Bill, we can liken it to the Secretary of State himself: it is good-natured but long-winded and incoherent. I am unable to support the Bill and regret that the Government have not introduced four separate Bills to which the House could have done full justice.
  I regret also the way in which the Secretary of State has personally been undermined by the appointment of a powerful Minister for Transport in another place. The fact that the Minister is not accountable to the House is deeply regrettable. The man who is entrusted with the Government's 10-year transport programme is unable to be questioned by, and held to account in this Chamber.
  Mr. Gray: Is it not odd that the Minister for Transport is the fourth Scot to fulfil that role? Scottish transport matters are decided in Edinburgh, and decisions on English roads are being made by a Scotsman.
  Miss McIntosh: As my hon. Friend will realise, I have no hesitation in welcoming the fact that Scots are being promoted.

  613
  I want to place on record that I am about to make a robust attack on the Government policies set out in the Bill. To those who are interested in the current hotbed of attacks and counter-attacks, I say that this lady is not for turning, and I am not about to cross the Floor of the House. 1 hope to make many more, similar speeches from these Benches.
  I turn to the part of the Bill that deals with National Air Traffic Services, establishing a public-private partnership with a strategic private sector partner. Why did the Government feel incapable of a simple flotation, with a remaining golden-share issue to secure permanent United Kingdom control? The proposal amounts to semi-privatisation, which is regrettable and, for that reason, unacceptable. It is a halfway house: a semi-detached NATS rather than a privatised one with a golden share.
  I have the privilege to serve on the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, under the capable and amiable chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She has placed on record in this debate her personal opposition to the proposed PPP for NATS. I note the omission of her name among the 50 Members supporting the amendment, headed by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang). She finds herself in excellent and assorted company. Her opposition is undoubtedly a source of deep embarrassment for the Government. We look to the Minister to respond to that embarrassment.
  I turn to part II on local transport plans and buses. The Government have said on a number of occasions in this Chamber that the number of bus routes has increased this year. That is simply not true. In Vale of York, we are at least one bus route short from the beginning of the year. It was a crucial route: it was the first to be withdrawn, initially in February. Following complaints from several constituents, which I supported, it was reinstated, only to be taken away again at the end of the summer. The route was from Haxby Wiggington to the city of York, stopping at the hospital, the station and the theatre. I plead with the Government to ensure that, under them, one's first bus is not one's last.
  Continuing with the transport analogy, the Government must not put the cart before the horse. If they are to be truly ambitious about greater passenger use of public transport, investment in improved public transport services must precede congestion charging or workplace parking levies. We await the winding-up speech to hear whether the Government will announce such a commitment and honour that obligation.
  Government policies in practice, and current local transport plans in particular, do not inspire confidence. Let us take another example from Vale of York. The latest park and ride scheme is to be removed from its existing site on Clifton Moor business park, which is ideal. Drivers are currently invited to park their cars and visit shops on the business park, which many do, before taking the bus into York and therefore ease congestion. Many pedestrians also take the bus for convenience.
  Let us contrast the present site with the newly constructed park and ride scheme on greenbelt land—yes, greenbelt land in Vale of York, confirming the Deputy Prime Minister's promise that Labour created the green belt and now wants to build on it—at Rawcliffe on the A19. The site is close to the most congested roundabout
  614
  on the outskirts of York. Those living in Rawcliffe do not welcome the scheme, and those living in Clifton Moor regret the impending loss of their park and ride site, as they now have to start their cars in order to take the bus. Those living in Skelton and Shipton are horrified to learn that the congestion and tailbacks on to the A 1 9 from the Rawcliffe roundabout in their direction are likely hugely to increase.
  Rather than relieving congestion and increasing the scope and use of public transport, the park and ride scheme will increase congestion and result in fewer people using public transport in Vale of York. That ingenious yet somewhat surprising policy was the brainchild of Labour's flagship council—none less than City of York unitary authority. What does that tell us about Labour's public transport policy?
  I shall address briefly part III, which deals with road charges and the workplace parking levy. As I mentioned, I have the honour to work with the RAC on its public policy committee. It has raised fundamental points, which I invite the Government to take on board.
  In the RAC's view, the motorist must be convinced that road pricing is a charge, not a tax; otherwise, the concept will be unacceptable and unviable. For the Government to make that distinction between charges and taxes, motorists must be persuaded that there are publicly endorsed objectives and convinced of the transparency of the operation, spending hypothecation and the additionality of revenues raised.
  If trunk road charging is introduced, charges must not be set at such a level as to encourage diversion from the most used or preferred route. Public transport in many towns and cities—including York, part of which falls in my constituency—cannot cope with the existing number of peak-time commuters, so it would be unfair to charge motorists before improving public transport. We await a decision early next year from the European Court of Justice on the question of imposing VAT on congestion charging and tolls. Do Ministers accept that revenues derived from those VAT charges should be fully hypothecated into local transport?
  The Secretary of State has said that safety is and will remain of paramount importance. One can only assume that safety is of equal importance in all sectors, including rail transport. However, in their response to the Select Committee report on the Railways Bill, the Government state:
  "The review of transport safety arrangements which the Government initiated in response to the Committee's earlier recommendations is nearing completion."
  Only when it is completed will the Government address
  "the case for unified, independent arrangements for safety regulation and accident investigation."
  The Government are non-committal as to which functions will fall to a new authority. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that a single body will assume overall responsibility for transport safety in the rail sector. We do not want safety in the industry to become fragmented between a plethora of organisations, including the Strategic Rail Authority, the railways regulator, Railtrack, the Health and Safety Executive and the new safety authority. The public want to know which body is to have ultimate responsibility for rail safety.
  The Bill must ensure the independence of the British Transport police from Railtrack and the train operating companies: the independence of BTP officers must be

  615
  beyond doubt. Finally, I ask that the promised regional Eurostar services from York, Newcastle and Edinburgh direct to Paris and Brussels be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. Because of the Government's actions or omissions, and because four full Bills have been crammed into one, I am unable to support the Bill and will oppose it this evening.
  9.3 pm
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak, and glad to follow the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), with whom I work on the RAC public policy committee. I do that in a voluntary capacity.
  This is a landmark Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, it is the first major transport Bill for 30 years. It will put right years of Tory neglect of Britain's transport system. It follows and builds on the details set out in the integrated transport White Paper, which has now been put in the context of a 10-year transport strategy. The policies it contains contrast sharply with the predict-and-provide policies of the previous Administration.
  I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who pointed out Opposition Members' lack of reference to the environment. It is staggering that Conservative Members barely mentioned the importance of transport in improving our environment. Hon. Members know that that greatly concerns our constituents, especially young people. We cannot do anything about the environment without considering our transport system, which is what the Bill tries to do.
  Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party's suggestions about motorway tolling would severely damage the environment by driving traffic through villages and areas of natural beauty?
  Ms Winterton: I agree, although it was surprising to hear any proposals from the Conservatives: on the whole, they merely attacked ours without making any constructive ones of their own.
  The Bill contains radical forms of financing, including public-private partnership. Many comments were made about that by Government and Opposition Members and I am sure that the discussions will continue in Committee. Another radical form of financing is hypothecation from congestion and workplace parking charges. The direct expenditure of money from those charges on improving public transport in local areas is welcome. That comes on top of the announcement on fuel duty, whereby money raised over and above inflation will go directly into a fund for transport. That is good news for Britain's transport system.
  As I said, I serve in a voluntary capacity as a member of the RAC's public policy committee. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) talked about some of what the AA has been saying. The RAC surveys many thousands of motorists every year. Those surveys show clearly that there is a consensus among motorists that the real anti-car policy is to do nothing about congestion.
  Mr. Paul Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the important thing about local transport plans
  616
  and the options given on congestion charging or using of roads in a different way is that local people and organisations can decide the best solutions for their areas?
  Ms Winterton: I agree and will say more about that. The Conservatives seem completely incapable of understanding that, possibly because of their attitude to local government when they were in power.
  Motorists know that the forecast increase in car growth and the need to tackle environmental problems mean that something must be done. That is why the principle of hypothecation established in the Bill is so important. Motorists have reservations about congestion charging. That is shown by the RAC surveys. However, most motorists support congestion charging provided that the money raised is put back directly into improving public transport.
  There is also clear evidence, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that if motorists are subject to congestion charging, they will seriously consider alternatives such as car sharing, so that they use cars less. Many motorists have said that they would consider other forms of transport if public transport were improved.
  It is important—this was one of the RAC's concerns, and was highlighted in the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark)—that there should be thorough consultation when local transport plans are drawn up, particularly if congestion charging is proposed.
  Many of the Government's policies have concentrated on ensuring that the local community is consulted when the local authority draws up plans. That is important in ensuring local support for any changes that take place. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, Ministers will make it clear that they expect there to be thorough consultation by local transport authorities. Perhaps they will suggest how such consultation should take place, and the guidance that might be issued; for example, local disability groups should be included. I have previously raised some of the concerns of the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
  It is right that the Government have given local authorities the power to raise money locally for the improvement of public transport.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Does my hon. Friend agree that when congestion charging schemes are discussed as part of that consultation process, it is important that they should have credibility, and that, if they are to have credibility, it is likely that there will need to be a clear relationship between car use and charging? Various organisations and bodies have drawn attention to the relative merits of a congestion charging scheme based on entering certain areas—as opposed, for example, to a workplace parking scheme.
  Ms Winterton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments, and I shall offer some suggestions in that regard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke about the importance of planning at national level. It is also important that planning goes on at local level—particularly a strategic look at the needs of the local community and how those needs can be met. In my area of South Yorkshire, even 10-year-olds talk about the days when the South Yorkshire transport system

  617
  was healthy, before the Tories destroyed it. I believe that local authorities can be imaginative and forward-thinking in their proposals. Those can be popular locally, contrary to comments from the Opposition.
  The Bill restores to local authorities the ability to be imaginative and forward-looking. Transport authorities can learn from each other. There should be a facility for exchanging best practice. I hope that Ministers will assist with that. Where local authorities have taken radical steps that have improved public transport, it would be helpful if other authorities were given information about that and encouraged to adopt similar policies.
  I should like to make a suggestion, which follows on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden): it might be useful for organisations such as the Motorists Forum, which the Government set up, to work alongside the RAC and the AA to examine local transport plans that have improved life for the motorist and have proved most effective, so that we can follow the best examples.
  Integration is the key to local transport plans. Bringing together provision for car, bus and rail users is important. The quality bus partnerships and the quality contracts that the Bill proposes will help to end the years of misery that deregulation has caused, leaving many people in constituencies such as mine isolated and without access to the services that they need.
  Railways are an important part of making a properly integrated transport system work. I welcome the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority, but I want to underline the points that my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) made about the concerns of PTAs, and especially their relationship with the SRA in setting priorities. We need to ensure that there is no conflict between the priorities of the PTAs and those of the SRA; any locally devised plan should bring those priorities together.
  My constituency is in the centre of Doncaster, a town that was run down by the previous Government. Once a thriving industrial town, it now qualifies for objective 1 status as one of the poorest regions in Europe. In my constituency, 40 per cent. of people do not have access to a car. It is important to make good public transport a priority in my constituency if we are to create the regeneration that is necessary to get the area back on its feet and to get people back to work. Business has welcomed the moves to improve public transport—it realises that that is good for it—and my constituents will welcome the Bill because it will improve their quality of life in the next millennium.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. James Gray: It is a privilege to follow two hon. Ladies who are members of the RAC public policy committee. I must admit that I agree more with one than with the other, although I congratulate the other—the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—on the excellence of her timekeeping.
  Before the general election, Labour's transport document promised immediate benefits for the travelling public. Since the Opposition day debate a week ago, however, we have discovered that we are considering not immediate benefits to the travelling public but, as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested, a 10-year plan.
  618
  The benefit for the Government is that, by the time of the next general election, we will not know whether they have delivered. In 1999—the year of delivery—they have certainly not delivered on transport.
  Let me quote from a recent transport debate:
  "Under the present Government, transport policy is in chaos. Road budgets have been slashed. Investment … slashed … the Government are lining up new taxes for the motorist. A congestion tax is coming soon … The truth is that the Government are anti-motorist, but have no credible public transport policy to offer in its place … We are wholly against the policies that the Government are pursuing."—[Official Report, 15 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 623-24.]
  That was said not by a Conservative transport guru but by a Labour Member of Parliament: none other than the honourable—I use the word loosely—Member for Witney (Mr. woodward), who was right about transport, although I disagree with him on so many other subjects.
  The Labour Government have not even begun to deliver on transport: their approach is fundamentally flawed and gives a fascinating glimpse into the realities of new Labour thinking. It is all about central planning and the state knowing best: "We've got an integrated transport White Paper. We are clever fellows. We know all about it. Do what we tell you and you'll be all right." That is exactly what Labour did to the economy under Wilson and Callaghan—central government and telling the people what they want. What works in transport terms is providing the travelling public with the services they want and the comfort they demand at a price they can afford. The market does that, not central planning, which is where Labour is wrong.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I am terribly sorry, but I have only five minutes in which to speak.
  The second fundamental flaw in Labour's transport policy is that the Government are saying not, "Here is what we shall do to make transport better," but, "Here are the things that we shall not allow you to do, even if you want to do them." That particularly applies to cars. Why are petrol prices going through the roof and why are the Government introducing congestion charging and workplace taxes? It is not because motorists want to get off the road but to get motorists off the road. They are saying to motorists who want to use their cars for perfectly legitimate tasks, "You may not use them and we will tax you to make sure that you don't." They are interfering with the freedom of individuals to do what they could reasonably want to do.
  Who will the measures affect? Not the fat cats, not company car drivers and not Ministers zipping around in their limos, but those who can least afford to pay for them. Let me quote a Labour professor, Professor Grant, who is a leading expert in car pollution at the university of Warwick:
  "Even if you remove the vehicles from the road, others often appear in their place. People assume that the congestion has gone and use their cars again."
  Congestion charging not only affects those who can least afford to pay for it but does not work. If it did work and we managed to clear the roads by that means, what would happen? People would come back on to the roads. I suggest that congestion charging represents entirely

  619
  flawed and entirely wrong thinking and is a way of finding more revenue for the Treasury. It is all about the Government saying, "We know best and we are going to mess you lot out there around so that you'll do what we want you to do."
  The same applies, but in another way, to the Strategic Rail Authority. The Government are saying, "Right, let's not leave it to Richard Branson and other business men to make money from providing decent transport; let's set up a centralised quango to dictate to the companies and tell them what we want them to do and how we will restrict them. My goodness, Mr. Branson! Make a profit? How awful. Labour does not like profits—no, no, no. We will restrict your profits as much as we possibly can so that you cannot invest or make money from providing a decent service for the people who travel on your trains."
  The same applies, in a funny way, to the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. Again, the Government will not allow the market to have its say. They will not allow NATS to make a profit and will not allow people to say, "Fine, let's make money and let those in the City invest in air traffic control so that we can make a profit from it." They say, "Oh no, we'll come up with a botched job. We shall do our best to produce something that looks a bit like privatisation. We will buy off the left wingers on our Back Benches, with something that is not truly a privatisation." The same applies to buses.
  Labour's whole approach to transport is to centralise, dictate to the people and say, "We know best." In two and a half years in power it has made a mess of transport, which has been taken out of the Secretary of State's hands. We are glad about that because one thing is for sure: the Minister for Transport cannot make a worse mess than he has.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for those concluding remarks from the Back Benches because he has summed up the fundamental flaw in the Government's thinking, but I have enjoyed the whole debate and am grateful to all those who have taken part. It is notable that, apart from the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), every Labour Back-Bench contribution has contained at least some criticism of the Bill, which makes a change. I have no doubt, however, that, as in the previous transport debate, the Government will win and think that they have achieved a great triumph, but we will have created confusion and dispute among them. We will have undermined the credibility of the Secretary of State and, like last time, we shall find that transport has been hypothecated to the other place.
  This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) rightly said, in a civilised Parliament its provisions would merit four Bills. Here are 258 pages, but where is the beef?
  We are told that the Government will announce another 10-year plan of £80 billion investment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, £80 billion is a modest sum compared with the amounts raised and invested by the previous Conservative Government.
  620
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) asked, where is the new capacity that the Bill was to provide, because it contains no provision for increased capacity? As for an integrated transport policy, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) reminded us of the immortal words that often appear in Private Eye, "Er—that's it." That is the Government's policy.
  Mr. Prescott: That's it?
  Mr. Jenkin: That is the question that we are asking, and the right hon. Gentleman might muse on that.
  Is an integrated transport policy really represented by local transport plans? They put more compulsory burdens on local authorities and offer more bureaucracy and more guidance from the Secretary of State.
  Mr. John Heppell: Rubbish.
  Mr. Jenkin: Who said rubbish?
  Mr. Heppell: I did.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will see that it says that the authorities must do this and local authorities must do that. It imposes further obligations that will cost money and produce nothing. Local transport plans are already undertaken by responsible authorities voluntarily, and that is what should happen.
  Is bus re-regulation the sum total of an integrated transport policy? I am not referring to the idea of quality partnerships in clause 96, which have some merit. I do not want to discomfit the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who is not in his place, but I think that quality partnerships should be allowed to determine the frequency and timing of services. I hope that he will consider our amendment when we get to that clause.
  The question of quality contracts is covered in 11 clauses of bus re-regulation. We are going back to the town hall monopolies, excluding operators from competing on routes on which they may have been operating for some time. That is the path back to reduced efficiency and higher cost.
  Let us have the truth about bus deregulation. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, the decline in bus ridership was much faster before than after bus deregulation. In the 10 years prior to bus deregulation, the average annual decline in bus ridership was 1.2 per cent., and the Government inherited a decline of just 0.3 per cent. It remains to be seen whether the Government's policies add anything to bus ridership in the long term.
  Throwing money at the problem may produce visible effects, but the rural bus partnership scheme is an expensive policy. In my county, the price ranges from £14 to £162 per passenger journey on one of the bus services in my constituency. That does not seem a wise allocation of resources.
  It was interesting that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said that bus ridership continued to hold up after bus deregulation. I noticed that his phone rang at that point, which suggests that someone was trying to tell him that he was off-message.

  621
  Do congestion and car park taxes constitute an integrated transport policy? My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) asked who will pay these taxes and who will be exempt, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Cambridgeshire asked how much the charge will be. How high does it need to be to produce a reduction in congestion? The Minister should answer that question, because the Secretary of State failed to do so. That is one of the conditions that the CBI attaches to its support for this policy. What should the limits to the charge be, what is the administrative cost, what will be the burdens on business and what will be the effect on the value of properties? Forcing people out of their cars before alternatives are in place is the Government's policy. They have decided to give the dirty work to local authorities, because they know how unpopular their policy will be, and are determined not to carry the can. I give the House this pledge: we will nail the Government with the unpopularity of their policies.
  We endlessly hear the new word recently invented, or discovered, by the Secretary of State—hypothecation. The Secretary of State does not understand the difference between hypothecation and additionality. He has been given no guarantees by the Treasury about the baseline transport funding on which local authorities depend.
  Mr. Prescott: Watch this space.
  Mr. Jenkin: Let us watch the spaces that the right hon. Gentleman has been filling and vacating recently. He announced, with great panache and all the usual Labour spin, last week's £750 million transport supplementary grant and credit approval settlement. In fact, the grant constituted only 1.8 per cent. of the settlement; a staggering £624 million must be raised in loans. That is the lowest proportion of grant to loans that has featured since the system was established.
  Indeed, the total settlement represents a significant cut in the context of the £1.54 billion that we announced in 1994–95. That is how we achieved improvements such as the Croydon tramlink and the Manchester metrolink under the last Government, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman has not approved a single light rail scheme since he took office.
  The idea that we should depend on the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations with the Treasury for the future of investment in public transport is just more pie in the sky. Is the Strategic Rail Authority an example of the integrated transport policy? All this is based on the premise that privatisation has produced nothing.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am short of time. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
  What about the £2 bill ion of additional investment produced by the train operating companies since privatisation, the huge investment announced by Railtrack, the 1,000 new train services, the 25 per cent. increase in passengers, and the fact that more passengers are in trains of their own free will? That is testament to the benefits of privatisation. We do not need a Strategic Rail Authority to build on that; we merely need a Secretary of State who knows his job.
  622
  The one benefit conferred by Sir Alastair Morton's taking over of the Secretary of State's responsibility for the railways is that something will be done. That contrasts with the stagnation that we have experienced over the past two and a half years. We do not want re-regulation of the railways, and we do not want the politicisation of the regulator. The Government's policy has led to a share price collapse on Railtrack, and demands for increases in rail fares from the regulator under the stewardship of the Secretary of State.
  The 13 December issue of The Guardian carries the headline
  "Rail fares shock for Prescott",
  and a Financial Times headline tells us:
  "Railtrack seeks huge increase in subsidies".
  That is the right hon. Gentleman's policy, and that shows what he has spoilt since he took over as Secretary of State. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, the Bill produces no new money for the railway; all that has happened is that confidence has been undermined.
  All but three Labour Back Benchers spoke with only one purpose in mind: to criticise the Government's proposals for the sale of NATS. Here we saw the House of Commons coming back to life, and serving the purpose for which it was designed. It is encouraging to note that, when a dispute in the Labour party finally surfaces, it surfaces here. This is where the reputations of Ministers are made and broken.
  The Bill completely fails to resolve any of the issues that have been raised by the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends. The actual shape of the privatisation is not in the Bill. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) tried to pretend that that was an advantage, and that there was a deal to be done on the public-private partnership. I rather suspect that, if he believes that, he will be one of the rebels who can be more easily bought off; but I think there are Members of honour on the Labour Benches who will treat the matter with the seriousness that it deserves.
  The Minister needs to answer questions about, for example, the nature of the shareholdings. What happens to the management shares after five years, seven years, 10 years? What is the Government's proposal? That is not in the Bill. Who will be the private sector partner in the PPP in this botched privatisation? That is not in the Bill; we are not told even the nature of such a partner. What will be the future of the golden share in clause 49? The Secretary of State clearly did not quite understand the point I was making when he kindly allowed me to intervene. Clause 49(5) says that the Secretary of State can set aside the privileges of the golden share when he is required to do so. More than that, clause 49(7) says:
  "The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal this section."
  Therefore, the whole clause on which national security depends and on which the Labour Members are vesting their faith in the Government can be repealed at the stroke of a pen and the vote of a Committee in each of the Houses of Parliament. If the Government are serious about the golden share, there should be no provision for amendment of that clause without primary legislation; otherwise, the golden share is just an empty gesture to buy off dissent among Labour Members.
  What about the sale proceeds, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? What will be the purpose of clause 55

  623
  if the debt is not to be written off? If the Secretary of State carries on backtracking, he will just undermine the credibility of his policy. He needs to satisfy his party and to deal with the reasoned amendment, which he has not dealt with at all today, which has been signed by no fewer than 50 of his colleagues and spoken to by others. I take on board the comments by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She is right: it is not like any other privatisation. There is no unlimited upside. It is more in the nature of a contracting-out than a privatisation. That is why it needs to be done carefully and responsibly.
  I agree with many of the concerns that were expressed by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), although I regret that we cannot support his reasoned amendment, but why are the Government not prepared to accept it? Where is the consistency? As the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, the Government will allow the Post Office to borrow. Why not NATS? Many other Labour Members raised those concerns.
  The Bill is not just the wrong Bill at the wrong time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea pointed out. It is the epitome of two and a half years of a miserable Government transport policy. To crown it all, the Government have spent the past fortnight trying to pretend that everything in the Government's transport policy is changing. We know why they want people to believe that a U-turn is afoot: their transport policies are unpopular and discredited. They said that things could only get better and they have got worse.
  The Secretary of State's reputation is in tatters. He is now just the monkey for the organ grinder in the other place. He spent two and a half years bringing Britain to a standstill and now he finds that he himself is at a standstill. Stripped of his responsibilities, he now has time to wonder when he will be replaced by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the real Deputy Prime Minister.
  The question that the Under-Secretary must answer above all else is: has there been a U-turn? Will the Government revive the Conservatives' plans to give more communities the bypasses that they need? [Interruption.] Did I hear a yes? Will they deal with the bottlenecks in road improvements, which have got worse over two and a half years of stagnation? Will they restore the cuts in the trunk road and motorway improvement network? Will they start to reduce fuel duties to make our transport industries competitive again? Will they abandon their vindictive tax campaign against ordinary folk in their cars? Will they stop legislating for restrictions and controls on our railways and buses, so that they are free to invest and to develop their services to passengers?
  The Bill is a resounding no to all those questions. Its whole thrust and tone are wrong. It is based on the belief that Whitehall and town hall know best, that ordinary people will respond joyfully and positively to ever higher taxes and incursions on their freedom to travel. It is for the Minister to explain, on behalf of the Minister for Transport in the other place, why the Government's transport policies and their presentation are in such chaos.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): As this is, after all, the season of good will, I should tell the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that he did his best. Of course, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) would have done far better, but he is now—I am delighted to say—my hon. Friend. The Government's gain is very definitely the Opposition's loss. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He will be in the Division Lobby, that is for sure.
  The Transport Bill deals with four main areas of change: congestion charging, buses and local transport plans, our proposals for a new structure in the railways, and National Air Traffic Services public-private partnership. The Government's proposal to introduce a public-private partnership for NATS has been the subject of serious and important speeches in today's debate. Among those speeches, however, I do not include those by hon. Members from either of the main opposition parties. Let us be entirely clear about it: despite the weasel words of Conservative Front Benchers, their position remains as it always has been—full privatisation of NATS, which is an option entirely rejected by the Government, by every key player in the industry and, not least, by public opinion.
  Mr. Salter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hill: I shall not give way now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] My hon. Friend knows that I am tremendously fond of him and that I shall certainly look in his direction eventually. I should point out, however, that 17 Back Benchers spoke about NATS, taking a total of two hours, and that, regrettably, I am alone and have only approximately 10 minutes to deal with the subject. However, I shall return to my hon. Friend in due course.
  From Liberal Democrat Members we have had the usual defence of the status quo: it should all be paid for out of the public purse or by public sector borrowing. As usual, the Liberal Democrats are stranded among the flotsam and jetsam, high on the shoreline of history.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: No, not yet, but in due course.
  I pay tribute to the excellent record of our air traffic controllers and to their outstanding commitment to safety standards in the industry. However, the trade union side in NATS accepts that it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fund the new investment that NATS so urgently requires. I believe that that view is widely shared also by those of my hon. Friends who have expressed reservations about the form of funding proposed by the Government.
  Mr. Salter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is so persistent that I shall give way at last.
  Mr. Salter: Will my hon. Friend expand on the suggestion that we made—that the Transport Research

  625
  Laboratory in Wokingham offers a useful and instructive model? The TRL was privatised, but only as a company limited by guarantee and on a not-for-profit basis.
  Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The TRL privatisation was undertaken by the previous Government, using a competitive tender process. We intend to use a similar process for NATS. There is nothing to stop NATS management or a not-for-profit group submitting a bid, as happened with TRL. The organisation would, of course, have to meet all of our criteria for a strategic partner, and the Government must ensure that the value of our 49 per cent. is retained—it is, after all, a public asset. If a not-for-public organisation is able to do that, there is no reason why it should not be considered on an equal footing with any commercial bid. I hope that that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Foster: Is the Minister able to explain by what considerably contorted logic he arrived at the conclusion that a proposition for an independent publicly owned company issuing bonds to raise money is the same as the status quo?
  Mr. Hill: The crystal clear logic by which I arrived at that position will unfold in the course of my subsequent remarks.
  Enormous, new and exciting opportunities will open up in world aviation in the next few years. By 2010, in United Kingdom airspace alone, there will have been an increase in air traffic movements of 60 per cent. New technology will bring with it the opportunity to export British air traffic expertise on a major scale. In 10 years, it could be possible for air traffic movements into Hong Kong, for example, to be controlled from Swanwick or Prestwick—from the other side of the world.
  It is vital that Britain should be at the forefront of the new technology in order to seize these market opportunities, but the competition will be severe. Over the next 10 years both NATS and Eurocontrol expect air traffic control centres in Europe to have consolidated from 30 to six. To meet that challenge, we need state of the art control centres at Swanwick and Prestwick. That is why we need the £1 billion that the strategic partner will generate from the private sector for new investment in NATS over the next 10 years.
  Why should the public purse foot that bill or shoulder the financial risk when money is available from the private sector? The lesson of past decades is that public sector borrowing, with its limited horizon of three years at most, simply cannot guarantee the long-term finance necessary to commission the new en route centre at Swanwick, and, I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends from north of the border, the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) made a very good speech, and I remind her that, as the Prime Minister said earlier this year, the Government are fully committed to the new Scottish centre and the public-private partnership will be obliged to complete it.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the Minister intend to write off NATS debt, or will he promise to strike out in Committee the clause that gives him that power as he has now decided that it is not necessary?
  Mr. Hill: Those are matters for negotiation on the development of the PPP. No action is required on the face
  626
  of the Bill. The disposal of the £300 million debt will be a matter for discussion between the strategic partner and the Government in due course.
  The PPP is about more than finance alone. We are all aware of the long and sorry history of inefficiency and delay at Swanwick—five years late in delivery, with a massive cost overrun, and Bechtel brought in, as usual, to project manage the new centre at Prestwick. The truth is that NATS, for all its considerable operational skills, lacks top level skills in key areas such as project management and investment, as well as financial management. That is why, in the Government's view, the independent publicly owned company solution advocated by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will not do. It would permit limited borrowing freedom—but under the same management as before.
  We do not believe that an IPOC, or a similar solution, would offer the real efficiency driver that would enable NATS to rise to the challenge of new opportunities in the global aviation market. The PPP will enable NATS to sell its operational expertise abroad, to train staff and offer safety management to other air traffic control providers around the world, and, in the longer term, to run those systems for them. These are commercial ventures, the financial risk of which it is proper for the private sector—not the taxpayer—to bear. We need to establish a structure of incentives and disciplines to maximise efficiency. We need to give NATS the commercial freedoms and the management skills to make best use of them. That is why we support the PPP.
  In implementing the PPP, it is of course vital that there should be no compromise on national security or safety. I reassure the House that there will be no such compromise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) dwelt on national security in his speech. Let me make it clear that the Bill gives the Government the power to direct NATS in the interests of national security. That power will be written into the operating licence. It is exactly the same principle as that which allows the Government to requisition a ship in wartime.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Hill: The strategic partner will be selected only after stringent suitability tests, and the Government will have powers to ensure that the PPP—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will not give way. I must cover the other provisions of the Bill.
  The Government will have powers to ensure that the PPP remains in the hands of a fit and proper person whose ownership would not compromise the public interest or national security. The fact is that safety is, and will always be, the Government's overriding priority. Indeed, in establishing the PPP, we shall make a positive contribution to aviation safety by separating safety regulation from service provision. For the first time, we shall create a properly independent safety regulator, to ensure that safety standards are maintained at their existing high levels and improved where necessary—a development long recommended by the airlines, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and the former Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  There will be no profits before safety under the public-private partnership, any more than there are now at Belfast, Bristol, East Midlands, Leeds Bradford,

  627
  Humberside, London Luton and Newcastle airports, or at any of the 83 airports nationwide that have private sector air traffic control and which are subject to the air safety regulator and safely handle more than 21 million air passengers every year. We want to maintain and build on some of the most stringent air safety standards in the world. There will be no reduction in safety standards or in the safety regulator's powers to enforce them under a public-private partnership. It is for those reasons that I ask the House to oppose the amendment.
  I want now to deal with the other provisions that will, in practice, have a more immediate impact on the day-to-day travel experiences of the British public than our proposal for NATS. I thought it proper, however, within the limited time available to me, to respond as fully as possible to the strongly felt and considered views of a number of colleagues whom I deeply respect. "Strongly felt and considered" are not, I am bound to say, the adjectives that I would apply to the claptrap we have heard from Conservative Members on road user charging and workplace parking levies.
  Let us leave on one side the sheer irresponsibility and opportunism of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in breaking a growing cross-party consensus on congestion charging. Well, let us leave it almost on one side. The previous Government, for all their manifold failures in transport policy, were beginning to understand the potential benefits of congestion charging. If not, why did they initiate the London congestion charging research programme, led by MVA Consultancy, in November 1991? If not, why did they support similar research projects in Bristol in 1992, in Edinburgh and Lothian in the same year, in Cambridge in 1993 and in south-east Hampshire in 1994—years during which, incidentally, the right hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) were Secretaries of State?
  Mr. MacGregor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is perfectly reasonable to undertake research inquiries into various options? However, the lessons of those were that we should not pursue congestion charging for all the reasons that I set out in my speech.
  Mr. Prescott: What about the Green Paper?
  Mr. Hill: I was coming on to that. The Conservative Government also commissioned a study by the university of Westminster on transport and the environment, which it published in April 1996 to coincide with their Green Paper on transport. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), said in a press release:
  "The study shows that people are increasingly concerned about the impact of traffic growth on their daily lives, but accept the need for measures to restrain their own car use if they are provided with reasonable alternatives. These views along with the strong opinions expressed that the expenditure should be switched from roads to public transport coincide with some of the main messages in the Transport Green Paper."
  628
  There was a growing political consensus. As I have said before, in seeking to politicise the issue of congestion charging—
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hill: No, I have passed on; history has passed the right hon. Gentleman by. [Interruption.] Okay, I will make an exception—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I call Dr. Strang.
  Dr. Strang: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Madam Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Madam Speaker: I must put the Question at the appropriate time. I believe that the Minister was about to give way to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. If he had read my evidence to the Select Committee about charging in inner-city areas—evidence which included the questions that I put today—he would be able to tell us why this legislation was introduced without answering any of the fundamental questions that must be dealt with before congestion becomes nothing but another Labour stealth tax.
  Mr. Hill: Not only did I read the observations that the right hon. Gentleman made before the Select Committee, I was on the Committee when he made them. Notwithstanding the mounting evidence and the research undertaken by his Department, he did not have the courage to introduce congestion charging. The Labour Government have that courage.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham claims that the Government' s proposals for congestion charging are anti-car. Anti-car? Do we hear that from the party that brought in the automatic fuel duty escalator and increased fuel tax from 7 to 42p a litre? What could be more anti-car than that? Anti-car—from the party that invented road congestion at 70 cars per mile. The Conservatives spent £70 billion on new roads and ended up with 100 cars per mile. What could be more anti-car than that? Anti-car—from the party that cut road maintenance by 9 per cent. over four years and left Britain's motorway and trunk road network in its worst state of maintenance since records began. What could be more anti-car than that?
  The Labour Government are the pro-car Government. This year, we are spending £765 million on road maintenance—40 per cent. more than in the last year of Tory rule. This Government have ended the automatic fuel duty escalator and ring-fenced any further real increase for improving roads and modernising public transport. This Government are tackling the biggest

  629
  problem facing drivers in urban areas—congested roads—because we realise that the most pro-car action a Government can take is to reduce congestion on our roads. The Government are pro-car in tackling congestion. We are pro-choice in transport, because we have guaranteed that the net revenues of congestion charging will be put into local transport improvements—both public transport and roads.
  The Government believe that local people are best placed to find local solutions to local transport problems. In general, we received an excellent response to the first and provisional round of local capital transport plans. Last week, we were able to give tangible expression to our commitment to local decision making in transport in a settlement which, at £755 million, represented a 20 per cent. increase over last year. Over the next three years we shall be allocating a massive extra £700 million to local transport plans. Because of that success, the Bill will place those plans on a statutory footing.
  However, if local solutions are right for local transport problems, we need a strategic and national vision for our railway network. From the confusion and fragmentation of rail privatisation, we need to bring order, co-ordination and accountability. The Bill provides for that. We shall establish a new Strategic Rail Authority and we shall strengthen the powers of the rail regulator. Furthermore, we shall strengthen the consumer's voice by giving a new structure and new powers to the rail passengers committees.
  In 1997, we inherited a crumbling transport system that failed to provide real choice. We inherited underinvestment in road maintenance and a long list of frozen road building schemes. We inherited a rail system that had been broken up into a hundred pieces and flogged off at a massive loss to the taxpayer. Under the plans of the previous Administration, we would now be spending nearly £1 billion less on transport each year. We are investing in London's underground, in local authorities' transport plans and in national roads. We need no lessons on transport policy from the party that gave us road congestion, the party of rail privatisation, the party that would privatise the—
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 321.

  Division No. 21]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Baker, Norman

  Keetch, Paul

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Moore, Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Breed, Colin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Rendel, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Sanders, Adrian

  (NE Fife)

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

  Cotter, Brian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Dafis, Cynog

  Webb, Steve

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Willis, Phil

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hancock, Mike

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  630

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Allen, Graham

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Denham, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Doran, Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Edwards, Huw

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Efford, Clive

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benton, Joe

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Berry, Roger

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Betts, Clive

  Flint, Caroline

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Follett, Barbara

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  (Dunfermline E)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Goggins, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Browne, Desmond

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butter, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Caton, Martin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cawsey, Ian

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hesford, Stephen

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jenkins, Brian

  631

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  O'Brien, Bill (Normandton)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pendry, Tom

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pike, Peter L

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Plaskitt, James

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lock, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCabe, Steve

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Rogers, Allan

  (Makerfield)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Roy, Frank

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Martlew, Eric

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Meale, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stringer, Graham

  (Aberavon)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mudie, George

  (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  632

  Timms, Stephen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Todd, Mark

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Touhig, Don

  (Swansea W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wilson, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woolas, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, James

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, David

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  White, Brian

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 163.

  Division No. 22]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Alexander, Douglas

  Casale, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Church, Ms Judith

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Austin, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Banks, Tony

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, (Northampton S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, Iain

  Best, Harold

  Coleman, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cooper, Yvette

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Corbett, Robin

  Borrow, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cox, Tom

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Crausby, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burden, Richard

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Burgon, Colin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Darvill, Keith

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil Llanelli)

  633

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hutton, John

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Illsley,Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly, Oak)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Edwards, Huw

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flynn, Paul

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael J(Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fyfe, Maria

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lock, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Love, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gunnell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshal, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Meale, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Ms Juile (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  634

  Moris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  (Aberavon)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Norris, Dan

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Olner, Bil

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stringer, Graham

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pendry, Tom

  (Dewsbury)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, Mrs Dari (Stockton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pike, Peter L

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tiping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Todd, Mark

  Powell, Sir, Raymond

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rapson, Syd

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  (Swansea W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank

  Wills, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Salter, Martin

  Wood, Mike

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford,Phil

  Worthington,Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wray,James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright,Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wyatt,Derek

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Singh, Marsha

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr.Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. David Jamieson

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Allan, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Norman

  Brady, Graham

  635

  Brake, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Breed, Colin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Livsey, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Loughton, Tim

  (NE Fife)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Mates, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  (Rushcliffe)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brain

  Collins, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Colvin, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway

  Cotter, Brian

  O'Brein, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cran, James

  Öpik, Lembit

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dafis, Cynog

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham)

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  Paterson, Owen

  &Howden)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Prior, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Randall, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel

  Rendel, David

  Faber, David

  Robertson, Laurence

  Fabricant, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion Broxbourne

  Fallon, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Garnier, Edward

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

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gibb, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hancock, Mike

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Harvey, Nick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Hayes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Walter, Robert

  Horam, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Webb, Steve

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Willetts, David

  Key, Robert

  Willis, Phil

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Wilshire, David

  636

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield>

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Transport Bill

    TRANSPORT BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

    (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenditure incurred by any Minister of the Crown or government department under or by virtue of the Act, and

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

    (2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to—

    (a) a transferee under a transfer scheme made under the Act, or

    (b) the Strategic Rail Authority;

    (3) the reduction of the assets of the National Loans Fund by an amount corresponding to such liability of the Civil Aviation Authority as the Secretary of State extinguishes by order.— [Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Question agreed to.

    TRANSPORT BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

    (1) the inclusion in licences granted under the Act of provisions requiring payments to be made;

    (2) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to transfer schemes;

    (3) the making of road user charging schemes and workplace parking levy licensing schemes;

    (4) payments into the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Question agreed to.

    Mitrokhin Archive
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to your ruling earlier today on the matter of the Solicitor-General and the announcement about prosecutions against spies, it has been confirmed that the answer was placed in the Library considerably after 3.30 pm and considerably after the information was given to the press. Given that there was no statement today, can I seek your advice about what remains to Members to get Ministers to observe the rule that you laid down and, if possible, to get the Solicitor-General to the House before we rise for Christmas to make a statement tomorrow?
    Madam Speaker: As I told the House, the rule is that such questions must be answered no earlier than 3.30 pm. Perhaps I can look into the matter. I cannot command a Minister to come to the House to make a statement, but no doubt Ministers on the Treasury Bench heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

    Cane Hill, Coulsdon
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Before the House adjourns, I should like to raise the issue of the future development of the Cane Hill site in Coulsdon. Cane Hill represents more than 200 acres of green belt. It is a prime site of outstanding beauty and location. It sits on a hill top in the metropolitan greenbelt area to the south of London, adjacent to the A23 Brighton road. It is in the southern part of my constituency, in the southern part of the borough of Croydon, and it abuts the London-Surrey boundary and the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), whom I am pleased to see in his place.
    As a site, Cane Hill is attractive to any developer under any circumstances, and it offers first-class links to the motorway network and to Gatwick, Heathrow and Biggin Hill. It has a mainline rail station by its front entrance. It is, in short, a world-class site. Most of the site is agricultural, farmed by a local farmer. On about 20 per cent. of the site there is a small 23-bed medium secure unit for those with severe mental health problems, and there used to be a hospital, formerly for those with mental health needs, which closed in 1988.
    Now, to the concern of my constituents, the NHS wishes to build a 120-bed medium secure unit. The matter is being considered by the planning committee of Croydon council at an open meeting early next year. The object of tonight's debate is to highlight to the Secretary of State, through his Minister, why I believe it should be the subject of a public inquiry.
    The debate is not about the treatment of the mentally ill. It is about the determination of Labour-controlled Croydon borough council to push the project through, regardless of greenbelt regulations. There is a small group opposed to any mental health facilities on the site, but in my judgment, considering the presence of a small unit there already, that is unrealistic. I congratulate the Croydon Advertiser on its balanced articles on the work of the medium secure unit and on promoting awareness of its work.
    The overwhelming majority of the people of Coulsdon and the surrounding area object to the dramatic expansion of the facility, the abuse of greenbelt procedures, and above all the elimination of any hope of worthwhile economic development on the site.
    When the present administration on Croydon council—the Labour party—took control in 1994, it did so with a pledge to build a science and technology park on the site. Although that was not everyone's first preference, it was an acceptable proposal. Sadly, the council dithered, and in 1997 the Lambeth health authority stepped into the vacuum and proposed the construction of a 120-bed medium secure unit.
    The recent history of the Cane Hill site is highly pertinent. In January 1996 a draft development brief for Cane Hill hospital was produced. In it, there was an indication from the South Thames regional health authority that the unit would need to be expanded to accommodate future health care needs. Relocation was a

    639
    clear option, and a number of possible alternative sites were mooted. The health authority was asked to investigate further.
    Against that background, on 30 January 1997 the borough of Croydon adopted its unitary development plan. It recognised in paragraph RO 10 that Cane Hill could be redeveloped, and set out clear factors to be taken into account, as well the need to comply with planning policy guidance note 2, more commonly known as PPG2.
    The plan recognised that there was a development brief for a science and technology park, but set out other uses consistent with policy RO 10 and listed them in descending order of preference as
    "a science park, business innovation centre, a technology centre, environmental research centre, university, business park or regional conference centre."
    As a throwaway at the end, the plan stated:
    "The Development brief may allow for other uses or a combination of uses."
    There was no reference to a new medium secure unit, let alone one on the scale that is currently being considered.
    On the map in the UDP, the area is marked as a metropolitan greenbelt site of borough-wide importance for nature conservation.
    If further evidence were needed of the council's position when the unitary development plan was adopted, it is available in a letter dated 8 January 1997 from the leader of the council, who is now the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). He wrote to the Government on behalf of the council about the medium secure unit. The letter stated:
    "This would be a new development that would go well beyond an extension of the existing SASS unit and would, in all probability, put an end to the Science and Technology Park proposal that the Council, SOLOTEC and NHS ESTs advisers had been working towards over the last two to three years."
    The letter tellingly continued:
    "I would suggest, therefore, that Cane Hill should be excluded from any search for a site for a new MSU."
    It is ironic that, having lumbered us with a science park, the hon. Gentleman has abandoned that view and now supports a park and ride scheme. However, that is another story.
    Further evidence of the council's opposition to a medium secure unit and the lack of any intention to include it in the science park is found in a briefing to Members of Parliament and councillors, dated 24 January 1997. It emphasised that the aim was to establish a successful science park at Cane Hill, and stated that, in the council's judgment, a medium secure unit would be detrimental to a successful park development. The briefing stated:
    "There would also be a marketing issue … of the perception of an MSU, by investors, developers and potential tenants. Urgent political lobbying is required to ensure that the acknowledged benefits to the London economy of a science park are not compromised or possibly sacrificed to—the NHS service requirements".
    That view, which the council expressed, highlights the impact of a medium secure unit on a science park. It is somewhat surprising to find that the council has now changed its mind.
    640
    After the general election in May 1997 and the change of Government, the council and I jointly sought a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health to discuss the site. Before the meeting, the new council leader, Councillor Shawcross, issued a press release in July. It stated that she hoped that the meeting with the Department would result in the
    "NHS looking to meet their own service requirements from elsewhere in their land-holdings."
    That is, not on Cane Hill. That was the position before the meeting with the Department.
    The meeting took place with a junior Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is now a Minister of State in the Home Office. At the meeting, he confirmed that he intended a medium secure unit for approximately 50 beds to be built on the site. The application for a 120-bed medium secure unit was therefore a surprise. That happened despite the representations that had been made to me at the meeting. It is disappointing to find that a Minister misled a constituency Member of Parliament in that way.
    The most devastating blow to the plan was the subsequent U-turn by the leader of the council. After the meeting, she wrote to the Minister to thank him for his positive attitude. She said that she left the meeting feeling
    "real pride that our Labour Government has Ministers of such outstanding ability and commitment".
    That was written by someone who had been told that she would get the opposite of what she had requested. The letter continued:
    "the proposed MSU on the old Portnalls House part of the site is certain to be controversial with local residents. But I personally accept these are necessary facilities to fulfil the healthcare needs of the community. Although naturally disappointed that the scope for economic development has been substantially reduced, the Council will be as supportive as possible."
    The council changed its position at that point—quite a U-turn in only a few weeks. From that moment, the die was cast.
    Croydon council planning committee is due to consider the application to build a medium secure unit early next year. The Minister will probably be as surprised as me to hear that the number of protesters against the application is believed to be more than 4,000. That shows the importance and relevance of the matter to the local community.
    The Minister may not fully appreciate that the medium secure unit will not be built on the footprint of the old Cane Hill hospital. The council is taking the square footage of the old hospital, adding to it, splitting it in two, moving one bit to the other side of the site and putting bits of green belt in its place. The plan is to build the MSU on one bit and the science park on the other. I have to tell the Minister, and I hope that she agrees, that such messing around with the green belt will be detrimental to its quality. In my judgment, the openness of the green belt in the Coulsdon area will be diminished and a contribution will be made to urban sprawl, because the site is immediately adjacent to the built-up area of London.
    The Minister will be well aware that the key to all that is in the rules to PPG2 and paragraph C4 of annexe E, which deals with redevelopment in the green belt, and it is the view of many that they are being ignored by the council. Extensive correspondence with the council reflects its determination to have its way, and although it

    641
    argues that it is complying with paragraph C4, I and several thousand others suggest that it is not. It is difficult to see how the criteria in paragraph C4 can be met, as the proposal will clearly have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt: first, there will be new building in an open area—further from the urban area—and secondly, it offends the greenbelt purposes of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large urban areas, safeguarding the country from encroachment and encouraging the recycling of derelict land.
    I quote the submission by the Croydon Society, which said:
    "The prevention of urban sprawl would be negated and openness would be reduced by the development of the Portnalls site. Yet these qualities are cited in PPG 2 para 1.4 as the most important attributes of green belts."
    As the Coulsdon Green Belt Association says, some kind of development must eventually take place within the existing footprint at Cane Hill,
    "but the application violates six acres of green belt without establishing the 'very special circumstances' which ministerial guidelines require before waiving the normal presumption against development in the green belt area may be considered."
    The much respected Mr. Charles Hancock of the Coulsdon Forum says that PPG2
    "sets out Green Belt safeguards which this planning application seriously ignores".
    I hope that the Minister has been given a flavour of what is being said locally. This is a major site and clearly she must consider matters that have more than local importance—I choose my words carefully.
    My second submission to the Minister is that an MSU of the nature of that being considered represents a departure from the unitary development plan. That in turn imposes on the Secretary of State an obligation to call in the application and hold a public inquiry. The council has fiercely resisted that suggestion: it wants to push the plan through without a public inquiry, but its impartiality cannot be guaranteed. It must be remembered that the entire site belongs to the national health service, and to develop the science and technology park the council needs NHS approval to sell it for that purpose.
    It is becoming clear that the council is prepared to give permission to build the MSU regardless of the environmental and social consequences, to get its way with the park. That was confirmed in a letter to me dated 28 October in which the leader of the council said that
    "the NHS has always indicated that the principle of relocation and expansion of the MSU needs to be resolved before disposal of the remainder of the site … I can assure you that a considerable amount of time has been spent with the NHS to pave the way for a mutually agreeable outcome."
    In other words, a deal has been struck: "We'll let you build an MSU and then you'll let us have our science park." To that extent, the council's eyes are blinkered and its judgment is suspect. After seven years of dither over the science park, it has done a deal with Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority, but in my judgment the council ought not to be entrusted with the decision on the future of one of the nation's prime development sites.
    As the Minister might imagine, there is widespread local concern. The proposed development is bang next door to two primary schools, and stories of the conduct
    642
    of patients out on day release are legion and at odds with official statistics. As Councillor David Osland said in a letter to the Croydon Advertiser:
    "Coulsdon for many years enjoyed a satisfactory relationship with Cane Hill Hospital and its thousands of patients and staff. But the nature of the proposed MSU was such that it ought to be built on a brown-field site attached to a hospital with a proper level of Psychiatric services, not built on green belt as a sop to developers who may be put off by the close proximity of the existing MSU."
    That fairly reflects local opinion.
    If this application goes through, the science park will not get off the ground. The application is not included in the unitary development plan and is a departure. There is a clear breach of the policy guidelines relating to the green belt, and the council is clearly not impartial. Under the circumstances, I urge the Secretary of State, through the Minister, whom I welcome, to exercise his powers and call it in.
    10.45 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on securing a debate on issues that are currently of considerable concern in his constituency. I listened with interest to the points that he made. From the letters received by my Department, I am aware of the strength of local feeling about the proposals for the site. The hon. Gentleman's contribution gave further flavour to the issue, as he hoped.
    Two planning applications have been made in respect of this site: one is for a larger secure unit than the one already on the site, and the other is the proposed science and business park. As a member of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman should know the planning system well enough to be aware that neither I nor any of my ministerial colleagues can comment on planning applications, because to do so may compromise the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in considering the case for call-in or in taking a decision in the event that Croydon council resolve to refuse planning permission and the applicant submits an appeal.
    As I have already said in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, we are keeping these applications under review, but we will allow the council time to reach a view on the proposals before deciding whether call-in is justified. For reasons that I shall touch on and of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, Croydon has postponed its formal consideration of the matter in committee until February or March next year.
    Croydon received the application for the medium secure unit in March 1999. The process of conducting public consultation has raised issues on the safety of local residents on which the council has sought advice. The time scale involved is completely justified by the nature of the application, by local opinion and by the complexity of the issues involved in making the decision. Having taken account of the time scale, I find it hard to accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Croydon is trying to push through the application for a medium secure unit. By the time the council considers the application, it will have taken a year for it to come to a decision. It is taking that time because of the need for expert advice and the issues raised by the case.
    The business park application was also made in March this year. I understand that the council has now asked for an environmental assessment from the applicant, and that

    643
    is being prepared. The application involves other complex issues in addition to those raised by the hon. Gentleman, including the imminent construction of the Coulsdon inner relief road, which may give rise to design changes to the proposals.
    The Secretary of State's role in the planning process means that he has at his disposal the power to call in an application. I understand from what the hon. Gentleman said and from correspondence that we have received that he does not agree with Croydon's preliminary view that the application for a medium secure unit is not a departure from the unitary development plan. I have seen the correspondence that he has received from the director of planning and development, which sets out in some detail why Croydon has come to the decision on paragraph C4 and the other requirements of the regulations, and why it argues that the application is not a departure from the UDP. If it were a departure, it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State now as a call-in.
    At present, this is a matter for the council to decide. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, we shall consider carefully whether that power should be exercised, and, if so, when; but, for the moment, the Secretary of State is exercising his power of call-in in the normal way. As under the last Administration, it is normal practice to use the power of call-in sparingly. It is important that applications are generally left in the first instance to the locally elected body to determine, and are called in only if, among other things, matters of more than local importance are involved.
    Although the Secretary of State has power to call in at any time, it is our practice, for good reasons, to let the authority consider an application and reach a view before the Department decides whether to call in. That enables all local and statutory consultees' views to be taken into account and aired publicly; and an application refused by the authority would come before the Secretary of State as an appeal anyway.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The institution that we are discussing is on the boundary between Croydon and the borough of Reigate and Banstead. My borough has asked for a call-in. I hope that the fact that the institution is on the boundary will carry some weight with the Secretary of State in due course.
    Ms Hughes: As I have said, we are cognisant of the contentious and complex nature of the application. I am trying to explain why it is important for the local authority to be allowed to make a decision in the first instance. It brings into the open all the various local views pertaining to the application. That means that, should the Secretary of State decide to call in the application subsequently—which he is perfectly entitled to do—those local views will be in the public domain, and will be available for him to consider if, in the event, he calls the application in.
    We are executing normal procedure by allowing Croydon to reach an initial view on the applications. When it has done so, if necessary, we may well issue a holding direction to allow ourselves time to examine Croydon's decision, the reasons for its decision and its report to its planning committee, and to decide whether to intervene and call in either or both the applications.
    644
    The views of both the hon. Member for Croydon, South and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will be taken into account.
    I stress that our feeling that it is important to let Croydon make the initial decision does not mean that the Secretary of State will not exercise his power of call-in later. There are, however, distinct advantages in allowing the local planning authority to make an initial decision, because that puts all local views into the public domain.
    I cannot comment on the specific applications, but I will make some general and relevant comments about the planning system and about the green belt. The planning system regulates the development and use of land in the public interest. We believe that the system as a whole—which includes the preparation of development plans by local authorities such as Croydon—is the most effective way of reconciling what are often competing demands for development and for the protection of the environment. The planning system has a key role in contributing to the Government's strategy for sustainable development.
    The Government are committed to a plan-led system of development control. That means that any application for planning permission, or any appeal, should be determined in line with the approved development plan—as the hon. Member for Croydon, South said—unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Whoever decides such planning applications and appeals—whether it be a local planning authority such as Croydon, a planning inspector deciding an appeal or, indeed, the Secretary of State—should always take into account whether the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to openly important interests. Our aim in the plan-led system is to secure rational and consistent decisions, greater clarity, secure public involvement, quicker decisions and so on. Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations. They must relate to the purpose of planning law, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest.
    Where it is not already incorporated into their development plans, local planning authorities also need to take into account national and regional planning guidance. The national guidance is set out in various planning policy guidance notes. In London, the regional guidance is in the strategic guidance for London planning authorities—RPG3, as it is known.
    Croydon council has to take its adopted UDP policies as a starting point and weigh up other material considerations in reaching its decision on any planning application that is before it. In particular, it has to have regard to PPG notes, especially if they are more recent than the policies that are outlined in its own UDP.
    On another general point, the Government recognise and uphold the rights of property and privileges of ownership, so owners of land and property rightly expect to be able to use, or to develop their land as they judge best, unless consequences for the environment, or the community would be unacceptable. Therefore, individual property owners are allowed to enhance, or to improve their use of land and buildings.
    I turn to a key issue for any application at Cane Hill: the green belt. I hope that I do not have to restate the Government's support and, indeed, record in protecting and increasing the green belt. We remain firm in those commitments, which I have stated personally recently. Some hon. Members have raised concerns, prompted by

    645
    headlines in a recent edition of the London Evening Standard. The claims that we are not supporting the green belt are not true.
    In relation to Croydon, annexe C of PPG2 says that redevelopment, or infilling of major developed sites—a particular defined category in the regulations—in the green belt may offer the opportunity for environmental improvement, without adding to the impact on the openness of greenbelt land. Such redevelopment, or infilling will not be inappropriate development in law if sites are identified in adopted development plans. Examples of major developed sites will include hospitals. Such sites must be substantial in size. In that context, I understand that Cane Hill is identified as a major developed site—a specific category—in Croydon's current adopted UDP.
    As well as identifying a site for the purposes of annexe C, local planning authorities may set out in their plan a policy for future development. Even once a site is
    646
    so identified, PPG2 contains criteria that constrain redevelopment. Those say that it should have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the green belt and should contribute to the achievement of objectives. There are others limiting height and footprint, but there is no requirement that the existing footprint of buildings should be maintained to satisfy those criteria.
    Therefore, we will monitor carefully the proposals at Cane Hill. I have heard the points made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South. Those are not agreed at this stage by Croydon.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Mitrokhin Archive
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement concerning the consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service of the five cases covering the Mitrokhin archive and related matters which were referred to by the Home Secretary in his oral statement of 21 October 1999,Official Report, columns 587–99. [103901]

  The Solicitor-General
  In his statement of 21 October, the Home Secretary informed the House that, in the light of Mrs. Melita Norwood's recent statements, the papers in her case were being studied again by the prosecuting authorities. He also stated that four other cases were being considered. Those cases included those of Robin Pearson and John Symonds.

  I can now inform the House that the CPS has decided not to refer the papers in any of the five cases to the police for investigation. The reason in each instance is the same, namely, that sufficient is known about the case to make it clear that any prosecution would fail. Having reached that view, it would be quite wrong for the CPS to ask the police to undertake a criminal investigation.

  In the case of Mrs. Norwood, the intelligence information about her case would not be admissible as evidence; her statements to the media would probably be ruled to be inadmissible as evidence; there is little prospect of obtaining admissible evidence; and in any event any prosecution would probably be stayed on the ground of abuse of process. Similar considerations apply to the case of Mr. Pearson. In the case of Mr. Symonds, an immunity, granted by the DPP's office in 1984 in connection with inquiries into other matters, precludes a prosecution.

  The Law Officers have been consulted about each case, and we agree with the conclusions reached by the CPS. Each decision has been made only after careful and detailed consideration.

  It is not usual for the Law Officers to make announcements concerning their consideration of individual criminal cases. The rationale for this is straightforward. If it is considered that there is a case against an individual, and the public interest is in favour of a prosecution, then the proper course is to put the facts before the court and let justice take its course. If it is considered that there is no case against an individual, or the public interest is against a prosecution, then to give publicity to that decision will inevitably draw attention to the individual, attention which he or she may not welcome and which will not often be deserved.

  In this instance, a different course is being followed because the allegations against the three individuals named in this answer have been given extensive publicity,
  314W
  and not to name them could only prompt speculation about whether a case against them is still being considered.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what other methods of consulting solicitors as part of the "secret soundings process" for applicants to the judiciary and for silk he proposes to adopt following the withdrawal by the Law Society and other solicitors' bodies from that process. [103581]

  Mr. Lock
  The arrangements for consultation on candidates for judicial and Queen's Counsel appointments do not in any way constitute a "secret soundings process". The identities of consultees are published. The arrangements are a system for obtaining assessments of candidates against the stated criteria for appointment, and were substantially endorsed by Sir Leonard Peach in his recent Report. The Lord Chancellor is disappointed that the Law Society decided to withdraw from the consultation process and did so before the publication of the Peach Report. In fairness to solicitor candidates the Lord Chancellor will continue to consult such representative bodies as the Solicitors' Family Law Association, the Solicitors Association of High Court Advocates and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association. The Lord Chancellor also proposes to develop other channels of consultation, potentially including solicitors' firms, senior practitioners and local and regional Law Societies.

  Child Abduction (Greece)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions the Lord Chancellor's Department has had concerning the interpretation and application by Greek courts of Articles 7, 11, 16, 24 and 30 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. [103080]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no concerns about the interpretation and application of the 1980 Convention by the courts in Greece. As a result there have been no discussions on this topic between the Department and its counterpart in Greece, the Ministry of Justice. There have, of course, been discussions about particular cases, but these have not revealed any points of more general concern about the application of the Convention in the Greek courts.

  Derbyshire Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what value-for-money study has been made of the private finance initiative for Derbyshire magistrates courts; and if he will publish it. [102824]

  Jane Kennedy
  A Public Sector Comparator has been prepared and this value-for-money study will be used to evaluate the bids when they are received. I have no plans to publish this value-for-money study or details of the bids received due to their confidential nature.
  315W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100149]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: We have not let any science or technology research contracts over this period.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102326]

  Mr. Battle
  Following is the information:

  Rooms available for use by pregnant and nursing mothers

  Rooms for smokers

  Main Building London SW1

  1

  1

  Old Admiralty Building London SW11

  2

  1

  1 Palace Street London SW1

  1

  2

  8 Cleveland Row London SW I

  0

  0

  1 Carlton Gardens London SW1

  0

  0

  Cromwell House London SWI

  1

  1

  20 Victoria Street London SW1

  0

  0

  Apollo House Croydon

  1

  1

  Hanslope Parks Bucks

  23

  6

  1Following refurbishment

  2This figure includes a creche

  There are no rooms set aside for ethnic minority religious use. Similar information in respect of the Overseas Estate, which comprises over 3,800 properties in 184 countries, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  China
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning(a) religious liberty in China and (b) the treatment of house church leaders in China. [102684]

  Mr. Battle
  We raise our concerns about freedom of religion in China during our regular high level bilateral human rights dialogue with the Chinese Government. This includes specific references to the treatment of house church leaders and followers of other religions on China. Freedom of religion was a particular focus of the last round of the dialogue held in September, which included a special session devoted to the subject of freedom of religious belief at which British and Chinese specialists exchanged views. The treatment of Falun Gong adherents was discussed during the State Visit and I raised this subject with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister in 316W
  November. I also made clear our concerns about the freedom of religious belief in Tibet, and raised individual cases.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of the British Government in encouraging China to continue its process of political reform. [102702]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1979 China has been engaged on a programme of economic modernisation and reform. This has led to wide-ranging changes in the economic and social structures of the country and has resulted in impressive improvements in the living standards of the people. While the focus has been primarily on economic reform there have also been reforms in the political and legal areas, with moves beginning to take place towards the greater democratic supervision and participation in decision making. These have included the strengthening of the role of parliamentary type institutions such as the National and Local People's Congresses, the introduction of direct elections at the village level, and the building up and strengthening of a more effective legal and judicial system. We encourage these processes and want to see the human rights of Chinese citizens properly protected in accordance with the international Covenants which the Chinese have recently signed. We have developed a number of co-operative programmes and projects with the Chinese, especially in the legal and judicial fields, designed to help strengthen the rule of law in China. We also encourage parliamentary and other exchanges in order to expose China to the example of democratic institutions and practices.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to promote tourism in Britain by Chinese citizens. [102700]

  Mr. Battle
  China is not considered a large potential market for tourism to Britain in the short term. The British Tourist Authority are keeping this under review. We welcome the increasing number of Chinese visitors to this country, both business visitors and students, and hope that eventually the Chinese will be able to enjoy Britain's tourist resources.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress in China's observance of human rights after the UK and China's human rights dialogue in September. [102703]

  Mr. Battle
  The last round of the bilateral human rights dialogue with China produced some useful and frank discussions, particularly on the rule of law and the death penalty. We remain concerned about China's record over human rights. We continue to believe that a policy of dialogue, combined with practical programmes of co-operation in areas such as the law and the judicial system, is more likely to bring about improvements in China's practice over the longer term. We make regular representations on human rights. Both my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights with the Chinese during the State Visit. I had lengthy discussions on these subjects (including Tibet) with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister during my visit to Beijing in November.
  317W

  Angola
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to ensure that UN sanctions against UNITA in Angola are implemented effectively. [102492]

  Mr. Hain
  We fully support UN sanctions against UNITA, the work of the UN Sanctions Committee on Angola, chaired by Ambassador Fowler, and the Expert Panels, established to look at ways to tighten implementation of sanctions. We are contributing US$200,000 to the Panels' work.

  We have also called for stricter enforcement of sanctions by all UN member states. We are investigating UNITA's re-supply routes and will pass on what we learn to Ambassador Fowler.

  The UK fully implements UN sanctions decided upon by the Security Council of the United Nations in its resolutions 864 (1993), 1127 (1997) and 1173 (1998) by means of restrictions imposed in Orders in Council under the United Nations Act 1946, by an amendment to the Open General Import Licence in respect of diamonds and by other administrative means. We have recently frozen funds in the UK, in accordance with UNSCR 1173.

  Information concerning potential breaches of sanctions by UK nationals or companies is passed immediately to the appropriate UK enforcement authorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Gosport will receive a full reply to his representations on behalf of Mr. 0 about UK entry clearance (Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit reference GV 100/54641). [102583]

  Mr. Vaz
  I shall be replying to the hon. Member's letter about Mr. Onyike in the next few days.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has, under the Joint Declaration, to monitor political structures and political activity in Hong Kong. [102910]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 110W.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made to the Government of Pakistan concerning the well-being of former ministers currently held in custody, pending trial. [102864]

  Mr. Hain
  From the outset we have urged Pakistan's military authorities to respect the safety and legal rights of those detained. We have also urged that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his co-defendants be given a free, fair and transparent trial before a civilian court. Our High Commissioner in Islamabad reiterated those points 318W
  when he saw General Musharraf on 15 November. I also underlined our concern to Sharifuddin Pirzada, a member of Pakistan's National Security Council, on 8 December.

  Overseas Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the legal position in each overseas territory in relation to(a) capital punishment and (b) homosexual acts. [102842]

  Mr. Battle
  (a) Capital punishment for murder has been abolished in all Overseas Territories (OT) save Bermuda, which announced in July of this year its intention to do so. Capital punishment for piracy and treason remains on the statute books of all OTs except BIOT, BAT and the Falkland Islands.

  (b) There is currently legislation in Anguilla, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands which effectively makes homosexual acts between consenting adults in private a criminal offence. This is not the case in other OTs.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current situation in Kashmir. [103190]

  Mr. Hain
  Although the level of violence in Kashmir has reduced since the events of the summer, we remain concerned at reports of continuing incidents on and around the Line of Control. We continue to urge India and Pakistan to resume their bilateral dialogue on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir.

  Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Foreign Minister of Iran during his forthcoming visit to the UK on behalf of the 13 Jews detained without trial; and if he will make a statement. [103029]

  Mr. Hain
  Yes, as we have done at every opportunity. We remain very concerned about this, as the Iranian Government are only too well aware.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current diplomatic relations with Iran. [103208]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary again met his Iranian counterpart Dr. Kharrazi at UNGA on 21 September. During this meeting they agreed to exchange visits. We hope that Dr. Kharrazi will visit early in the New Year and that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Iran in the Spring.

  We continue to look to co-operate with Iran in a number of practical fields and so develop the relationship to the benefit of both countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) announced to the House on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 32W, an assistance package to help Iran in their battle to stem the flow of drugs through Iran from Afghanistan. The Permanent Under-Secretary for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office also announced

  319W
  during his visit to Tehran on 28 November that the Department for International Development have approved an assistance package for the large number of refugees in Iran, where for too long Iran has borne a heavy burden without international help.

  Our policy, in line with that of our EU partners, remains to encourage the reforms already underway in Iran while pressing for improvements in those Iranian policies that are of concern.

  European Union Council
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for December; and if he will list the major European Union events for the next six months. [103718]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information is as follows:Monthly forecast of EU business: January 2000
  No agendas for any of the January Councils are available yet.
  European calendar: January-June 2000
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  January

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  17–21

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  18

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28–29

  Lisbon

  Development Ministers (Informal)

  31

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  February

  2–3

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Lisbon

  Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  14–15

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  21–22

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21–22

  Vilamoura

  EU/San Jose Ministerial

  23–24

  Vilamoura

  EU/Rio Group Ministerial

  28

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  March

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  3–4

  Lisbon

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  13

  Brussels

  Joint Social Affairs and ECOFIN Council

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23–24

  Lisbon

  Special European Council

  27

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  30

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  April

  3

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  4

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7–8

  Lisbon

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  10–11

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  10–14

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Oporto

  Environment Council (Informal)

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  320W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  May 2000

  2

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  2

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  3–4

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  5–7

  Sao Miguel, Azores

  Informal Meeting of Foreign Ministers

  11

  Brussels

  Health Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  18

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  18

  Brussels

  Development Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  25–26

  Lisbon

  Euromed Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  May

  28–30

  Evora

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  29–30

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  June

  5

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  6

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  13–16

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  16

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  19–20

  Sta. Maria da Feira

  European Council

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  Terrorist Bombings
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have signed the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. [103231]

  Mr. Battle
  The following countries have signed the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings:

  Algeria

  Argentina

  Belarus

  Austria

  Belgium

  Brazil

  Burundi

  Canada

  Comoros

  Costa

  Rica

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Egypt

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Iceland

  India

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  321W

  Japan

  Lithuania

  Luxembourg

  Madagascar

  Monaco

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Panama

  Philippines

  Poland

  Republic of Korea

  Romania

  Russian Federation

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Sweden

  Yugoslavia

  Macedonia

  Togo

  Turkey

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Venezuela.

  East Timorese Refugees
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with the process of returning East Timorese refugees living in West Timor. [103214]

  Mr. Battle
  We have repeatedly urged the Indonesian Government to accelerate the return of those displaced East Timorese who wish to return home. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has opened a processing centre in Kupang, West Timor for those wishing to return, and the International Organisation for Migration is handling repatriations. Over 120,000 have now returned.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding the lifting of the EU embargo on arms sales to Indonesia. [103209]

  Mr. Battle
  EU Foreign Ministers reviewed recent events in Indonesia at the 15 November General Affairs Council (GAC). Indonesia was not on the agenda at the December GAC. The EU Common Position concerning restrictive measures against Indonesia adopted on 16 September expires on 17 January 2000. It would require the unanimous agreement of all EU partners either to lift it early or to extend it.
  322W

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan concerning President Omar Hassan al Bashir' s decision to dissolve parliament and declare a state of emergency. [103217]

  Mr. Hain
  We have taken a number of opportunities to speak to the Government of Sudan about the decisions of President Bashir both bilaterally and with the EU stressing our concern for the safety of British citizens and the importance we attach to a comprehensive peace settlement that benefits all Sudanese.

  The situation on the ground remains calm. We will continue to monitor events closely through our Embassy in Khartoum.

  European Security and Defence Identity
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that in plans for the European Security and Defence Identity the views of the neutral and non-NATO nations are not able to prevent the rapid exercise of military judgment. [102087]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no reason to believe that the non-NATO Members of the European Union will obstruct the rapid and effective exercise of military judgment in any future EU-led crisis management operation. Operations for territorial or collective defence will remain a matter for NATO.

  Under the arrangements agreed at the recent Helsinki European Council, all EU member states will be entitled to participate on an equal basis in EU decision-making. Once a decision to launch an EU-led operation has been taken only countries contributing to the operation would participate in day-to-day decision-making.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the compensation paid to ex-coalminers or to their widows, on account of their suffering from emphysema or chronic bronchitis, will be liable to reduction on the basis of their receiving extra social security benefits(a) after giving up work and (b) for their loss of earnings. [103062]

  Mr. Bayley
  The provisions of the compensation recovery scheme applies to all victims of accident, injury or disease who have received both state benefits and compensation for the same need. The scheme will, therefore, apply to miners who have recently been awarded compensation for emphysema or chronic bronchitis. Under the provisions of the scheme, a compensator is liable to repay benefits paid up to the date of the final compensation payment, subject to a five year maximum. In turn, they must reduce the compensation to take account of the amounts repaid, but only where compensation and benefits are paid for a like need. Under no circumstances can compensation for pain and suffering
  323W
  be reduced. In the case of widows, where the compensation claim is made under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, or would have been had an action been brought, any payments are exempt.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the unit cost to the Benefits Agency of making benefit payments by(a) voucher, (b) Girocheque, (c) payable order and (d) automated credit transfer. [103144]

  Mr. Rooker
  The overall average unit costs to the Benefits Agency are in the order of 54p for order book vouchers or foils, £1.36 for girocheques, 55p for payable orders and 1p for automated credit transfer.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of benefit fraud in the last financial year and (b) the surplus on unclaimed benefits in the last financial year. [103191]

  Mr. Rooker
  Previous estimates have shown that £2 billion a year has definitely been lost through fraud. A further £3 billion may have been lost in cases where fraud is strongly suspected and a further £2 billion where there is some suspicion of fraud.

  We are now measuring the level of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, the two most vulnerable benefits, by thoroughly investigating a monthly random sample of cases in each Benefit Agency area. Staff error is measured separately by a special team within the Benefits Agency. The latest period for which figures are available is the 12 months ending September 1998 where the level of fraud and error in these benefits was £1.4 billion or 9 per cent. of the total benefit paid.

  The latest figures available show the amount left unclaimed in Income Related benefits was between £1,580 million and £4,110 million in 1997–98.

  SERPS
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on inherited rights to SERPS for widows and widowers after 6 April 2000. [103323]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will make a statement as soon as we reach a conclusion on the way forward.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 56W, on what is based his estimate of the total amount of extra social security expenditure necessary to achieve average increases in household income of (a) £46 per week before housing costs and (b) £52 per week after housing costs. [102814]

  Angela Eagle
  My written answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 56W, provided estimates for the additional incomes required to ensure that all children were in households with at least half average income. Any implications for increased Social Security
  324W
  expenditure would be dependent upon how the increase in incomes was achieved. Increases in Social Security expenditure can be used to increase household incomes through improving incentives to work and helping people find work as well as through directly increasing benefit payments. Action on a wide range of fronts can boost incomes through increasing the earnings potential of those on low incomes and helping people to achieve their potential. Different approaches would require different levels of Social Security expenditure.

  Our strategy for eradicating child poverty within 20 years involves tackling the main causes of poverty and social exclusion. This means helping parents find work, making work pay and ensuring that every child gets the best possible start in life as well as providing additional help for families through the tax and benefit system.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioner households qualify for the 1999 winter fuel payment; and how many of those households had received this payment by 6 December; [102636]

  (2) what plans are in place to ensure that households qualifying for the 1999 winter fuel payment receive it on, or before, 15 December. [102637]

  Angela Eagle
  To ensure that pensioners received their winter fuel payment before Christmas, those eligible were identified during the week commencing 20 September. Over 7.5 million pensioner households qualified for winter fuel payments this winter. By 6 December all those households should have been issued with a winter fuel payment. However, in case some pensioners may not have received their payment, a national and regional press advertising campaign was run from 9 to 15 December inclusive. This advised pensioners that they could ring the National Winter Fuel Payment Helpline with any concerns that they had about their payment.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the cut-off date for eligibility to receive the winter fuel allowance has been set at 12 September 1999. [102682]

  Angela Eagle
  In order to make Winter Fuel Payments automatically, without incurring disproportionate administration costs, it is necessary to identify those in receipt of qualifying benefits through official departmental computer records. Therefore, entitlement is based on being in receipt of one of the qualifying Social Security benefits for at least a day during a specified qualifying week.

  The process of identification and determination of the amount payable takes around 10 weeks, therefore to ensure receipt of the payments before Christmas the qualifying week chosen for this winter was the week beginning 20 September. If the qualifying period was extended or a later week used, the exercise would not have been completed in time for payments to be made before Christmas.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have received the £100 cold weather payment in each constituency in the last year. [102595]
  325W
  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is expected to be available in the new year.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on winter fuel payments following the judgment made by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Taylor. [103839]

  Mr. Darling
  In 1997, we decided to make Winter Fuel Payments payable to elderly people in receipt of qualifying benefits—principally Retirement Pension. We did this because this meant that payments could be made quickly, automatically and at the right time.

  Following the Court's judgment in the Taylor case, help through Winter Fuel Payments will be extended to everyone aged 60 and over, regardless of whether they are claiming a pension or are on another qualifying benefit.

  By equalising the age of entitlement for Winter Fuel Payments at 60 for men and women, the number of people who will benefit will increase by up to 1.5 million. This will have an estimated annual programme cost of £85 million. It will mean that next winter, up to 11.5 million people in up to 8.5 million households will benefit from these payments.

  In line with the judgment, the Government will also make backdated payments to the start of the scheme for up to 1.9 million people. This will have an estimated one-off programme cost of £125 million.

  The age of entitlement for Winter Fuel Payments will initially be set at 60. Thereafter, however, it will move in step with entitlement for State Retirement Pension. It will therefore start to rise in 2010 and reach 65 in 2020.

  We will need to find out the names and addresses of the people who are newly eligible for these payments. As the information we hold may not be up to date, we will therefore need to introduce a claims process for Winter Fuel Payments. This process will need to be developed carefully and appropriate IT systems built to deal with claims.

  There is no need for people newly eligible for Winter Fuel Payments to contact the Benefits Agency now. A further announcement will be made early next year to advise people how to claim.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to process a disability living allowance appeal in the Wrexham County Borough Area. [102638]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Between 1 January 1999 and 31 May 1999 the average time taken to process a Disability Living Allowance appeal, in the area handled by the Cardiff office of the Independent Tribunal Service, was 37.8 weeks from date of lodgement to date of tribunal. From the date the appeal was received by the Independent Tribunal Service to the date of tribunal the average time was 33.5 weeks.
  326W
  The changed structure to the decision making and appeals processes introduced by the Social Security Act 1998 were introduced for Disability Living Allowance on 18 October 1999.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service computer system.

  Communication Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the need to arrange communication support at personal adviser interviews does not delay the processing of benefit claims; [102244]

  what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the requirement to provide properly qualified communication support for deaf claimants does not delay start-up or personal adviser interviews. 102245]

  Angela Eagle
  Personal advisers in the ONE service provide help and advice on work and benefits to individuals according to their own particular circumstances. We recognise that everyone is different and needs vary from one client to another. ONE pilot offices have trained staff and special facilities to aid people with special communication needs. For example, textphone facilities are available for people with severe hearing impairment and advisers are trained in their use. The services of a qualified interpreter or lipspeaker are available to clients attending a meeting with their personal adviser. All clients, including those with communication difficulties, will be offered a prompt initial meeting in order that claims can be dealt with quickly.

  Benefits Appeal Tribunal
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy that, when a person wins a benefits tribunal appeal against loss or suspension of Disability Living Allowance, that benefit should be reinstated forthwith providing that an appeal has not been lodged by his Department against the decision within the permitted timescale. 102035]

  Angela Eagle
  Where an appeal to the Social Security Commissioner against a Tribunal's decision is not being considered, the decision is implemented and any outstanding payments of benefit are made as quickly as possible.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers his Department has to override the decision of a benefit appeals tribunal. [102034]

  Angela Eagle
  Appeal tribunals are independent and the Department has no powers to override their decisions.

  Under the new arrangements for hearing appeals that have just been introduced, appeal tribunals can correct procedural errors or errors on a point of law. Any party to an appeal can request that a decision be referred back to a tribunal, if they consider that an error has been made.

  In addition, there is a right of appeal against a tribunal's decision on a point of law to the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners and thereafter to the higher courts.
  327W

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers have received(a) invalid care allowance and (b) underlying entitlement to ICA for a full year in each year from 1978 to 1999. [103073]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers have received invalid care allowance in each year since 1978. [103075]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of carers in receipt of invalid care allowance for each year since 1978

  Year1

  Number of live cases

  Invalid care allowance live load1

  1978

  6,137

  1979

  6,349

  1980

  6,648

  1981

  7,098

  1982

  8,005

  1983

  8,847

  1984

  9,494

  1985

  10,284

  1986

  30,587

  1987

  91,392

  1988

  109,334

  1989

  120,816

  1990

  133,912

  1991

  159,324

  1992

  188,717

  1993

  230,313

  1994

  273,901

  1995

  316,353

  1996

  357,471

  1997

  374,321

  1998

  373,267

  19992

  374,815

  1Figures relate to 31 December

  2 Figures relate to 30 September

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers have received Invalid Care Allowance for(a) two, (b) five, (c) 10, (d) 15 and (e) 20 years since 1978. [103074]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Duration of Invalid Care Allowance awards which have terminated

  Year

  Up to Over 2 years

  Over 2 Years to 5 Years

  Over 5 Years

  All durations

  19811

  778

  528

  204

  1,510

  1982

  1,670

  777

  311

  2,758

  1983

  1,761

  748

  312

  2,821

  1984

  1,951

  844

  428

  3,223

  1985

  2,040

  1,019

  390

  3,449

  1986

  3,337

  1,029

  412

  4,778

  1987

  18,839

  4,890

  497

  24,226

  1988

  15,150

  9,236

  531

  24,917

  1989

  14,390

  10,283

  705

  25,378

  1990

  14,378

  9,454

  3,212

  27,044

  1991

  19,040

  9,508

  4,796

  33,344

  1992

  23,363

  9,780

  6,009

  39,152

  328W

  Duration of Invalid Care Allowance awards which have terminated

  Year

  Up to 2 Years

  Overs 2 Years to 5 Years

  Overs 5 Years

  All durations

  1993

  26,331

  10,361

  6,173

  42,865

  1994

  28,516

  11,736

  6,889

  47,141

  1995

  35,899

  16,609

  9,040

  61,548

  19962

  21,284

  10,464

  5,502

  37,250

  1997

  43,446

  24,301

  12,789

  80,536

  1998

  40,179

  25,334

  13,643

  79,156

  19993

  29,096

  17,047

  11,128

  57,271

  1Period is 1 April 1981 to 31 December 1981.

  2Period is 1 January 1996 to 31 March 1996 and 1 October 1996 to 31 December 1996.

  3Period is 1 January 1999 to 30 September 1999.

  Note:

  Information not available prior to 1981.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Duration of current Invalid Care Allowance awards

  Duration

  Number

  Up to 1 year

  64,486

  Over 1 year to 2 years

  61,302

  Over 2 years to 5 years

  127,403

  Over 5 years to 10 years

  88,234

  Over 10 years

  32,594

  All durations

  374,019

  Note:

  Figures relate to 21 July 1999.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Benefits (Automated Credit Transfer)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1999,Official Report, column 43W, on automated credit transfer of benefits, in what circumstances he would envisage exception to the norm of benefit payment by automated credit transfer. [103199]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are still considering this issue. However, one area where an exception is necessary may be where people are prevented from having a bank account, such as those who have been
  declared bankrupt.

  Carers' Pensions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers for elderly and disabled people, who have been in receipt of or who have underlying entitlement to invalid care allowance and home responsibilities protection, he estimates will benefit from the state second pension in each of the 10 years from the start of the state second pension. [103071]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that in the region of 400,000 carers for elderly or disabled people, who have been in receipt of, or have underlying entitlement to, Invalid Care Allowance or home responsibilities protection will build up entitlement to the State Second Pension from the year of its introduction.
  329W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the costs of providing the state second pension to carers who have been in receipt of or who have underlying entitlement to invalid care allowance or home responsibilities protection in the first 10 years of the state second pension. [103072]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table:

  The estimated costs of providing state second pension to carers who have been in receipt of or who have underlying entitlement to, invalid care allowance or home responsibilities protection in the first 10 years of the scheme

  Year

  £ million

  2002–03

  0

  2003–04

  1

  2004–05

  2

  2005–06

  4

  2006–07

  8

  2007–08

  12

  2008–09

  16

  2009–10

  22

  2010–11

  26

  2011–12

  30

  Notes:

  1. Gross costs are shown in £ million (rounded to nearest million) in 1999–2000 price terms but are unlikely to be accurate to this degree.

  2. State Second Pension is assumed to start in 2002.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to backdate the state second pension to 1978 for qualifying carers who reach retirement age after 2002–03. [103118]

  Mr. Rooker
  Records are not available to identify all individuals with a period of actual or underlying entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance or Home Responsibilities Protection back to 1978.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers have received Home Responsibilities Protection since 1978. [103076]

  Mr. Bayley
  No reliable information is available on the numbers of non-child carers without Invalid Care Allowance who were either entitled to or claimed Home Responsibilities Protection over the years back to 1978.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people received industrial injuries disablement benefit in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and what was the total cost of industrial injuries disablement benefit in each of those years; [102305]

  (2) how many claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit were paid in respect of stress-related disablement in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 to date. [102306]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  330W

  Expenditure on industrial injuries disablement benefit

  £ million

  IIDB

  Expenditure

  1996–97

  685

  1997–98

  690

  1998–99

  706

  Note:

  Expenditure for 1997 and 1998 has been taken from the Departmental Report (ISBN 0-10-142312-8). Expenditure for 1999 has been taken from the Pre Budget Report.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division).

  Stress related disorders are not a prescribed disease for the purposes of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit can be paid in relation to mental disorders only where an industrial accident has been identified as the cause of the disablement.

  Industrial injuries disablement figures—accident assessments, current at April 1997 and April 1998, by mental and behavioural disorder

  IIDB

  All accidents

  Mental and behavioural disorders

  At 5 April 1997

  212,000

  700

  At 4 April 1998

  217,000

  700

  Notes:

  1. These figures are based on a 10 per cent. sample of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and include an adjustment for late statistical returns. Figures for 1998 are provisional.

  2. Figures have been rounded.

  3. Mental disorder is recorded in relation to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.

  4. Figures for 1999 are not yet available.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division)

  Child Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the total amount of child support maintenance owed, broken down between debts of people who have not yet paid anything and those who have made some payments. [100911]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Willetts, dated 20 December 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.Unfortunately, CSA does not have the information to answer the question in the way you require. We do not separate debt according to the compliance status of the debtor. However, I can give the information we do hold which may assist you.The Committee of Public Accounts Session 1995/96 were concerned that the Agency had been unable to estimate the value of uncollectable debt, and advised that the Agency should "…examine the scope for eliminating a significant amount of this debt since it is unlikely ever to be collected … ". To address this problem on 31 March 1996 a debt evaluation exercise was undertaken; this exercise is now repeated on an annual basis.The exercise itself, undertaken by Agency staff, identifies that part of the debt that is probably uncollectable, the results are validated by Analytical Services Division and removed to show a331W more realistic debt position. This change was introduced in 1997/98 and was included in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for that year.I hope this is helpful.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will establish the consultation group on inherited rights to SERPS for widows and widowers after 6 April 2000; and if this group will be established before regulations made under the Welfare Reform and Pension Act 1999 are published. [103322]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will be making further announcements on inherited SERPS shortly.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of doubling the rate of child benefit(a) for each child aged under five years and (b) for the youngest child aged under five years, assuming (i) corresponding increases in child rates of means-tested benefits and (ii) no corresponding changes in means-tested benefit rates. [103147]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  Estimated annual cost (£ billion)

  Age of child

  Corresponding increase in means-tested benefits

  No corresponding change in means-tested benefits

  All children under 5

  2.1

  1.6

  All subsequent children under 5

  1.0

  0.7

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100 million and are in 2000–01 prices.

  2. Assumes an April 2000 start date.

  3. Estimates of the child benefit cost have been based on figures taken on the August 1999 5 per cent scan of the child benefit computer system.

  4. Estimates of the Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) offset have been calculated from the August 1999 5 per cent. scans of the IS and JSA computer systems.

  5. Estimates of the Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) offsets have been calculated from the May 1998 1 per cent. sample of all live HB and CTB claims.

  6. The costs have been calibrated to the forecasts of the 2000–01 benefit caseload forecasts, which underpin the 1999 pre-budget report.

  7. For lone parents still in receipt of the lone parent rate of child benefit the answer assumes that their new rate will be set equal to the couple's rate of benefit after doubling.

  8. The answer assumes that the increases no longer apply once a child reaches the age of 5.

  9. The answer assumes for (b) that the reference to youngest child means all subsequent children under 5.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to propose a statutory obligation to uprate means-tested benefits in line with inflation. [103192]
  332W
  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to change the existing legislative arrangements.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) cost in the next five years and (b) eventual cost of re-introducing a lone parent premium within the means-tested benefits system for those lone parents with a child aged under five years, to apply immediately to all existing recipients. [103141]

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

  The estimated cost based on April 2000 rates up until 2001–02 and the estimated long run cost

  £ million

  Year

  Cost per annum

  2000–01

  10

  2001–02

  20

  Long-run

  50

  Notes:

  1. Costs have been rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Assumes a long parent premium in year 1—April 2000—of £1.65 (this is the difference between the April 2000 rate of Family Premium for Lone Parents (£15.90) and the standard rate of family premium (£14.25).

  3. Lone parent premium is assumed to be subsequently uprated by the ROSSI index.

  4. The long-run cost has been expressed in current prices. Because we do not have forecasts of the long-run IS lone parent caseload we have based it on the IS lone parent caseload as in 2000–01.

  5. Assumes that the lone parent premium will only be paid to lone parents who have a child aged under five years old.

  6. Caseloads are consistent with forecasts underlying the 1999 pre-budget report.

  7. Estimates of the Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) costs have been calculated from the August 1999 5 per cent. scans of the IS and JSA computer systems.

  8. Estimates of the Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) costs have been calculated from the May 1998 1 per cent. sample of all live HB and CTB claims.

  9. Forecasts of the IS lone parent caseload are not available beyond 2001–02.

  Low-income Households
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each of the years 1982 to 1998, what was the number of people in households where one or more adults were in paid work where the income is below half mean income; what was the estimated number of children in these households; and what were the numbers living in families headed by(a) a lone parent and (b) a couple. [102843]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  The latest information relates to the financial year 1997–98.
  333W

  Numbers of people in families where one or more adults were in paid work and where the income is below half contemporary mean income before housing costs

  millions

  Year

  Total people

  Total children

  Total people in lone parent families

  Children in lone parent families

  Total people in couple families

  Children in couple families

  FES

  1981

  1.7

  0.8

  0.1

  0.0

  1.4

  0.7

  1987

  2.4

  0.9

  0.1

  0.0

  1.7

  0.9

  1988–89

  2.9

  1.2

  0.2

  0.1

  2.1

  1.1

  1990–91

  3.5

  1.4

  0.3

  0.2

  2.4

  1.2

  1991–92

  3.5

  1.3

  0.3

  0.2

  2.3

  1.2

  1992–93

  3.5

  1.4

  0.2

  0.2

  2.4

  1.2

  1993–94

  3.3

  1.3

  0.2

  0.2

  2.3

  1.2

  1994–95

  3.3

  1.4

  0.3

  0.2

  2.3

  1.2

  1995–96

  3.5

  1.4

  0.3

  0.2

  2.4

  1.2

  FRS

  1994–95

  3.3

  1.3

  0.2

  0.1

  2.2

  1.2

  1995–96

  3.0

  1.1

  0.2

  0.1

  2.0

  1.0

  1996–97

  3.6

  1.5

  0.3

  0.2

  2.5

  1.3

  1997–98

  4.0

  1.6

  0.3

  0.2

  2.6

  1.4

  Numbers of people in families where one or more adults were in paid work and where the income is below half contemporary mean income after housing costs

  millions

  Year

  Total people

  Total children

  Total people in lone parent families

  Children in lone parent families

  Total people in couple families

  Children in couple families

  FES

  1981

  2.3

  1.1

  0.1

  0.1

  2.0

  1.0

  1987

  3.2

  1.3

  0.1

  0.1

  2.4

  1.2

  1988–89

  3.5

  1.4

  0.2

  0.1

  2.5

  1.3

  1990–91

  4.6

  1.8

  0.4

  0.2

  3.2

  1.6

  1991–92

  4.6

  1.7

  0.4

  0.2

  3.0

  1.5

  1992–93

  4.6

  1.7

  0.4

  0.2

  3.0

  1.5

  1993–94

  4.4

  1.7

  0.4

  0.2

  2.9

  1.5

  1994–95

  4.4

  1.8

  0.5

  0.3

  2.9

  1.5

  1995–96

  4.7

  1.9

  0.6

  0.4

  3.0

  1.5

  FRS

  1994–95

  4.2

  1.6

  0.3

  0.2

  2.8

  1.5

  1995–96

  4.2

  1.6

  0.3

  0.2

  2.7

  1.4

  1996–97

  4.8

  1.9

  0.4

  0.3

  3.1

  1.6

  1997–98

  5.1

  2.0

  0.5

  0.3

  3.3

  1.7

  Notes:

  1. The information comes from the "Households Below Average Income" (HBAI) series. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs in line with HBAI conventions. All the estimates in the table relate to families with an adult in paid work rather than households with an adult in paid work.

  2. People living in families which include a self-employed adult have been included in the tables. Self-employment income data is known often to be a poor guide to households' living standards. In 1997–98, around 600,000 to 700,000 of the children in households below half average income had a full-time self-employed person in the household.

  3. The column headed "Total people in couple families" does not include couples without children.

  4. The estimates based on the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) are for the United Kingdom. For 1988–89 and subsequent years, two years' data have been combined to improve the robustness of the results. For 1994–95 onwards, estimates are available from the larger Family Resources Survey (FRS) and relate to single financial years. The FRS results are for Great Britain.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average income of(a) people in work in the United Kingdom and (b) people who have retired. [102618]

  Mr. Rooker
  Comparisons between the average incomes of households can be misleading if not fully explained. The most appropriate income measure when comparing different types of households is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the size and composition of the household). It is standard HBAI practice to give results for income both before and after housing costs, in 334W
  order to allow for the effect of variations in housing costs between households. Using this definition the following information is available:

  For families where someone is working the average net equivalised household income of individuals in benefit units with a working adult in 1997–98 (in April 1999 prices) was £367 per week Before Housing Costs (BHC), and £322 per week After Housing Costs (AHC).

  For families with retired people the average net equivalised household income in 1997–98 (in April 1999 prices) was £242 per week BHC and £220 per week AHC.

  Using an alternative definition, the average net unequivalised income of pensioner benefit units in 1996–97 was estimated at £175 per week BHC and £154 per week AHC (in July 1996 prices). These figures should not be directly compared to the equivalised income estimates given above.
  335W
  Notes:

  1. All equivalised figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland. 1997–98 is the latest year for which information is available. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  2. The retired are defined as those in benefit units where the head or spouse is aged 60 or over and no adult is in work.

  3. All unequivalised figures are taken from The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1996–97 publication (PI), based on the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). Pensioner benefit units are defined here as single people over state pension age (65 for men; 60 for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  4. The PI figures for pensioners cannot be directly compared to other groups of the population since they are not equivalised (i.e. they do not take account of differences in size and composition of each household).

  5. The PI figures for pensioners cannot be compared directly to HBAI figures for pensioners for several reasons. In addition to the fact that HBAI figures are equivalised, the PI figures relate to a different period (1996–97 compared with 1997–98) and a different geographical area (UK compared with GB). The PI figures are expressed in July 1996 prices and the HBAI figures in April 1999 prices. The PI figures relate to income at the benefit unit level, averaged over all benefit units, while HBAI figures relate to household income, averaged over all individuals.

  6. The average net unequivalised income of single pensioners in 1996–97 was estimated at £129 per week BHC and £108 per week AHC (in July 1996 prices). The corresponding estimates for pensioner couples were £248 BHC and £229 AHC.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of(a) public and (b) private funding of London Underground from 1997–98 to 2001–02 using figures at 1997–98 prices. [100949]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: Figures are provided for the years 1997–98 to 2000–01. Figures for this year and next are plans/estimates. Levels of Government support for the Underground in 2001–02 have not yet been determined.

  (a) The Government provide grant to London Transport for Underground and bus services, and not separately to London Underground Ltd.

  Government funding for London Transport is as follows:

  Grant to London Transport

  £ million

  Cash

  1997–98 prices

  1997–98

  629

  629

  1998–99

  411

  401

  1999–2000

  740

  705

  2000–01

  349

  324

  Note:

  These figures reflect the position up to the end of October 1999, including the allocation of the 15 July additional resource package. They will need to be adjusted to take account of more recent decisions including the £50 million for bus initiatives announced on 15 November.
  336W
  This funding, together with LT's own revenues and investment through Private Finance Initiative (PH) deals (see following table), supports the following levels of investment in the Underground.

  Investment in London Underground

  £ million

  Cash

  1997–98 prices

  1997–98

  961 (485)

  961 (485)

  1998–99

  751 (468)

  733 (457)

  1999–2000

  803 (531)

  765 (506)

  2000–01

  753 (535)

  700 (497)

  Note:

  Figures in brackets represent Underground investment excluding the Jubilee Line Extension.

  (b) LT have made the following estimates of the value of investment provided through the PFI. The figures show what would have been the cost to LT if they had made the investment themselves. The actual cost of the investments to the companies concerned is not available.

  Value of PFI investment in London Underground

  £million

  Cash

  1997–98 prices

  1997–98

  161

  161

  1998–99

  53

  52

  1999–2000

  179

  171

  2000–01

  150

  139

  LT resources have been supplemented by the following contributions from third parties:

  Developer contributions

  £ million

  Cash

  1997–98 prices

  1997–98

  31

  31

  1998–99

  22

  21.5

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  2000–01

  65

  60.4

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the central funding of London's Underground over each of the next five years; and if he will list the figure for investment in each year in real terms. [100950]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The Government provide grant to London Transport (LT) and not specifically to the Underground. LT have been allocated Government support of £349 million for 2000–01. Some of this funding will be transferred to the Mayor in July next year, when Transport for London assumes responsibility for LT activities other than the Underground.

  Levels of government support for the London Underground (LU) in 2001-02 and thereafter have not yet been determined. They will depend on: the extent to which bidders for Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts improve on the public sector comparator;

  337W
  decisions on the level of Government funding to be taken following the 2000 spending review; and decisions on funding and fares made by the Mayor for London.

  Planned investment in the Underground in 2000£01 totals £753 million (£717 million in 1998–99 prices). This comprises investment of £535 million (£509 million in 1998–99 prices) in the core Underground and a projected £218 million (£207 million in 1998–99 prices) in payments to JLE contractors for investment that took place in previous years.

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of investment figures for 2001–02 and beyond. The PPP is designed to deliver around £8 billion worth of investment. PPP contractors will be required to implement a combination of specific projects and performance enhancements specified in terms of outputs to be delivered. Because the PPP contracts will require the delivery of service outputs, they will not generally specify particular works to be carried out or the amounts of money to be spent on them.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the London Transport report of 1997 into options for London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [103562]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government took account of LT's analysis in deciding on the Public Private Partnership route for London Underground. We published, and placed in the Library, a description of the facts and analysis underpinning our decision at the time.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Government and other reports compiled since May 1997 covering PPP, public interest companies, privatisation and other options for London Underground; if he will place them in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [103563]

  Mr. Hill
  Price Waterhouse submitted a report on a variety of options for London Underground to us in 1997. London Transport also shared with us the analysis they had undertaken at that time. In order to avoid releasing material that would compromise our commercial negotiating position we published, and placed in the Library, a summary of the facts and analysis which underpinned our decision to proceed with the Public Private Partnership for London Underground in March 1998. PricewaterhouseCoopers produced a paper specifically comparing the PPP to a public sector bond-financed approach for us which was published, and placed in the Library, earlier this month.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 431W, when he will report on London Transport's expenditure on external consultants up to the end of the first half of the current financial year. [103582]

  Mr. Hill
  I shall shortly be providing an up-dated figure for London Transport's expenditure on external advice for the London Underground public private partnership.
  338W
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account the Government took, in developing its proposed public-private partnership scheme for London Underground, of the bond-financed investment scheme set out in the report, "The Way Out—An Alternative Approach to the Future of the Underground". [103018]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government considered fully a variety of options for financing the investment needed in London Underground, including issuing bonds as advocated in this report. We continue to believe that the Public Private Partnership approach will achieve best value for taxpayers.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100160]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: Information about the Department's research programmes is made widely available and includes overview material on the DETR website and details of individual programmes and projects—again on the website and through hard copy reports and Newsletters. Details of each contract are not held centrally, but since May 1997 it is estimated that contracts for around 1,500 projects have been let with a total value of around £110 million. Further details are available through the DETR website and through the Government's "Forward Look SET Statistics"—most recently published by the Office of Science and Technology in August 1999.

  In answer to the other points:

  (a) Standard conditions of contract do not normally permit research contractors to divulge details of contracts or research results without specific approval by the Department, but the Department's policy is to make all results publicly available as soon as is reasonably possible (except in cases such as those including security or commercially confidential information);

  (b) Publication dates are agreed between the Department and the research contractor;

  (c) None. Where final reports incorporate departmental amendments, these are confined to matters of policy and presentation.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of media campaigns in reducing the incidence of drink driving. [101918]

  Mr. Hill
  Drink drive media campaigns aim to stimulate media and public awareness of the message not to drink and drive. They also provide a focus for
  339W
  co-ordinated complementary activity by police forces, local authorities and many others in the public and private sectors. Effectiveness is measured on an ongoing basis by:

  market research which tracks, each month, advertising recall and changes in attitudes across a range of road safety issues

  behaviour change indicators such as proportions failing breath tests and, over the longer term

  casualty statistics.

  The following tables show the reduction in casualties and in the percentage of positive breath tests over recent years.

  Fatalities and serious injuries in drink drive accidents 1979–98

  Year

  Fatalities

  Serious injuries

  1979

  1,640

  8,300

  1980

  1,450

  7,970

  1981

  1,420

  7,370

  1982

  1,550

  8,010

  1983

  1,110

  6,800

  1984

  1,170

  6,820

  1985

  1,040

  6,810

  1986

  990

  6,440

  1987

  900

  5,900

  1988

  790

  5,100

  1989

  810

  4,790

  1990

  760

  4,090

  1991

  660

  3,610

  1992

  660

  3,280

  1993

  540

  2,660

  1994

  540

  2,840

  1995

  540

  3,000

  1996

  580

  3,010

  1997

  550

  2,940

  19981

  460

  2,520

  1 Provisional

  Percentage of breath tests which were positive/refused 1988–98

  Year

  Percentage positive/refused

  1988

  25

  1989

  20

  1990

  17

  1991

  16

  1992

  17

  1993

  15

  1994

  14

  1995

  13

  1996

  13

  1997

  13

  1998

  12

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is registered as disabled; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in his Department. [102049]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We are acting to encourage the employment of people with disabilities. In this Department the total number of staff with disabilities is 3 per cent.

  As authorised users of the Positive about Disabled People (two ticks) symbol, an Employment Service scheme, the Department guarantees interviews to all people with disabilities meeting the minimum criteria for
  340W
  the job. DETR recruitment policy highlights the importance of fair and open competition, all adverts placed advertise that the Department is an equal opportunities employer. Guidance is provided to line managers on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to highlight best practice with regard to the employment of staff with disabilities.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 541W, on GM crops, what research on the impact of GM pollen on wild or feral bee populations his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) received. [102833]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has not specifically commissioned any research on the impact of GM pollen on wild or feral bee populations. However, one member of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has specific expertise in bees and their behaviour. In addition all information on this topic, which is in the public domain, is available to Department scientists and members of ACRE when considering the impact of GM pollen on wild or feral bee populations in relation to a particular release application.

  Care and Repair
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements are being made to support care and repair initiatives by local authorities not currently in receipt of support. [102823]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department currently provides £6.7 million annually to support 184 home improvement agencies under a three year matched funding scheme which began in April 1999. Seven agencies have been established outside the scheme, in partnership with local authorities and other funders, and a further seven are in the process of being established on that basis. The national co-ordinating body, Care and Repair England Ltd, works to expand the home improvement agency movement and to assist the assembly of funding arrangements.

  Otterburn Ranges
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from hon. Members opposed to Ministry of Defence proposals for changes to the Otterburn ranges in Northumberland National Park. [102875]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: Thirteen Members have recently written to the Secretary of State, enclosing letters from constituents opposed to the development and seeking an update on the current position.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the reasons for the resignation of the Director General of Ordnance Survey; what advice he has givens
  341W
  Ministers as to working relationships between Ordnance Survey and local government; and if he will make a statement. [103135]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Dr. Robinson's decision to resign as Director General of Ordnance Survey was sudden and unexpected. His stated reason for resignation was difficulty in reaching agreement with local government over a number of important national initiatives. Dr. Robinson decided it was time for someone else to lead these issues to a successful conclusion.

  The acting Director General has advised me that there are many positive aspects to the relationship between Ordnance Survey and local government. All local authorities have access to, and gain great benefit from, a wide range of Ordnance Survey data through a centralised agreement. Working in closer partnership to realise benefits made possible by recent technological developments does present a significant new challenge for Ordnance Survey and local government. Ordnance Survey remains committed to meeting this challenge and finding practical, co-ordinated ways forward. For example, the Director General of Ordnance Survey has jointly commissioned with the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) an independent review of the relationship between Ordnance Survey and local authorities. This review specifies opportunities for developing the relationship, which are now being jointly pursued by Ordnance Survey and IDeA.

  For my part, I fully endorse the vision for the future of Ordnance Survey that was articulated by Geoff Robinson. It has also been greeted with considerable enthusiasm by a broad spectrum of members of the geographical information community and is being vigorously pursued by Ordnance Survey staff.

  Housing Revenue
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about his plans for housing revenue account subsidy for the year 2000–01. [103633]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We consulted authorities on our proposals for Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Subsidy for 2000–01 and related issues in November. Having considered the representations made, I have decided broadly to confirm the proposals on which we consulted authorities, subject to one significant change.

  I have decided to increase Management Allowances nationally next year by £21 million. This is in addition to the increase of £67 million in Maintenance Allowances announced at the start of consultation.

  We are determined to improve the quality of council housing. We are combating years of under-investment in the fabric of the stock. This is the second significant increase in resources for maintenance, following years of standstill. It is the first increase for management in five years. These additional resources will enable councils to tackle urgent repairs and made a real improvement in tenants' quality of life.

  We expect councils to continue to increase the efficiency of their housing management, but the additional investment recognises the increasing demands on them to provide quality services and act as a focal point for local
  342W
  work to tackle social exclusion, consistent with the recommendations made by Policy Action Team 5 which looked at housing management.

  The increases in maintenance allowances and management allowances are in addition to the extra £3.6 billion for capital investment in local authority housing announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in July 1998, following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  We are also making available additional resources of £15 million next year, with a further £15 million in 2001–02, to help authorities introduce resource accounting into the Housing Revenue Account. In addition, we are allocating an extra £12 million over the next two years to help tenants get involved in managing their homes through tenant participation compacts.

  Copies of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 2000–01 and related Determinations have been sent to all local housing authorities in England. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Valuation Tribunal
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has received to the consultation paper on valuation tribunal membership issues. [103636]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have received 66 responses, the majority of which support our proposals. A list of responses that may be made public has been placed in the Library of the House. Copies of individual responses may be obtained through my Department's library.

  Regulations will be introduced early in the New Year to give effect to the following measures:
  to provide for joint valuation tribunal and local authority appointment of valuation tribunal members, to replace the existing arrangements for appointment by local authorities alone (to apply to appointments from 1 April 2000);
  to provide for the appointment of valuation tribunal members by the Secretary of State where no appointment is made within 28 days of a vacancy occurring, replacing existing arrangements that apply three months from a vacancy occurring; and
  to provide for the transfer of appeals to other valuation tribunals where it appears there may be a conflict of interest.

  Individual valuation tribunals will be consulted further about the timing of planned reductions in their number of members.

  Accessible Transport
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote the provision of accessible transport for disabled people. [103619]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government believe that accessible public transport, within the framework of an integrated transport policy, is fundamentally important to delivering our commitment to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. We have already implemented regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that all new trains are accessible to disabled people, including those who travel in wheelchairs. We
  343W
  will be introducing similar requirements for new buses and coaches from next year and for licensed taxis from 2002.

  We are also working with local authorities to produce guidance on best practice in removing barriers to public transport infrastructure and in the pedestrian environment.

  The Disability Rights Task Force has just published its recommendations to Government on possible extensions to the Disability Discrimination Act. We are considering their recommendations for further requirements on accessibility in the transport field.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which organisations he has consulted in the preparation of the Rural White Paper; [103218]

  (2) if he will make a statement on what measures he intends to introduce to maximise consultation on the Rural White Paper. [103219]

  Mr. Mullin
  A discussion document: "Rural England" was launched in February this year. It invited views on a series of questions on a wide range of rural issues. About 1,800 copies were sent out to organisations with an invitation to comment and a further 8,200 copies were distributed for seminars and issued on request. The document was also available on the DETR internet site. Just under 800 responses were received from a variety of national bodies, local authorities, parish councils, farming, environmental and other organisations, public, private and voluntary bodies, and individuals. A summary of the issues arising from the consultation process, including a list of respondents, is available in the House of Commons Library and on the DETR website.

  The Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) have recently published their report on "Rural Economies", which is an important contribution to the debate about rural policies. The report highlights a series of issues for discussion and invites comments by 11 February 2000. Responses received will be considered in the preparation of the Rural White Paper.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 29 September to the Minister for the Environment on behalf of his constituent Mr. Logan. [103086]

  Mr. Meacher
  I replied to the right hon. Member's letter on 13 December.

  Highway Inquiries
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the current rules and procedures for highway inquiries were published; [103114]

  (2) what plans he has to update the existing rules and procedures for highway inquiries following the publication of the "A New Deal for Transport" White Paper. [103115]
  344W
  Mr. Hill
  The current rules that regulate highway inquiries in England and Wales were made by Statutory Instrument in 1994. They came into force on 10 January 1995. There are no plans to update them.

  However, the Government's initiative for Modernising Planning referred to in "A New Deal for Transport" includes proposals for improving planning appeal procedures. Following consultation in August 1998 these proposals are being worked up and will be implemented early next year.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the rating of telecommunications masts; and if he will make a statement. [103635]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today published a consultation paper on the rating of telecommunications masts which are shared by multiple operators. We are encouraging the sharing of masts and mast sites to keep environmental intrusion to a minimum. However, the growth of shared sites has caused uncertainty in their rates assessment. Our proposals would remove that uncertainty by providing that shared sites receive only one rates bill.

  The Government would welcome views on the consultation paper by 28 January 2000.

  Aircraft (Seat Safety)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority about safety(a) in general, (b) relating to the spaces between seats on aircraft and (c) relating to reclining seats; and if he will make a statement. [103598]

  Mr. Mullin
  Both the Minister for Transport and I meet representatives of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) from time to time to discuss a wide range of aviation safety issues.

  The UK is unique in having an airworthiness requirement for minimum seat space. The CAA, which is responsible for the safety regulation of UK registered passenger aircraft, has set minimum requirements for seating space because it is one of a number of factors which can have an effect on the evacuation of an aircraft in an emergency. The specified minimum space between seats applies for the seat backs in the upright position, as required for take-off and landing. Providing that the minimum standards are adhered to, the seat spacing and the amount of recline available and their effect on passenger comfort is a matter for the operators.

  Local Authority Reorganisation
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to authorities that were reorganised on 1 April 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement.[103722]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 8 October I invited authorities which were eligible to participate in the Local Government Reorganisation Cost Scheme for 2000–01 which reorganised on 1 April 1998, to submit estimates
  345W
  of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transition costs of reorganisation in 2000–01. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs.

  The amounts are as follows:

  £000

  Authority

  Maximum amounts 2000–01

  West Berkshire Council

  543

  Reading Borough Council

  1,978

  Slough Borough Council

  701

  Wokingham District Council

  3,287

  County of Herefordshire District Council

  1,540

  Worcestershire county Council

  2,978

  Plymouth City Council

  2,376

  Torbay Borough Council

  2,215

  Thurrock Borough Council

  3,318

  Nottingham City Council

  1,900

  Halton Borough Council

  3,770

  Telford and Wrekin Dist Borough Council

  726

  Medway Borough Council

  1,650

  Peterborough City Council

  475

  Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council

  804

  Blackpool Borough Council

  760

  Total

  29,021

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the consultation on residential leasehold reform; and how he proposes to take the matters forward. [103750]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have published today a report on the responses to the consultation paper "Residential Leasehold Reform in England and Wales" which was issued in November 1998. 956 responses were received. There was widespread support for the objectives put forward in the consultation paper although there were differences as to the way in which these should be achieved.

  As Her Majesty announced in the gracious speech on 17 November 1999, Official Report, column 7, the Government will publish a draft Bill in the current session on proposals for commonhold and leasehold reform. This will provide a further opportunity for consultation on detailed proposals. We have also published today a summary of the proposals that are likely to be included in the draft Bill. Copies of the report and the summary have been placed in the House Libraries.

  These proposals, if approved by Parliament, would represent a major improvement to the rights of existing leaseholders. With the proposals for Commonhold, which are being taken forward by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, they will go a long way towards ensuring that all home owners enjoy the same degree of security and control over their homes.

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is of ethnic 346W
  minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department. [102740]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office set out in her reply given on 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 264W, corporate action that we are taking to encourage the employment of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. A total of 5.2 per cent. of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions current workforce (including its Agencies) are from an ethnic minority.

  My Department is taking a number of measures to increase the representation of people from an ethnic minority background. We have participated in the Windsor Fellowship, Diversity UK, Afro-Caribbean and National Mentoring Careers Fairs aimed at encouraging ethnic minority undergraduates to consider a career in the Department. We have taken on ethnic minority students on Windsor Fellowship summer placements for a number of years and plan to increase the number of placements from two to six next year. We also want to bring in senior and professional people from the ethnic minorities on secondment. In addition to this, we advertise in Job Centres and newspapers with a large ethnic minority readership, for example The Voice and The Eastern Eye, to attract potential ethnic minority recruits.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 9–10 December; and if he will make a statement. [102635]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 9–10 December. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached political agreement on a package of three draft directives, which take the opening of the internal market for rail services a significant step further. The package will amend Directives 91/440 and 95/18 and replace Directive 95/19. It will: provide open access for rail freight operators to a Trans-European Rail Freight Network (TERFN), which includes all major terminals and ports; broaden the scope of existing provisions for separation of accounts and certain essential functions between infrastructure management and train service operations; extend Community-wide recognition of train operators' licences to all railway undertakings established in the Community; and establish rules for allocating capacity on railway infrastructure and charging for its use. Conclusions were also adopted on improving interoperability and alleviating rail bottlenecks

  The Commission gave a progress report to Council on the definition phase of the Galileo satellite navigation project, including a report on discussions with the US and Russia. Lord Macdonald expressed the UK's disappointment at the pace of work on public-private financing and cost benefit analysis. He said that more work was needed to enable decisions to be taken at the end of 2000 on the future development of satellite navigation in Europe.
  347W
  There was a debate on the establishment of a European Aviation Safety Authority. The Commission proposed that the new authority should be set up as a Community agency. The UK and some other member states argued that an international body was preferable, as the Council had previously agreed. It would be genuinely pan-European and would have the support of the aviation industry. Following the debate, the Presidency asked the Commission to produce an analysis of its proposal for a Community agency, but also to begin exploratory talks with third countries.

  The Commission gave a presentation to the Council on air traffic management in Europe. Referring to lack of ATM capacity as a cause of increasing delays, and to the need for greater cooperation between states, the Commission proposed centralised management of a "Single European Sky". The Commissioner, Mrs. de Palacio, proposed that she should chair a high level group of member states' representatives, to study the issue. It would aim to report to the Transport Council in June 2000.

  The Council discussed aviation noise problems. The Commission reported on the latest developments in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on international standards and on its recent consultations with the United States. The Council reaffirmed its commitment to the ICAO process, and repeated that, if the outcome was successful and met the EU' s objectives, existing Community legislation could be replaced by new international rules if these were more favourable. The Commission was invited to look at the issue urgently and propose solutions.

  The Commission presented a study on the economic impact of the draft directive on ferry manning, which would ensure that conditions for third country crew members on intra-EC ferry services were at least as favourable as those of EC crew members. The study suggested that the impact would be negligible. The Commission's view remained that the directive would protect jobs in the EU. The UK and some other member states welcomed the report and strongly supported the proposal, which was first put forward during the UK Presidency. The Council will return to the issue at a later date.

  The Council held a further debate on proposals for the extension of working time provisions to road transport. There remains disagreement between member states on fundamental issues, including application to the self-employed. Following the debate, the Presidency concluded that the Council should continue to look for solutions.

  There was a progress report from the Commission on negotiations with ten Central and Eastern European countries on extension of the aviation single market.

  The Council adopted Resolutions on the promotion of short sea shipping and on ways to encourage the greater use of intermodal freight transport. It also adopted a mandate authorising the Commission to commence air transport negotiations with Cyprus.

  There were also Commission reports on: indicators on transport and the environment; the recent report of the forum on barriers to innovation in transport, which aimed to produce an action plan by the end of 2000; Community accession to Eurocontrol, on which the Commission
  348W
  hoped that an Accession protocol could be signed at the MATSE VI Conference of aviation Ministers on 27 January; the recent aviation open skies conference in Chicago; and a Commission Communication on air transport and the environment.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the projected costs of the Health and Safety Executive for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [102750]

  Mr. Meacher
  The projected costs of the Health and Safety Executive for financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–2001 are (a) £230 million and (b) £239 million. The figure for 2000–01 excludes the cost of the public inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove train crash.

  NATS
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the property held by the CAA on behalf of the National Air Traffic Services or by NATS itself, indicating in each case(a) its location, (b) its present value, (c) whether it is leased or owned with details of any leases, (d) whether the property is wholly or partially occupied by NATS and (e) which company or consultancy has given advice on the property value recently. [102913]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information is not available in the form requested at the present time. I understand that the total number of properties involved is in excess of 140, many of which are radio stations, radar sites and navigational aids. My Department's advisers are currently in the process of carrying out a property due diligence exercise as part of the preparatory work for the proposed public private partnership. However, it is not likely to be completed before spring 2000.

  Minerals (West Midlands)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the objection by the Government Office for the West Midlands to the Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin Minerals Local Plan 1996 to 2006. [102991]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government Office for the West Midlands is maintaining an objection to policy M16 (Crushed Rock Aggregates) in the Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin Minerals Local Plan. The objection is to the effect that the policy on crushed rock extraction should be more flexible to enable proposals to come forward, in exceptional circumstances, for new as well as extended sites. Any application for a new site for crushed rock extraction would be determined in the light of all material planning considerations, including the extensive nature of existing reserves. A proposed modification meeting the Government Office's objection was placed on deposit by the joint minerals planning authority on 3 December.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 213W, concerning the Climate Change Levy,

  349W
  what role the Energy Technology Support Unit will have in determining cost-effective measures with respect to the Climate Change Levy. [103019]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has appointed ETSU to be its independent, professional and technical advisers in discussions about prospective climate change levy agreements with eligible energy intensive industry sector participants. ETSU work with the Sector Associations and the Department to advise on the potential for energy and carbon dioxide savings in the respective sectors. In addition, they are advising the Department on the stringency of target offers from the Sector Associations, principally by comparing them with projections drawn from ETSU's "All Cost Effective" scenario in their report "Industrial sector carbon dioxide emissions: projections and indicators for the UK 1990–2010" published in April 1999.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Fund (Replacement)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on plans to replace the millennium fund after 2000. [102011]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission will receive £2.017 billion from the National Lottery over its lifetime. Once the Commission has received this sum, its share will be transferred to the New Opportunities Fund.

  National Lottery (Small Grants Schemes)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he plans to ensure that Lottery money awarded under newly launched small grants schemes represents value for money. [102013]

  Kate Hoey
  Lottery distributing bodies are required, under the Financial Directions with which my right hon. Friend issues them, to adopt stringent monitoring and evaluation arrangements for all funding programmes to ensure money is distributed effectively and efficiently. The amount of help which small groups received from the Lottery doubled in the past year. The proportion of grants of less than £100,000 increased from 9 per cent. to 17 per cent.

  Cultural Events (Access)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to improve access to cultural events for school children. [102018]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend and I are committed to providing every child with the opportunity to access cultural events and we are taking a number of measures to ensure this.

  Seaside Resorts (Lancashire)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to encourage the regeneration of Lancashire seaside resorts; and if he will make a statement. [102019]
  350W
  Janet Anderson
  The Government's strategy for tourism "Tomorrow's Tourism" contains a raft of initiatives to promote quality tourism, including a model regeneration plan for resorts. The English Tourism Council have been given primary responsibility for resort issues and they are currently setting up a Resorts Task Force to tackle issues in resorts.

  Children's Films
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage the British film industry to make more films for children. [102020]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have asked the Chairman of the Film Council to consider the recommendation of the Film Education Working Group that production of films for children should be one of the priorities of the Council's Lottery strategy. The availability of a wider range of films for children could lead to both educational and commercial benefits.

  Unified Accommodation Scheme
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress towards a unified accommodation grading scheme. [102021]

  Janet Anderson
  The new standardised accommodation ratings in England were launched on 13 September by the English Tourism Council, the AA and the RAC. They are available throughout the whole of the United Kingdom through the AA and the RAC. I recently wrote to my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales and in the Scottish Parliament suggesting that we look again at our respective accommodation schemes, the differences between them and the scope for arriving at common standards.

  Green Spaces
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what ways he expects children to benefit from the green spaces initiative funded by the New Opportunities Fund. [102023]

  Kate Hoey
  NOF is currently consulting and drawing up its bidding guidance for the green spaces programme. However, it is envisaged that projects involving opportunities for children's play, organised and informal sport, playing fields, access to the countryside and creating safer routes to school will be eligible among others. Such projects will greatly benefit the health, happiness, safety and social well-being of children, particularly in areas of multiple deprivation.

  National Lottery Proceeds
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to ensure an equitable regional spread of the proceeds from the Lottery. [102024]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Following the National Lottery Act 1998 and my revised Policy Directions, distributors must now take into account the need to ensure that all parts of
  351W
  the country have access to funding and the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation. Working with the Lottery distributors, we have commissioned research to establish what more can be done to help areas where the take-up of Lottery funding has been low.

  Football
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held with the Football Association on the venues under consideration for the staging of major football matches during the reconstruction of Wembley Stadium; and what advice he is giving to the Football Association on appropriate locations. [102000]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I will expect the Football Association, on considering alternative venues for major football matches while Wembley is under re-construction, to look to the wide range of excellent football stadiums available around Britain—including, of course, some built with Millennium Commission assistance. It is worth bearing in mind that we hosted EURO 96 in England, in a variety of venues, and demonstrated then that there are a number of excellent football stadiums that could be used.

  Lottery Applications
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the successful lottery applications in the Lancaster and Wyre parliamentary constituency since May 1997. [103098]

  Kate Hoey
  According to the latest information provided by my Department by the distributing bodies 73 awards worth a total of £11,395,044 have been made to recipients based in Lancaster and Wyre.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what benefits he expects to secure for the public from the new funding agreement with national museums and galleries. [102088]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 22 November 1999,Official Report, column 51W.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the Government grant support given to UK Sport and its predecessors in each year from 1994 to 1999. [103875]

  Kate Hoey
  UK Sport was established by Royal Charter on 19 September 1996 and became fully operational on 1 January 1997. Since then the grant in aid made available has been:

  £ million

  1996–97

  4.0

  1997–98

  11.8

  1998–99

  11.6

  1999–2000

  12.6

  352W
  Prior to establishing UK Sport, funding for sport was channelled through the GB Sports Council. In the years before UK Sport funding to GB Sports Council was:

  £ million

  1993–94

  50.6

  1994–95

  49.4

  1995–96

  49.2

  1996–97

  27.7

  World Cup 2006
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the accounts of the FA (FIFA) World Cup 2006 bid for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [102307]

  Kate Hoey
  The bid to host the World Cup in 2006 is a bid by the Football Association, with the full backing of the Government and Sport England, who have allocated £3 million of Lottery funding for the bid. The bid is not by Government and any decision to publish the accounts is for the FA to make. Reference to the bid is made in the FA's 1998 general annual report and accounts.

  Olympic Stadium, Manchester
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will investigate the possibility of relocating the proposed new Olympic Stadium in Manchester. [102715]

  Kate Hoey
  The final decision on timing and location of any UK Olympic bid rests with the British Olympic Association. The BOA feel that the strongest option for a successful bid would be to base it in London. The BOA is therefore conducting a feasibility study of a possible future London-based Olympic bid, which they will submit to Government in the new year.

  Peat
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his Department's policy is on the use of peat in and around the Millennium Dome. [103010]

  Janet Anderson
  A variety of new and exciting gardens and landscape installations are being constructed on and around the Millennium Experience site. Some of these are being constructed by NMEC, and some by English Partnerships as part of the long-term legacy of the site. In the case of soil mixes and topsoil, `greenwaste' is being used. This is based on recycled cuttings, taken in spring/ autumn and mulched, then composted for 4–6 months and does not contain peat. In the case of mulch and hydroseed, this is specified as peat free. Suppliers are able to propose their own product to meet this specification, so a variety of options have been used, but generally products based on chopped paper or something of this nature will be the most common solution. NMEC cannot make an absolute commitment to be "peat free", as soils attached to plants procured from commercial nurseries could contain small quantities of peat.
  353W

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Meetings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the dates on which the Cabinet meets and the duration of each meeting. [102643]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 31 July 1998, Official Report, column 604W.

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the remit of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee. [103047]

  The Prime Minister
  The Terms of Reference of the Joint Consultative Committee are

  "To consider policy issues of joint interest to the Government and the Liberal Democrats."

  Under these Terms of Reference, the Committee has agreed that it will also consider issues arising from European Union institutional reform which are being considered by the European Council.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if Liberal Democrat members of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee are under an obligation not to disclose publicly the content of discussions in that forum. [103077]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 January 1999,Official Report, columns 484–85W.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister who attended the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee meeting on 13 December on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Party. [103081]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 362W.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers and officials accompanied him on his visit to the United States from 4 to 7 February 1998. [103180]

  The Prime Minister
  As I have already made public, I was accompanied by nine key officials from No. 10 and three Ministers, together with the usual number of security and secure telecommunications staff that accompany a Prime Minister on an overseas visit.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government, other than President Clinton, during his visit of 20 to 23 June 1997, indicating the date and locations of each meeting, and the names of the persons met. [103139]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I gave the House on 24 June 1997,Official Report, columns 671–73W.
  354W

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment the Commission has made of the adequacy of the resources available to the National Audit Office to assess the value for money of public-private partnership funded schemes. [101990]

  Mr. Sheldon
  The Commission last met on 2 December to consider the estimates for the National Audit Office. Clearly, the evaluation of public-private partnership schemes, including projects under the Private Finance Initiative, is a major priority for the National Audit Office. Within the past two years, the NAO has published 10 reports on such projects and a further report setting out its criteria for evaluating public-private partnerships. More work in this area is planned and, while the Commission will continue to monitor the situation, I am satisfied that at present the current level of funding for this work is adequate.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Pensions
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the proportion of the annual Church Commissioners' revenue allocated to clergy pensions; and if he will make a statement. [101991]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In 1998 (the latest year for which figures are available), the Commissioners spent £85 million on clergy pension benefits. They also contributed £23 million to help dioceses take on the cost of pension contributions under the new clergy pension scheme established in 1998, as well as paying the contributions for clergy for whom the Commissioners are responsible. The total expenditure on pensions and pension contributions was £110 million, which was 69 per cent. of the Commissioners' overall expenditure.

  Use of Church Buildings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the policy of the Commissioners is on co-operation with people of other faiths in the use of church buildings. [101992]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Guidance on this issue is set out in "Communities and Buildings" by the General Synod Board of Mission. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mobile Telephone Antennae
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment they have made of the benefits of allowing the use of church property for mobile telephone antennae. [101993]
  355W
  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners are approached from time to time with requests to permit the installation of mobile phone antennae on their agricultural land. Requests are dealt with on a case by case basis, taking into account the impact on the surrounding area, and are subject to the planning process.

  The Commissioners do not have responsibility for granting requests to erect mobile phone antennae on churches in use which are a matter for Diocesan Advisory Committees and planning authorities.

  Anglican Services
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment he has made of the numbers of clergymen who will be required to conduct Anglican services in 2020. [101994]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Ministry Division of the Archbishops' Council is responsible for monitoring clergy numbers. No assessment of the likely numbers of full-time stipendiary clergy has been made for 2020 but work is currently being undertaken on long-term projections. Stipendiary clergy men and women are not the only resource for ministry available to the Church. At the end of 1998 there were, in addition to the 9,636 stipendiary clergy men and women, 1,206 non-stipendiary ministers and nearly 10,000 Readers. There are also 1,304 chaplains ministering in hospitals, schools, prisons and to the armed forces.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Sites (Water and Sewerage)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the out-sourcing of water supplies and sewage treatment at his Department's sites. [102743]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 557W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins).

  Depleted Uranium Ordnance
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has commissioned on the impact on health of oxide dust created by the use of depleted uranium weapons. [102747]

  Mr. Spellar
  The potential hazards caused by depleted uranium are well understood and are widely documented in existing scientific literature. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's Radiation Protection Service, then the Defence Radiological Protection Service, published in 1993 a summary report of its assessment of the radiological and chemical hazards of depleted uranium. The report explained that there are two types of hazard posed by the use of depleted uranium: a radiation hazard, although depleted uranium is a low specific activity material (as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency); and a chemical toxicity hazard, which is similar to that posed by other heavy metals, such as lead. A copy of the summary report has been placed in the Library of the House.
  356W
  In addition, on 19 March, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces published a detailed paper "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position". This paper describes the scenarios in which UK troops may have been exposed to DU in the Gulf and outlines the possible health effects of such exposures. It also includes reference to the case narrative "Depleted Uranium in the Gulf', published by the US Department of Defense; this case narrative sets out details of the programme of testing being conducted in the United States in the context of veterans possibly exposed to depleted uranium during the Gulf conflict. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reports he has received on radiation which has been measured in the vicinity of impacts of ammunition containing depleted uranium. [103391]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the incidence of birth deformities in areas where ordnance containing depleted uranium has been used. [102581]

  Mr. Spellar
  No assessment has been undertaken by my Department of the incidence of birth deformities where ammunition containing uranium has been used. We are not aware of any peer-reviewed epidemiological studies or validated data to suggest a link between ammunition containing depleted uranium and birth deformities. My Department would consider carefully any such studies or data if these became available.

  Armed Forces (Benefits)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Social Security about members of the armed forces claiming benefits; and if he will make a statement. [102852]

  Mr. Spellar
  Service personnel and their families resident in the United Kingdom have the same degree of entitlement to receive benefits as other members of the general population and are subject to the same qualifying criteria. My Department has not held discussions with the Department of Social Security other than to ensure that Service personnel and families are not penalised as a result of their required mobility.

  MOD Ministers and officials discuss periodically with other Government Departments, including the Department of Social Security, a range of policy issues affecting the Service community. Most recently these discussions have taken place within the forum of the Service Families Task Force.

  The independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body provides robust arrangements for a fair level of remuneration for the Armed Forces and ensures that Services' pay does not fall below the national minimum wage. This year's Armed Forces Pay Review Body award was above inflation, implemented in full, on time and un-staged for the first time since 1995.
  357W

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average(a) cost and (b) length, in each armed service, of (i) a summary hearing and (ii) a court-martial. [102531]

  Mr. Spellar
  (i) It is not possible to provide information for summary hearings. This level of detail is not recorded.

  (ii) There are no detailed figures to indicate the average duration of a court-martial and costs for each trial are not recorded. However, calculations have been performed that show the average daily rate of a court-martial for each Service. They are as follows:

  Naval Service

  £1,200

  Army

  £1,600

  RAF

  £1,700.

  Experience shows that a contested trial at court-martial lasts on average about two and a half days.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for each armed service(a) how many applications were made for redress of grievance and (b) what was the average length of time between application and conclusion of the process, in each of the past five years. [102529]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the RAF have elected for court-martial rather than face a summary hearing since 1997. [102525]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has not been a need to compile statistics across the Services in a way that would enable this information to be provided in detail. However, such figures as are available for the three Services indicate that less than 1 per cent. of those facing summary dealings have elected to be tried by court-martial.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for each of the armed services, how many courts-martial have been convened in each of the past five years; and at what locations. [102528]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for each armed service, what is the average time a suspect spends in custody awaiting court martial. [102534]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows:

  Army

  Since January 1999, 70 soldiers in court martial cases have been held in close arrest for an average period of 80 days while awaiting trial for serious offences.

  RN/RAF

  No cases are recorded over the past three years of suspects held in custody awaiting court martial.
  358W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in each of the armed services were(a) arrested by civilian police, (b) released by civilian police into the custody of the Royal Military Police,(c) arrested by civilian police and taken before a magistrate and (d) released from magistrates' courts into the custody of the Royal Military Police, in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [102530]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has been no historical requirement to compile statistics across the three services in a way which would enable this detailed information to be provided.

  Armed Forces Legal Branches
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in the(a) Army legal service, (b) Royal Navy legal service and (c) the RAF legal service, broken down by (i) rank and (ii) grade; and at what locations they are based. [102532]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows:

  Naval Service

  The Naval Service does not have a dedicated legal service. There are, however, 33 qualified barristers in the Royal Navy, 17 of whom are serving in legal appointments. Details of barristers, ranks and grades in support are:

  Naval Service

  Number

  (i) Ranks

  Commodore

  1

  Commander

  6

  Barristers

  Lieutenant Commander

  7

  Lieutenant

  3

  Warrant Officer

  3

  Chief Petty Officer

  4

  Petty Officer

  3

  Leading Rate

  6

  Able Rate

  4

  (ii) Grades

  Administrative Officer

  4

  Civilian typist

  1

  Overall total staff

  42

  Locations

  Portsmouth, London, Northwood, Yeovilton, Plymouth, Faslane.

  Army

  Number

  (i) Ranks

  Major General

  1

  Brigadier

  2

  Colonel

  4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  16

  Major

  19

  Captain

  40

  Warrant Officer

  1 x 2

  Warrant Officer

  2 x 2

  Staff Sergeant

  1

  Sergeant

  1

  (ii) Grades

  Executive Officer

  1

  Administrative Officer

  16

  Administrative Assistant

  5

  Typists

  17

  Personal Secretary

  3

  Locally employed civilians

  12

  Overall total

  142

  359W
  Locations

  All Divisional Headquarters in the UK and Germany, Permanent Joint Headquarters Northwood, Joint Headquarters Germany, Bielefeld (Germany), RAF Uxbridge (Army Prosecuting Authority), Upavon and London (Directorate of Army Legal Services), Glasgow (Military Secretary), Headquarters British Forces Cyprus, HQ Land, Headquarters Royal Marines Portsmouth, HQ Northern Ireland, SHAPE Belgium, Kosovo, Bosnia and Georgia, and one exchange officer in Australia.

  RAF

  Number

  (i) Ranks

  Air Vice Marshal

  1

  Air Commodore

  1

  Group Captain

  3

  Wing Commander

  7

  Squadron Leader

  7

  Flight Lieutenant

  8

  (ii) Grades

  Retired Officer

  1

  Executive Officer

  1

  Administrative Officer

  2

  Personal Secretary

  2

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  Typist

  1

  Locally Employed Civilians

  7

  Overall total

  43

  Locations

  Innsworth, High Wycombe, Northern Ireland, Cyprus and Germany.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service personnel and (b) civilian dependants have sought and received advice from the legal branches of each armed service; and how many of those received advice (i) by telephone, (ii) by letter, (iii) by clients visiting legal branch offices and (iv) by legal specialists visiting clients (1) at UK locations and (2) overseas locations, specifying the locations in each case. [102526]

  Mr. Spellar
  To establish which of this information is held by the three services could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Absence without Leave
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in each armed service, how many personnel(a) went absent without leave and (b) deserted in each of the last three years. [102533]

  Mr. Spellar
  The services do not hold statistics relating to the number of personnel who went absent without leave in each of the last three years. However, the figures relating to incidents of absences without leave among personnel, which could include more than one instance of absence by an individual, is as follows:

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1996

  45

  10

  1,345

  36

  1997

  32

  10

  1,355

  23

  1998

  28

  6

  1,722

  26

  360W
  There were no deserters from the Royal Navy or Royal Marines within the last three years. Figures are not held by the Army. RAF records reflect the year in which an individual was convicted at court-martial. These are as follows:

  Year

  Royal Air Force

  1996

  3

  1997

  1

  1998

  2

  Ammunition Sales
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what talks have occurred this year between the Ministry of Defence and BAe regarding the future of ammunition sales; and if he will make a statement. [100752]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Discussions have taken place throughout the year between Ministry of Defence officials and British Aerospace and Royal Ordnance managers, to determine the potential for a partnering arrangement with Royal Ordnance for the supply of a range of ammunition products. We are seeking arrangements which will provide better and improving value for money for the taxpayer, represent a viable business for Royal Ordnance, and enhance the future supply of ammunition for the British Armed Forces. We hope to conclude discussions shortly.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the reasons for HMS Ocean's recent visits to ports for repair; [100881]

  (2) what work was carried out on HMS Ocean during her recent visits to ports for repair; and what was the cost of those repairs. [100882]

  Mr. Spellar
  Seven routine port visits were programmed in to HMS Ocean's recent lengthy deployment and, as with all port visits, the opportunity was taken to carry out routine maintenance and repairs. No visits were specifically arranged for repairs, but two of the scheduled visits were extended slightly to enable routine maintenance checks and some defect repairs to be undertaken while the vessel was alongside. The work carried out included main engine air charge cooler defect repairs and to change a rotating joint on a radar. This work cost approximately £114,000. These repairs have had no significant impact on the operational programme of the vessel.

  Benefits
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service families receive working families tax credit. [102240]

  Mr. Spellar
  From October 1999 (in the UK), working families tax credit (WFTC) is being paid direct to the claimant (including UK service personnel or their spouses). Although WFTC is administered by Inland Revenue (IR), it was enacted by DSS legislation. Consequently, since claims are made direct to the IR by either service personnel (or their spouses), the MOD has no overview of the total number of claimants. However,
  361W
  from April 2000, WFTC (in the UK) will be payable to claimants, including service personnel, through their salary if they wish. As the credit may be paid to the spouses of service personnel, however, our information about which service personnel in the UK receive the credit will not be comprehensive. Overseas, MOD is required to make separate arrangements for payment of most DSS benefits, including WFTC, to service (and civilian) personnel as they are at present disqualified by the DSS by virtue of their residence outside the UK. The total number of service claimants overseas will not be known until after April next year when the transfer from FC to WFTC is complete. I regret, therefore, that MOD is unable to provide the information requested.

  A400M Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry over the A400M programme. [102744]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Along with other Departments, the Department of Trade and Industry has been consulted over the Future Transport Aircraft programme, for which A400M is a contender. Given that a competition is under way, I cannot comment further at this stage.

  MOD Housing (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the occupation and unoccupation levels of(a) former and (b) current MOD-owned housing in Hampshire. [102602]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We do not hold records about former MOD housing. For current MOD-owned housing in Hampshire, including those which have been leased back from Annington Homes Limited, the position at 1 December 1999 is that there are currently 7,121 families quarters, of which 6,095 are occupied and 1,026 are unoccupied.

  Peat
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on the purchase and use of peat for its own operations and activities; and what performance targets his Department has set to reduce current peat use. [103013]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Peat is not directly used by the MOD in its operations and activities. However, it is possible that some ground maintenance contractors may use peat on the Defence estate. In line with the MOD's Departmental Plan on the Greening Government Initiative, my Department will be looking at bringing in measures to ensure that any use of peat in the maintenance of its grounds is substituted by organic waste. This reflects the advice within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Greening Operations Guide.

  East Timor
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when UK troops first arrived in East Timor to participate in the International Force East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [103056]
  362W
  Mr. Hoon
  The first UK troops arrived in East Timor on 20 September 1999 as part of the International Force (INTERFET).

  AWE Aldermaston (Millennium Compliance)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the ability of AWE Aldermaston to cope with the Millennium date change. [103070]

  Mr. Spellar
  Hunting-BRAE's programme to identify and test all AWE' s safety and business-critical systems was completed in July and all necessary changes were made by that date. All but essential services will be shut down prior to the New Year and staff will be on duty over the period to monitor systems and deal with any contingencies that may arise. There will then be a controlled start-up of operations in the New Year.

  The extent and effectiveness of the programme have been audited by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the Ministry of Defence's Compliance Office and Specialist Procurement Services and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. All have stated that they are satisfied with the action taken.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what support is available for former and serving personnel suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. [103227]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department fully recognise Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a potentially serious and disabling medical condition and provides appropriate treatment and support for serving personnel suffering from this condition. A range of measures aimed at preventing PTSD are in place, including pre- and post-deployment briefings and professional counselling in-theatre.

  Service personnel found to be suffering from PTSD will be offered treatment, including, if necessary, in-patient treatment at the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital, Catterick. Responsibility for the treatment of ex-service personnel lies with the NHS. Such personnel may, however, be treated at the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital if they are referred there as patients under normal NHS arrangements.

  Training (International Law)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what training is provided for(a) officers and (b) other ranks, on understanding international law. [103228]

  Mr. Spellar
  Training in aspects of international law, and specifically in the law of Armed Conflict', is provided to both officers and other ranks of all three services as part of initial basic training, in accordance with the requirements of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Further training in international law, again covering the legitimacy of military operations and on the conduct of waging war, is provided on a wide range of specialist training courses, on both a single service and joint service basis. Furthermore, additional training and briefings
  363W
  relating to relevant international law are normally provided to formed units of all three services by legal specialists prior to operational deployment.

  Departmental Fuel Duty Payments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much fuel duty his Department has paid in each of the past five years. [102527]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Organophosphate Lubricants
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of recent incidents involving health hazards associated with organophosphate lubricants, including the possible involvement of organophosphates in the near accident of a BAe 146 aircraft in Sweden on 12 November, in relation to military aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [103111]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no record of any recent military aircraft incidents relating to the use of organophosphate lubricants. The organophosphate compound tricresylphosphate is present in almost all military aero-engine lubricants and, as no viable alternative products are available, appropriate measures are taken to avoid the exposure of air and ground crew to any potential health hazards. We understand that BAe Systems is investigating the incident involving a civil BAe 146 aircraft on 12 November and we will consider any recommendations that emerge.

  Military Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the overall strength in September(a) 1998 and (b) 1999 was of military forces in Northern Ireland, broken down into the numbers attached to the (i) RAF, (ii) Royal Navy (iii) RIR, (iv) RIR part-time and (v) others. [101866]

  Mr. Spellar
  Pursuant to the reply I gave on 15 December 1999,Official Report, columns 217–18W, it may be helpful to make it clear that, excluding those forces referred to in the footnotes as being based outside Northern Ireland, the strength figures for military forces deployed to the Province are as follows:

  Strength 1998

  Strength 1999

  Army (General Service)

  9,557

  8,843

  Royal Air Force

  1,152

  1,150

  Royal Navy

  321

  182

  The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service Full-time)

  2,627

  2,536

  The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service Part-time)

  1,961

  1,841

  Total

  15,618

  14,552

  Smart Trajectory Artillery Round
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the Smart Trajectory Artillery Round. [103059]
  364W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 20 December 1999 I have been asked to respond to your parliamentary question about the Smart Trajectory Artillery Round (STAR).
  The STAR programme is an industry led programme. The team is led by Thomson-Thorn Missiles & Electronics; the other members are BAe Systems Royal Ordnance, Rockwell Collins and DERA. The programme started in 1997 and the first phase, technology demonstration, was completed towards the end of 1999. The purpose of the programme is to develop a product that would satisfy a perceived MOD requirement.
  The cost of the STAR fuze is a commercial decision to be taken by the industry team after consideration of the likely full development costs and the size of the potential market for this type of product.
  I hope this explains the situation.

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Spearfish Mod warshot heavyweight torpedoes are being installed on HMS Tireless. [103058]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Tireless has been converted to carry the Spearfish Heavyweight torpedo. The exact number embarked at any time is determined by the operational requirement.

  Jaguar Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jaguar aircraft have been delivered to India(a) this year and (b) in the last three years. [103055]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  None. Since 1979, Jaguar aircraft have been produced under licence in India.

  Common Defence
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the date and reference of the presentation to Parliament of the latest document he has signed with the French Republic in respect of common defence. [103133]

  Mr. Hoon
  A declaration on strengthening Europe's military capabilities was issued at the UK-French Summit on 25 November. This declaration can be found in the House of Commons Library as deposited paper DEP99/1908.

  Commanding Officers (Territorial Units)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many commanding officers of territorial units were(a) regular officers and (b) territorial officers on (i) 1 January, (ii) 1 April, (iii) 1 July and (iv) 1 October. [103401]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  EU Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution towards the Rapid Reaction Force which was agreed in principle at the Helsinki Conference. [103226]

  Mr. Hoon
  The recent Helsinki European Council agreed that EU member states, co-operating voluntarily, must be able, by 2003, to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year, military forces of up to 50,000 to 60,000 persons capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks. In particular this will mean developing the capabilities of Europe's existing national forces as the pool from which such a deployment could be drawn for any specific operation. We are not creating a European Army or a standing European Rapid Reaction Force.

  The Council also agreed that this headline goal should be elaborated and a method established for defining national contributions. This will be addressed in the coming months.

  Departmental Spending Plans
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what variations he has made to the spending plans for his Department announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 1998. [102900]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no variations made to the spending plans announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 1998 other than a small number of minor technical adjustments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  2 Marsham Street
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1999, Official Report, column 9W, on 2 Marsham Street, how much longer he expects these costs to be maintained in order to protect the empty office blocks at 2 Marsham Street. [102989]

  Mr. Straw
  The next opportunity to review the appropriate level of expenditure will be early summer 2000, following the decision expected to be taken by then on the Private Finance Initiative competition for my Department's central London accommodation strategy. If the competition confirms that redevelopment of the site for the Home Office offers the best solution, it will be transferred to the successful private sector partner for demolition in accordance with the then agreed programme.

  Lifeguards
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received on making the provision of lifeguards a statutory responsibility for local authorities; [102560]
  366W
  (2) what plans he has to make the provision of lifeguards on popular tourist beaches a statutory responsibility of local authorities. [102562]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not aware of any representations on this matter, and there are no current proposals for legislation.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on alcohol rehabilitation programmes and alcohol abuse prevention programmes in each of the last three years. [102551]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available. The Home Office has no funding specifically allocated for alcohol rehabilitation programmes or alcohol abuse prevention programmes. The Prison Service addresses alcohol problems within programmes at individual establishments, but does not monitor separately expenditure that is specifically on alcohol-related work.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of arrests made by each police force in England and Wales where alcohol abuse was a factor in each of the last three years. [102554]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available. A 1998 Home Office research study, "Drugs and crime: the results of research on drug testing and interviewing arrestees" by Trevor Bennett, found that the proportion of arrestees testing positive for alcohol varied over its five test sites, from 8 per cent. to 42 per cent.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in each of the last three years who would otherwise have qualified as refugees have been excluded from protection and refused asylum on the grounds that they have committed acts sufficiently serious to render them as not deserving of protection under the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees. [102778]

  Mrs. Roche
  I regret that this information could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15 and 16-year-olds are currently held on remand in prison; in which prisons; and what plans he has to end the practice of remanding 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons. [102792]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 31 October, the latest date for which these figures are available, there were 31 15-year-olds and 130 16-year-olds on remand in prison. The table shows where they were held.

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  Altcourse

  —

  4

  Brinsford

  6

  27

  Cardiff

  2

  3

  Castington

  —

  5

  Doncaster

  3

  12

  Exeter

  2

  —

  Feltham

  10

  34

  Glen Parva

  5

  19

  Gloucester

  —

  2

  Hindley

  2

  8

  367W

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  Hull

  —

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  3

  Northallerton

  1

  6

  Norwich

  —

  2

  Parc

  —

  1

  Swansea

  —

  2

  Total

  31

  130

  Following a building programme which provided 170 additional places in local authority secure units, in June this year we introduced court ordered secure remands to local authorities for 12 to 16-year-old girls, 12 to 14-year-old boys and 15 and 16-year-old boys who were vulnerable and for whom a place was available.

  We are now strengthening bail support, through £35 million Youth Justice Board grants and a statutory duty from April on local authorities to operate appropriate bail support schemes. The Prison Service is investing more than £50 million in creating a distinct juvenile estate which will be able to hold young people on remand where they would be reasonably near to courts. The Youth Justice Board will take over the purchasing and commissioning of secure juvenile accommodation from April, to ensure effective use of available places and to plan for future needs. How far we can reduce remands to prisons in the short-term depends on the total numbers remanded and on overall demands on available accommodation. In the light of proposals from the Board, we will make clear in the New Year what we expect to achieve by when in removing young people on remand from prison accommodation.

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total work force in his Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department. [102733]

  Mr. Straw
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office set out in his reply on 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 264W, the corporate action that we are taking to encourage the employment of people from ethnic minorities.

  The percentage of permanent staff of ethnic minority origin in the Home Office, including the Prison Service, was 5 per cent. on 1 April 1999. The percentage is of those whose ethnic origin was then centrally recorded. More detailed figures are given in the table. Staff provide information on their ethnic origin on a voluntary basis and can choose not to disclose their origin if they so wish.

  As part of our commitment to encouraging employment of people of ethnic minority origin, the Home Office published on 28 July 1999 targets for the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority staff over the next ten years. (These cover the core Home Office, Agencies and Services).

  To achieve its targets, the Home Office has revised its recruitment literature and attends recruitment fairs specifically aimed at minority ethnic communities. It has and will continue to advertise a number of posts in the ethnic minority press, for example The Voice, the Ethnic
  368W
  Media Group, and Muslim News. The Home Office participates in the National Mentoring Consortium Scheme for ethnic minority undergraduates and is involved in an informal mentoring scheme for potential ethnic minority Fast Stream candidates. The Department also sponsors the Windsor Fellowship which supports Black and Asian students.

  The Prison Service launched the RESPOND programme to promote racial equality for staff and prisoners in February 1999. This includes targets to recruit more staff from the minority ethnic communities. To secure this, a national recruitment outreach team has been formed which will work in partnership with local prisons, for example attending recruitment fairs. The Prison Service will also review its career literature and continue to advertise in the minority ethnic media.

  The Home Office recognises that unless it is seen as a fair place to work and in which diversity is valued, recruitment initiatives alone will not encourage people from minority ethnic communities to join the Department. The Home Office is committed to a Race Equality Action Plan that includes race awareness training, a mentoring scheme involving Management Board members and ethnic minority staff and evaluating and monitoring of all Human Resources systems. An Ethnic Minority Network was launched for staff on 24 November 1999 and already has over 500 members. The Home Office also participates in Cabinet Office initiatives on diversity and equality proofing.

  Area1 of employment

  Percentage of ethnic minority staff employed2

  Home Office (core areas)

  10.9

  Immigration and Nationality Department

  15.5

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  3.3

  Fire Service College

  0

  Forensic Science Service

  9.6

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  9.1

  Home Office average excluding Prison Service

  12.4

  Home Office average including Prison Service

  5.0

  1The information is that recorded centrally on 1 April 1999.

  2Percentage is of permanent non-industrial staff whose ethnicities are recorded.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reimburse local authorities for their expenditure on the Kosovan Humanitarian Evacuation Programme. [103721]

  Mr. Straw
  I have laid before Parliament today a Special Grant Report which sets out the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities in England for the additional expenditure which they may have incurred in respect of the Kosovan evacuees who arrived in the United Kingdom as part of the United National Humanitarian Evacuation Programme.

  The Special Grant Report explains the areas of expenditure which will be eligible for the grant and the timescales for local authorities to make their claims. I very much hope that a significant proportion of the local authorities' expenditure in respect of the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme will be reimbursed within the current financial year.
  369W

  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the Holocaust Remembrance Day proposal; [103040]

  (2) how many representations he has received in response to the consultation document on Holocaust Remembrance Day; [103039]

  (3) in response to the consultation on the proposal for a Holocaust Remembrance Day, (a) which organisations and public bodies have submitted responses and (b) how many responses have been received from private individuals. [103402]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  521 responses were received, 237 from local authorities and other organisations and 284 from individuals.

  The Government intend to announce their decision in January, as stated in the consultation document.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on extra funding for his Department from Government reserves; and if he will make a statement. [103330]

  Mr. Straw
  I regularly discuss with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury progress on the Public Service Agreements (PSA) whose delivery is supported by Home Office funding. Recent discussions on the PSA objectives to reduce crime and the fear of crime resulted in the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster and me of additional investments funded from the Reserve and the Capital Modernisation Fund. These will cover £34 million for the DNA database and £35 million for the first year costs of a scheme for 5,000 more police recruits over the next three years.

  Firemen
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is a condition of service that retained firemen must record on job applications or inform their existing employers of their Fire Service obligations. [102898]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The National Joint Council for local authorities' fire brigades, which comprises representatives from the fire authority employers and the employees, is the standing body charged with the supervision, from a national point of view, of questions affecting the conditions of service of firefighters. The Council has confirmed that there are no contractual obligations on retained firefighters in respect of other employers in its Scheme of Conditions of Service.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 22 September on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Birkbeck. [103082]
  370W
  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 16 December in response to his letter of 22 September on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Birkbeck. I am extremely sorry that I was unable to do so sooner, and would like, through the right hon. Member, to extend my apology to Mrs. Birkbeck for the delay.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the report of the Fire Service College Prior Options Review; and if he will make a statement. [103720]

  Mr. Straw
  Against the background of the continuing shortfall of the Fire Service College in meeting its financial targets, I commissioned a prior options review in March 1999. I asked the review team to evaluate the performance of the College; and taking account of developments since it was established, reappraise the options for achieving best value for money in the provision of central training for the United Kingdom fire service.

  I have now received the Report of the review and arranged for its publication. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library.

  The review considered various organisational options for providing central training for the United Kingdom fire service. They took account of the College's track record as an Agency; its shortage of key skills and experience; and the need for decisive action to tackle the problems identified, including the requirement for significant capital investment if we are to keep the College viable. The review was conscious of the need to increase training throughput at the College and suggested that there would be additional significant benefits from joining up the activities of the Home Office and Ministry of Defence (MOD) Fire Services Central Training Establishment, at Manston.

  The review concluded that the option most likely to restore the College to viability would be to end the College's Agency status and replace it with a partnership with the private sector. The Report therefore, recommends that a three way partnership should be established between the Home Office, the MOD and the private sector for the delivery of fire service training and to exploit fully the College site and facilities.

  The public sector would continue to have a close involvement by having in the College officers seconded from the United Kingdom Fire Service and from the MOD. The Report also recommends that the College should be reviewed regularly by Her Majesty's Fire Services' Inspectorate. This would parallel the arrangements that exist in Scotland for inspecting the Scottish Fire Service Training School at Gullane. It would also provide the Home Office with a source of expertise to assist with the monitoring and management of a future partnership agreement.

  I am grateful to the review team for the work they have undertaken. I welcome their findings, their thorough and careful analysis of the College's problems and their recommendations. I am accepting immediately their recommendation that in future the College should be

  371W
  reviewed by Her Majesty's Fire Services' Inspectorate and I have asked the Chief Inspector to inspect and report on the College regularly.

  After this thorough review, and years of difficulties, it is very important that the College's problems are now gripped firmly and tackled expeditiously. I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that joining up the activities of the College with those of the Ministry of Defence Fire Services Central Training Establishment, in partnership with the private sector, holds the potential to bring benefit to all parties concerned and should be urgently explored. I am also commencing consultations today with the College, the Fire Service and other stakeholders on this and other recommendations in the report. I will also be seeking advice from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council.

  I am inviting views by the 18 February 2000.

  National Security
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to implement the policies announced on 25 January to protect the national infrastructure against electronic attack. [103719]

  Mr. Straw
  A range of initiatives has been taken. Departments have been asked to ensure that their own key systems will achieve independently assessable standards of security. Discussions are being held with a number of private sector organisations in order to identify the systems on which the national infrastructure critically depends, to assess and reduce their vulnerabilities, and to establish contingency arrangements. In order to take this forward, I have established an interdepartmental centre, the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre, to act as a point of contact for those involved in this work in both government and the private sector.

  Electoral Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of a person casting their vote at a polling station. [102544]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Records of the administrative costs of casting a vote at a polling station and by post are not kept separately.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of registering an elector on the electoral register in England and Wales; and what is the cost of entering a name to correct an omission from the register. [102545]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The overall cost of registration of electors in England and Wales is estimated at about £40 million per year; or approximately a pound for each elector. The cost of making a single correction would not be very much greater.

  Air Guns
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of violent crime involving air guns there have been in each of the past 10 years; [102611]
  372W
  (2) how many (a) fatalities and (b) woundings involving air rifles there have been in each of the past 10 years. [102612]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table gives the readily available information on the number of recorded violent crimes in which air weapons were reported to have been used (no distinction between air guns and air rifles is possible in the statistics collected centrally):

  Recorded violent crime in which air weapons were reported to have been used in England and Wales

  Year

  Homicide

  Attempted murder and Other acts (including wounding) endangering life

  other wounding and violence against the person

  Robbery

  Total violent crime1

  1989

  3

  146

  1,701

  90

  1,940

  1990

  1

  191

  1,656

  122

  1,970

  1991

  2

  192

  1,545

  156

  1,895

  1992

  —

  207

  1,637

  151

  1,995

  1993

  —

  200

  1,504

  131

  1,835

  1994

  —

  207

  1,510

  115

  1,832

  1995

  1

  186

  1,350

  112

  1,649

  1996

  —

  121

  1,303

  81

  1,505

  1997

  —

  75

  1,374

  99

  1,548

  1998

  —

  61

  1,806

  81

  1,948

  1Excludes sexual offences, few in number, and not separately identifiable in later years

  Figures for 1998 are not directly comparable with those for previous years because the coverage of recorded crime was extended and new counting rules employed from 1 April 1998.

  Prison (North Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to establish a prison in the north of Wales to enable prisoners from that area to be held within reach of their own communities. [102497]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has no plans to build a prison in North Wales. Altcourse, the new prison in Liverpool, provides places for prisoners from that area.

  Hackney Carriage Drivers
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers the Metropolitan Police considers complaints against hackney carriage drivers in Greater London levelled by members of the general public. [102453]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police tells me that Assistant Commissioner Paul Manning, who is the Licensing Authority for hackney carriage drivers within the Metropolitan police district, considers complaints against drivers under paragraph 30(1) of the London Cab Order 1934.

  Overseas Electors
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of British citizens eligible to register as overseas electors; [102517]
  373W
  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of British citizens resident outside the UK who have resided outside the UK for more than 20 years; [102515]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of British citizens eligible to register as overseas electors who have resided outside the United Kingdom for (a) five years or less and (b) more than five years, but less than (i) 10 years, (ii) 15 years and (iii) 20 years. [102516]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  British citizens resident abroad are not required to give us details of their length of stay or their eligibility to register as voters. The information is, therefore, not available.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100151]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The Home Office commissions social research externally to support its work on development and evaluation of policy. There is no veto over the publication of the results except where there are security implications for the Department or other Home Office Agencies; there is an expectation that the research will usually be published with departmental consent. Consultancies are used primarily for the peer review of research data and quality control. In each case, Home Office staff will agree with the contractor the arrangements for publication including its timing. The Home Office may comment on the style and detail of results that are presented in departmental publications. With departmental agreement contractors may, and are often encouraged to make their own arrangements for external publication. Copyright remains with the Home Office.

  The Home Office also undertakes a range of scientific research. There is no veto over the publication of the results, except where there are security implications for the Department, and no departmental control over the date of publication, other than the Department requiring a period after the submission of the final report for quality assurance. There is no requirement that the final results incorporate departmental amendments save those necessary to correct factual inaccuracies.

  A copy of the table showing the information available centrally on research contracts let has been placed in the Library.

  UK Passport
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consult the public to establish whether there is demand for a hardback UK passport. [102916]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no plans to do so. Most countries in the world issue passports which are not hardbacked. The soft covered passport is flexible, more convenient to carry and is easier and quicker to produce. Passports are produced 374W
  to an International Civil Aviation Authority standard which is designed to ease travellers passage through passport controls. Producing passports in a standardised format greatly facilitates this. Re-introducing a hardback United Kingdom passport would require costly changes to the passport manufacturing process.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the cost of re-introducing an optional hardback UK passport. [102914]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no plans to do so. To introduce an optional hardback version of the United Kingdom passport would require significant changes to the passport manufacturing process, and would increase the costs of the Passport Service. There are over 30 million of the soft covered United Kingdom passports in circulation and most countries in the world issue passports in this form. A standard passport format greatly facilitates worldwide travel.

  Glasgow Airport Immigration Service
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on when the Glasgow Airport Immigration Service will be re-opened to the public. [102851]

  Mrs. Roche
  The core business of the Immigration Service at Glasgow Airport is coverage of the arrivals controls by immigration officers and this is operating normally.

  The Public Enquiry Office (PEO) is a discrete section which is staffed by general and administrative grades and deals mainly with people subject to immigration control who are already in the country and require extensions of stay. This facility has been closed since 22 November 1999 because of a staffing shortfall. As soon as this shortfall is remedied, the office will re-open. No firm date can be given but the local manager hopes this will be very early in the new year.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the conclusions of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Corporate Manslaughter; and if he will make a statement. [103580]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received the report of the inter-departmental working group of officials which has been considering the recommendations made in the Law Commission's report no. 237, "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter". The Law Commission's report included a recommendation that there should be a new offence of corporate killing.

  We are considering the recommendations of the working group and will consult our colleagues on how to take the matter forward.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of those people who were arrested as a result of actions they took during the visit by the President of China, how many are(a) on bail, (b) in custody, (c) have had charges against them proved and (d) were released without charge. [103222]
  375W
  Mr. Boateng
  15 persons were arrested by the Metropolitan Police and one by the City of London Police in connection with the President of China's visit. (This figure excludes three people arrested for being drunk and disorderly or for possession of drugs at the scene of the visit). One individual was arrested twice. Of these 16 individuals, all were released without charge, and hence none is on bail, in custody, or has had charges against them proved; four of them did however receive police cautions.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom for each month from January 1997 to November 1999. [103380]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table.

  Applications1,2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, January 1997 to November 1999

  Number of principal applicants

  1997

  1998

  1999

  January

  2,715

  2,860

  34,700

  February

  2,475

  2,650

  34,185

  March

  2,160

  3,200

  35,060

  April

  2,665

  3,135

  34,905

  May

  2,590

  3,110

  35,370

  June

  2,585

  3,575

  36,130

  July

  3,070

  4,215

  36,440

  August

  2,930

  4,420

  37,120

  September

  2,850

  4,455

  37,355

  October

  2,990

  5,010

  36,295

  November

  2,345

  4,620

  n/a

  December

  3,120

  4,770

  n/a

  Total

  32,500

  46,015

  —

  1 Figures do not include overseas applications.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  3Provisional figures.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to re-assess regularly the baseline figure of planned police recruits during the life of the Crime Fighting Fund; and if he will make a statement. [103333]

  Mr. Boateng
  In order to establish baseline figures for projected recruitment over the next three years, we have asked forces for details of their recruitment plans for each of those years.

  To continue to receive funding for further additional officers for years two and three, police forces will need to demonstrate that the first year's funding has been used to recruit and deploy the additional numbers agreed for front line policing and that they have met the other continuation criteria set out in the Bidding Guidelines, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 2 December. Forces will be asked in October 2000 and again in October 2001, to provide the information requested to demonstrate that they have met the continuation criteria.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the funds which will need to be available through the 376W
  Crime Fighting Fund in year two and year three in order for police forces to be able to recruit a total of 5,000 officers; and if he will make a statement; [103328]

  (2) what additional funding will be made available for the Crime Fighting Fund in year two and year three; and if he will make a statement. [103329]

  Mr. Boateng
  £35 million of new money has been allocated to kick-start the scheme in year one and further sums will be made available in years two and three. It is impossible to say at this stage how much funding will be needed in years two and three as we do not yet know how forces will spread their bids over the three year period of the scheme.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make funding available for the retention of police officers recruited through the Crime Fighting Fund; and if he will make a statement. [103331]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Crime Fighting Fund will provide for the recruitment and retention of officers over the three year period from April 2000. Funding per recruit will be based on the aggregate annual cost of a new police constable up to a maximum of £32,500 for a Police Officer recruited to a force other than the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS): £35,130 for a Metropolitan Police Service recruit. Those sums include the following: £17,900 (pay); £1,300 Earning Related National Insurance Contributions (ERNIC); £5,300 (pension); a contribution to training and £1,000 for recruitment.

  The salary, ERNIC and pension costs of police officers who are recruited under the Crime Fighting Fund will continue to be paid for the three year period of the scheme. In the longer term all pressures on police funds, including these new officers, will be reflected in bids my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make during the 2000 Spending Review.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces are not recruiting new police recruits; and if he will make a statement. [103332]

  Mr. Boateng
  Timing of recruitment is a matter for the individual forces concerned. The information we have is that 28 forces in England and Wales are recruiting new police recruits at the current time.

  Kosovan Refugees
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Metropolitan Police and social services departments in London regarding begging activities in London by women claiming to be Kosovan refugees using children and babies. [103211]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been no recent discussions between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police or London social services departments about begging, begging with children or foreign nationals begging.

  Begging in a public place is an offence and therefore, within the Metropolitan Police District, it is an operational matter for the Commissioner. He tells me that there is a dedicated police unit at Charing Cross which deals with

  377W
  begging and rough sleepers; this unit works in association with other relevant agencies. The Metropolitan Police do not monitor data on the number of foreign nationals arrested for begging.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Toyota
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations in relation to Toyota he has made to(a) the Monetary Policy Committee and (b) Members of the Monetary Policy Committee regarding the (i) value of sterling and (ii) level of UK interest rates. [103038]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  None.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will announce the date for the auction of new mobile telephone licences. [102152]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Information Memorandum for the auction of Third Generation mobile communication Wireless Telegraphy Act licences published on 1 November set out an indicative auction timetable in which applications are to be received on 12 January and the auction starts in early March. The Notice, which confirms the date for receipt of applications as 12 January, will be issued on 22 December.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the proposed auction of new mobile phone licences; and if he will make a statement. [102154]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Government have received numerous representations on the auction of Third Generation mobile communication Wireless Telegraphy Act licences. These have been taken into account in decisions relating to the auction.

  Telecommunications Fraud
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken by(a) his Department and (b) Oftel to prevent telecommunications fraud, with particular reference to the use of high cost line and call charges. [102837]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: The regulation of the telecommunications industry is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). Oftel takes telecoms operators' network integrity very seriously. Oftel will always investigate any case of alleged telephone fraud.

  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) regulates high cost telephone lines through its Code of Practice, with which Premium Rate Service Providers have to comply. The Code has a number of provisions relating to both the advertising for and the content of services, which are designed to counter fraudulent provision and use of such services.

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is registered as disabled; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in his Department. [102043]

  Mr. Byers
  On 1 April 1999, the percentage of staff who had notified the Department of a disability represented 4.2 per cent. of all staff. This included staff in DTI Headquarters, but excluded casual staff and staff in Government Offices and Executive Agencies.

  The Department's external recruitment is through fair and open competition with selection on merit. We ensure that our recruitment processes are adapted to meet the requirements of disabled applicants.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he will urge the World Trade Organisation to adopt in respect of environment and labour standards in order to ensure that free trade is fair and sustainable. [103099]

  Mr. Caborn
  Although the recent WTO meeting in Seattle did not launch a new round of trade negotiations, the UK, alongside its EU partners, will continue to press for negotiations to clarify the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and WTO rules; to clarify the rules on environmental labelling; and to examine the scope for taking into account the precautionary principle in WTO rules in relation to environmental risks. The UK will continue to press for a joint forum of the ILO and WTO to consider trade, globalisation and labour issues.

  Regulated Industries (Consumer Charges)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on employment of decisions taken by regulators on the prices charged to consumers by the regulated industries. [103051]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Decisions on the form and level of price controls are matters for the sectoral regulators. In telecommunications, electricity, and gas, the independent industry regulators have statutory duties which govern the way in which they conduct their business. These are set out in the relevant legislation. Decisions taken by the regulated companies in response to proposals by the regulators are for the commercial judgment of the companies. If companies are not prepared to accept the regulator's proposals, they can reject them, and the regulator can then refer the proposals to the Competition Commission for a full review.

  Manufacturing (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many manufacturing businesses were operating in Worcestershire during 1998. [103309]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There were 2,070 VAT registered businesses operating in the manufacturing sector in Worcestershire at the end of 1998.
  379W

  Electricity
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his proposed date is for the dissolution of the electricity pool and the commencement of the electricity trading arrangements. [103014]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The target for the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements is autumn 2000.

  Gas Disconnections
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of gas disconnections. [102725]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) indicate that in the first nine months of 1999 there were 15,500 gas disconnections for debt. Based on this trend the Regulator is hopeful that the total number of gas disconnections in 1999 should not exceed 20,000, representing a large fall compared to 1998 when there were nearly 30,000 gas disconnections. The Regulator will monitor the number of disconnections closely and has, in his Social Action Plan, set out a number of actions which should continue to place downward pressure on the number of disconnections.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102339]

  Mr. Byers
  Where the Department is the major or sole occupier of a building provision is made for rest/first aid rooms and in most buildings there is a dedicated smoking room or area. No specific provision is made for religious observance, but staff can and do use meeting rooms for such purposes. Where the Department is a minor occupier of a building, provision of rooms or areas for purposes such as these will often be shared between all the occupiers.

  Offshore Wind Farms
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the implementation of licensing of offshore wind farms. [103478]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are exploring what regime might be most appropriate for consents and licensing for offshore wind farms following the earlier consultation with the industry and interested parties.

  The location of offshore wind farms will need to take account of developers' wishes, the suitability of particular sites, and the availability of the various planning consents.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many submissions were received by the Export Credits Guarantee Department during the recent consultation exercise on its mission and status; if these submissions will be made public; and if he will place a list of the submissions in the Library. [103066]
  380W
  Mr. Caborn
  A total of 241 responses were received to the Public Consultation Document circulated in relation to the Review of the Mission and Status of ECGD, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 305–06W. As indicated in the Consultation Document, it is intended that a summary of the responses, a number of which were provided on a confidential basis, will be published and placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on taking environmental factors into account when granting export credit guarantees. [103215]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD takes environmental factors into account in all relevant cases. Environmentally sensitive cases are considered in conjunction with other relevant Departments.

  On 23 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a screening process to help to identify environmentally sensitive cases at an early stage.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 23W, on the Ilisu dam, when he will make a decision on the application for export credit support; and if he will make a statement. [103234]

  Mr. Caborn
  The application for ECGD support for the UK participation in the Ilisu Dam project has given rise to a number of social, political, environmental and cultural issues requiring further consideration between ECGD, the other export credit agencies involved, the Turkish authorities and the contractors. A decision on the application will not be taken until the issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

  Post Office (Benefit Payments)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect on rural post offices of plans to pay benefits directly into claimants' bank accounts; and if he will make a statement. [102710]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The automation of the Post Office Counters Ltd. network, which is due for completion by the spring of 2001, will enable the Post Office to extend its arrangements with the high street banks to offer a range of banking facilities at post offices. This will mean that benefit recipients who wish to access their benefits in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so, both before and after the migration of benefit payments to automated credit transfer from 2003, while other bank customers will benefit from the wider availability of banking facilities, particularly in rural areas.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the unit cost to Post Office Counters Ltd. of processing a benefit payment by(a) voucher, (b) Girocheque and (c) payable order. [103143]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This information is in commercial confidence between the Post Office and the Benefits Agency.
  381W

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) coalminers and (b) coalminers' widows are entitled to compensation as a result of suffering from emphysema or chronic bronchitis; and how many of them have received (i) full and (ii) partial compensation payments. [103061]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As of 16 December the Department has received 62,541 claims from living miners. We have made 645 full and final payments totalling some £1.9 million and 14,519 interim payments totalling some £28.5 million.

  In addition, the Department has received 28,879 claims on behalf of deceased miners. This figure includes miner's widows and their dependants. We are unable to differentiate between the claims at this stage. However, we have made 1,149 bereavement awards to widows totalling over £10 million.

  The Department will not know the total number of claimants who are entitled to compensation for some time. These figures will not be available until claims have been received and fully assessed.

  Post Office (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to prevent post office closures in rural Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [102689]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices and will, for the first time, publish access criteria which the new Regulator will have a duty to monitor. The criteria will aim to ensure that everyone in the UK has reasonable access to post office counter services. The Government are making a substantial contribution to the costs of automating the counters network to strengthen the viability of the network in the longer term and the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out an urgent study on the post office network. Various rate relief schemes apply to many rural post offices.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have closed in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland in each of the last five years. [102688]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that historic information on the number of post office closures in each parliamentary constituency is not held and cannot be readily compiled. The number of post offices closed in Scotland in 1998–99 was 21.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there were in each Scottish parliamentary constituency in each of the last five years. [102687]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that historic information on the number of post offices in each parliamentary constituency is not held and cannot be 382W
  readily compiled. They have supplied the numbers of post offices in each Scottish parliamentary constituency as at October 1999 and these are set out as follows:

  Constituency

  Number of post offices

  Aberdeen Central

  17

  Aberdeen North

  12

  Aberdeen South

  17

  Airdrie and Shotts

  21

  Angus

  24

  Argyll and Bute

  88

  Ayr

  19

  Banff and Buchan

  40

  Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross

  53

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  39

  Central Fife

  20

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  11

  Clydesdale

  31

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  18

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  13

  Cunninghame North

  27

  Cunninghame South

  14

  Dumbarton

  30

  Dumfries

  45

  Dundee East

  18

  Dundee West

  13

  Dunfermline East

  25

  Dunfermline West

  25

  East Kilbride

  12

  East Lothian

  28

  Eastwood

  16

  Edinburgh Central

  20

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  21

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  22

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  16

  Edinburgh South

  17

  Edinburgh West

  22

  Falkirk East

  22

  Falkirk West

  23

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  59

  Glasgow Anniesland

  14

  Glasgow Baillieston

  13

  Glasgow Cathcart

  13

  Glasgow Govan

  16

  Glasgow Kelvin

  23

  Glasgow Maryhill

  11

  Glasgow Pollock

  14

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  16

  Glasgow Shettleston

  11

  Glasgow Springburn

  18

  Gordon

  37

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  19

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  14

  Hamilton South

  10

  Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber

  59

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  20

  Kirkcaldy

  21

  Linlithgow

  16

  Livingston

  22

  Midlothian

  22

  Moray

  37

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  17

  North East Fife

  35

  North Tayside

  50

  Ochil

  24

  Orkney and Shetland

  74

  Paisley North

  15

  Paisley South

  17

  Perth

  31

  Ross Skye and Inverness West

  84

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  42

  Stirling

  37

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  17

  Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  32

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  45

  West Renfrewshire

  17

  Western Isles

  68

  Industrial Relations Act 1999
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Industrial Relations Act 1999. [102761]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Work is continuing on the implementation process described in the answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 613W.

  In particular, the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations (SI 1999/3312) have come into force, on 15 December, together with the new rights to time off for dependants.

  Date

  Operator

  Reported by:

  Report on third party1

  Amount (tonnes)

  2 March 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  1.0000

  6 March 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  1.0000

  9 March 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  Unknown

  13 March 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.1500

  21 March 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  Unknown

  25 March 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  0.0045

  6 April 1999

  BHP

  Haliburton

  Yes

  4.0000

  7 April 1999

  BG

  Operator

  —

  0.0039

  11 April 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  Unknown

  12 April 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  0.2500

  26 April 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0005

  8 May 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  2.0000

  13 June 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0001

  2 July 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0005

  3 July 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0005

  12 July 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0000

  17 July 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  Unknown

  25 July 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  0.5000

  3 August 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  0.0005

  13 August 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0005

  14 August 1999

  BG

  Operator

  —

  0.0119

  16 September 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0005

  29 September 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.2500

  29 October 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0005

  3 November 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  0.0005

  4 November 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0002

  13 November 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  0.0005

  21 November 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  Yes

  0.5000

  4 December 1999

  BHP

  Operator

  —

  0.0002

  1Report on third party indicates that the operator reporting was not responsible for the spill incident.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98708]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested for the Scotland Office is set out in the table. Ministers, when travelling on official business, may use a private car instead of an official car, and claim mileage allowance in the same circumstances and on the same terms as civil servants. Expenditure relating to mileage allowance is shown from 1 December 1997. Prior to this the information could not
  384W
  We have also advertised appointments to the Central Arbitration Committee, the new members of which are expected to be in place in time for the introduction of the new statutory recognition procedures shortly after Easter.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the oil pollution incidents in the Irish Sea from March to the present, stating the date and the size of the incident, the name of the company which reported it and the name of the company which was responsible for the spill. [102590]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information relating to oil spill incidents in the Irish Sea Basin, reported to the Department of Trade and Industry, from March to the present date is as follows:

  be disaggregated from other expenditure on travel and accommodation without disproportionate costs in staff time. From 1 December 1997 to 31 March 1998 expenditure (rounded to the nearest £000) was £162,000. For the year 1998–99 expenditure was £561,000.

  Year

  Motor mileage allowance per mile

  1994–95

  32p

  1995–96

  32p

  1996–97

  32p

  1997–98

  33p

  1998–99

  34p

  For official mileage above 7,499 miles in the income tax year a personal income tax liability occurs.
  385W
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years; [98706]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years. [98707]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 255W, detailing Government Car Service costs in each of the past two years. In addition to these costs private car hire costs for Scotland Office Ministers were £25,000 in 1997–98 and £45,000 in 1998–99 respectively.

  The estimated total expenditure on Scotland Office civil servants' transport was £3,916,000 in 1997–98 and £3,126,000 in 1998–99. All travel undertaken by civil servants complies with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Most of this expenditure relates to functions which, since 1 July, have been transferred to the Scottish Executive.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research
  386W
  results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100159]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: Information about individual research contracts could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The various Departments within the Scottish Executive have their own devolved research programmes and strategies. While there are some differences in the precise detail of contracts relating to each programme, generally, researchers are actively encouraged to publish their work.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many departmental special advisers have been given severance packages when leaving employment in Scotland in the last 12 months; what amount has been paid to them; and what conditions were attached to the payment. [102917]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: Before the Scottish Parliament elections, four Special Advisers received severance pay in line with the long-standing rules which have applied under previous Administrations. The conditions relating to the payment of severance pay are set out in the Model Contract of Employment for Special Advisers, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The total paid amounted to £53,026.
  387W

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99550]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department uses post offices on an occasional basis only, for the delivery of specific public messages. This can take the form of displaying leaflets for the public to select or be issued by counter staff, to putting out rolling messages through television or digital displays inside main posts offices.

  The frequency of using post offices for communicating with the public in this way is dependent on both the content of the message and on the target audience. It is not clear therefore whether this type of activity will increase or decrease over the next five years. What is likely, in terms of communications generally, is a gradual decrease in paper communications such as leaflets and a corresponding increase in digital/electronic forms of communication.

  We do not provide any other business for post offices and this is unlikely to change in the future. We do however have significant business with Royal Mail and Parcelforce who provide the bulk of our mail collection and delivery service.

  UK domiciled applicants and acceptances to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK

  of which:

  Year of entry1

  Total accepted applicants

  Total applicant

  Men (number)

  Women (number)

  Men (percentage)

  Women (percentage)

  1990 via UCCA

  99,377

  193,704

  97,412

  96,292

  50

  50

  1990 via PCAS

  77,539

  184,771

  95,059

  89,712

  51

  49

  1991 via UCCA

  106,717

  207,324

  101,632

  105,692

  49

  51

  1991 via PCAS

  94,465

  214,320

  109,562

  104,758

  51

  49

  1992 via UCCA

  117,976

  241,660

  116,901

  124,759

  48

  52

  1992 via PCAS

  125,590

  286,420

  141,451

  144,969

  49

  51

  1993 via UCCA

  127,476

  263,341

  127,627

  135,714

  48

  52

  1993 via PCAS

  130,596

  304,716

  151,171

  153,545

  50

  50

  1994

  251,292

  365,323

  179,449

  185,874

  49

  51

  1995

  265,536

  369,701

  179,602

  190,099

  49

  51

  1996

  268,289

  364,885

  175,479

  189,406

  48

  52

  1997

  303,318

  398,327

  190,040

  208,287

  48

  52

  1998

  298,220

  389,588

  184,069

  205,519

  47

  53

  1999

  303,065

  388,691

  182,405

  206,286

  47

  53

  1 In the years up to 1993 some students applied to both UCCA and PCAS. From 1994 onwards all applications are through UCAS. From 1997 onwards the figures include students applying for Art and Design courses which were included in the UCAS scheme for the first time in this year.

  Via UCCA

  Of which, those from ethnic minorities2

  Year of entry/1

  Total accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate course with known ethnicity

  Total applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses with known ethnicity

  Number

  Percentage

  1990 via UCCA

  96,946

  188,281

  19,750

  10

  1990 via PCAS

  64,482

  166,650

  23,993

  14

  1991 via UCCA

  104,075

  201,780

  21,548

  11

  388W

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102377]

  Mr. Wills
  Decisions on the arrangements to and format for minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date, in October 1998 he met the then Irish Minister for Education and Science. [103150]

  Mr. Wills
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Michael Martin in Dublin on 27 and 28 October 1998 to discuss bilateral co-operation in education.

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for each year since 1990, what has been the(a) number and (b) proportion of applications for enrolment in higher education institutions in England from (a) men, (b) women and (c) ethnic minorities. [101946]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The information available, as given in the following tables, covers only those who apply for places through the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) and its predecessor organisations the Universities Central Council for Admissions (UCCA) and the Polytechnics and Colleges Admissions Service (PCAS).
  389W

  Of which, those from ethnic minorities2

  Year of entry1

  Total accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate course with known ethnicity

  Total applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses with known ethnicity

  Number

  Percentage

  1991 via PCAS

  81,811

  200,304

  28,326

  14

  1992 via UCCA

  113,522

  231,434

  26,031

  11

  1992 via PCAS

  106,096

  261,034

  34,997

  13

  1993 via UCCA

  124,339

  255,347

  28,652

  11

  1993 via PCAS

  108,522

  279,041

  36,522

  13

  1994

  241,867

  350,250

  46,185

  13

  1995

  254,373

  352,025

  48,620

  14

  1996

  254,431

  344,990

  51,447

  15

  1997

  283,548

  371,279

  56,142

  15

  1998

  274,824

  357,184

  56,257

  16

  1999

  280,065

  358,081

  58,461

  16

  1 In the years up to 1993 some students applied to both UCCA and PCAS. From 1994 onwards all applications are through UCAS. From 1997 onwards the figures include students applying for Art and Design courses which were included in the UCAS scheme for the first time in this year.

  2 Covers the following ethnic groups: Black Caribbean, Black African, Black Other, Asian Indian, Asian Pakistani, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian Chinese, Asian Other, Other (non-white) ethnic origin.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) for each year since 1990, what (i) number and (ii) proportion of applicants for(a) full-time and (b) part-time courses in higher education institutions in England came from low-income family backgrounds; [101944]

  (2) for each year since 1990, what (i) number and (b) proportion of (a) full-time students and (b) part-time students enrolling in higher education institutions in England came from low-income family backgrounds. [101945]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The information available on full-time students, as given in the following table, covers only those who apply through the Universities and colleges Admission Service (UCAS) and its predecessor organisations the Universities Central Council for Admissions (UCCA) and the Polytechnic and Colleges Admissions Service (PCAS). Data on the family backgrounds of part-time students are not held centrally.

  UK Domiciled students applying to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK

  Accepted applicants from social classes IIIM, IV and V

  Applicants from social classes IIIM, IV and V

  Year of entry1

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1990 via UCCA

  17,202

  19

  36,354

  21

  1990 via PCAS2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991 via UCCA

  18,548

  19

  39,914

  22

  1991 via PCAS

  19,599

  29

  45,996

  27

  1992 via UCCA

  23,504

  21

  54,664

  25

  1992 via PCAS

  29,806

  31

  70,036

  30

  1993 via UCCA

  26,962

  22

  64,390

  26

  1993 via PCAS

  34,100

  33

  82,142

  31

  1994

  63,472

  27

  97,332

  29

  1995

  67,360

  28

  98,344

  30

  1996

  65,671

  27

  93,608

  29

  1997

  73,931

  28

  100,839

  29

  1998

  72,228

  28

  97,211

  29

  1999

  73,109

  28

  96,796

  29

  1 In the years up to 1993, some students applied to both UCCA and PCAS. From 1994 onwards all applications are through UCAS. From 1997 onwards the figures include students applying for Art and Design courses which were included in the UCAS scheme for the first time in this year.

  2 The family background of students was not collected by PCAS in 1990.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to expand the network of city technology colleges. [102194]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The current network of City Technology Colleges (CTCs) is an important part of the Government's strategy to promote diversity with excellence within a modernised comprehensive system. That strategy includes the provision of new and exciting ICT rich learning environments for our city children through the expansion of the specialist schools programme and the establishment by September 2000 of 32 City Learning Centres under our Excellence in Cities initiative.

  The role of existing CTCs will continue to develop, in particular by helping to spread innovation and best practice more widely to schools and communities.

  SSAs
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give the standard spending assessment per pupil for the primary and secondary sectors by local education authority for England and Wales for 2000–01. [102694]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the information for England only. The figures in this table are the subject of consultation with local authorities, and are therefore provisional. Funding for education in Wales is the responsibility for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  2000–01 primary and secondary provisional SSA allocations per pupil

  LEA name

  LEA number

  Primary SSA/5–10 pupil (£)

  Secondary SSA/11–15 pupil (£)

  City of London

  201

  3,391.50

  21,489.52

  Camden

  202

  3,488.40

  4,352.99

  Greenwich

  203

  3,285.98

  4,237.21

  Hackney

  204

  3,661.53

  4,917.56

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  205

  3,465.44

  4,445.77

  391W

  2000–01 primary and secondary provisional SSA allocations per pupil

  LEA name

  LEA number

  Primary SSA/5–10 pupil (£)

  Secondary SSA/11–15 pupil (£)

  Islington

  206

  3,543.19

  4,652.76

  Kensington and Chelsea

  207

  3,552.89

  4,363.98

  Lambeth

  208

  3,678.49

  5,138.06

  Lewisham

  209

  3,415.93

  4,438.66

  Southwark

  210

  3,522.63

  4,567.41

  Tower Hamlets

  211

  3,701.43

  4,799.02

  Wandsworth

  212

  3,185.72

  4,100.37

  Westminster

  213

  3,377.07

  4,096.25

  Barking and Dagenham

  301

  2,802.52

  3,659.43

  Barnet

  302

  2,664.25

  3,366.79

  Bexley

  303

  2,534.70

  3,255.94

  Brent

  304

  3,058.95

  3,980.07

  Bromley

  305

  2,499.67

  3,178.84

  Croydon

  306

  2,731.31

  3,559.12

  Ealing

  307

  2,885.42

  3,785.55

  Enfield

  308

  2,763.15

  3,510.90

  Haringey

  309

  3,172.31

  4,159.48

  Harrow

  310

  2,620.28

  3,412.02

  Havering

  311

  2,493.95

  3,223.63

  Hillingdon

  312

  2,626.13

  3,372.88

  Hounslow

  313

  2,817.50

  3,559.23

  Kingston upon Thames

  314

  2,500.68

  3,194.72

  Merton

  315

  2,677.35

  3,450.44

  Newham

  316

  3,195.87

  4,109.94

  Redbridge

  317

  2,674.91

  3,428.67

  Richmond upon Thames

  318

  2,458.25

  3,118.53

  Sutton

  319

  2,549.95

  3,198.99

  Waltham Forest

  320

  2,945.88

  3,785.26

  Birmingham

  330

  2,622.84

  3,410.46

  Coventry

  331

  2,474.10

  3,192.71

  Dudley

  332

  2,257.71

  2,905.26

  Sandwell

  333

  2,478.68

  3,212.57

  Solihull

  334

  2,250.01

  2,874.32

  Walsall

  335

  2,392.02

  3,071.29

  Wolverhampton

  336

  2,498.35

  3,233.09

  Knowsley

  340

  2,762.39

  3,650.44

  Liverpool

  341

  2,725.80

  3,512.87

  St. Helens

  342

  2,384.38

  3,083.02

  Sefton

  343

  2,383.16

  3,056.14

  Wirral

  344

  2,453.78

  3,183.43

  Bolton

  350

  2,375.29

  3,049.63

  Bury

  351

  2,299.92

  2,941.04

  Manchester

  352

  2,798.88

  3,692.76

  Oldham

  353

  2,441.32

  3,137.62

  Rochdale

  354

  2,478.25

  3,204.15

  Salford

  355

  2,487.97

  3,243.57

  Stockport

  356

  2,247.44

  2,914.21

  Tameside

  357

  2,364.57

  3,031.35

  Trafford

  358

  2,309.74

  2,979.34

  Wigan

  359

  2,283.05

  2,930.06

  Barnsley

  370

  2,381.20

  3,083.51

  Doncaster

  371

  2,449.46

  3,181.49

  Rotherham

  372

  2,363.80

  3,022.26

  Sheffield

  373

  2,412.81

  3,110.61

  Bradford

  380

  2,518.19

  3,273.33

  Calderdale

  381

  2,380.76

  3,072.17

  Kirklees

  382

  2,404.27

  3,098.84

  Leeds

  383

  2,382.51

  3,065.82

  Wakefield

  384

  2,313.72

  2,981.93

  Gateshead

  390

  2,418.61

  3,123.56

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  391

  2,545.98

  3,296.14

  North Tyneside

  392

  2,346.08

  3,046.79

  South Tyneside

  393

  2,468.46

  3,178.43

  Sunderland

  394

  2,423.06

  3,127.49

  Isles of Scilly

  420

  4,268.16

  5,588.41

  Bath and North East Somerset

  800

  2,237.76

  2,830.33

  City of Bristol

  801

  2,438.78

  3,168.47

  North Somerset

  802

  2,253.79

  2,916.44

  South Gloucestershire

  803

  2,189.83

  2,838.87

  Hartlepool

  805

  2,445.25

  3,153.22

  392W

  2000–01 primary and secondary provisional SSA allocations per pupil

  LEA name

  LEA number

  Primary SSA/5–10 pupil (£)

  Secondary SSA/11–15 pupil (£)

  Middlesbrough

  806

  2,568.63

  3,360.77

  Redcar and Cleveland

  807

  2,436.87

  3,116.40

  Stockton-on-Tees

  808

  2,391.07

  3,095.30

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  810

  2,534.03

  3,263.39

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  811

  2,278.68

  2,933.71

  North East Lincolnshire

  812

  2,429.19

  3,134.60

  North Lincolnshire

  813

  2,374.96

  3,072.54

  North Yorkshire

  815

  2,332.17

  2,983.04

  York

  816

  2,262.83

  2,938.87

  Bedfordshire

  820

  2,389.87

  3,081.04

  Luton

  821

  2,606.76

  3,363.19

  Buckinghamshire

  825

  2,390.21

  3,092.56

  Milton Keynes

  826

  2,462.04

  3,192.11

  Derbyshire

  830

  2,265.63

  2,923.19

  Derby

  831

  2,431.71

  3,135.50

  Dorset

  835

  2,282.26

  2,926.26

  Poole

  836

  2,235.16

  2,872.87

  Bournemouth

  837

  2,360.82

  3,014.47

  Durham

  840

  2,390.16

  3,094.58

  Darlington

  841

  2,379.09

  3,078.18

  East Sussex

  845

  2,444.89

  3,166.37

  Brighton and Hove

  846

  2,527.97

  3,256.01

  Hampshire

  850

  2,327.14

  3,014.00

  Portsmouth

  851

  2,506.65

  3,209.25

  Southampton

  852

  2,533.79

  3,296.09

  Leicestershire

  855

  2,202.08

  2,848.21

  Leicester

  856

  2,577.11

  3,327.17

  Rutland

  857

  2,264.47

  2,799.19

  Staffordshire

  860

  2,237.17

  2,884.30

  Stoke on Trent

  861

  2,397.24

  3,095.97

  Wiltshire

  865

  2,291.77

  2,970.79

  Swindon

  866

  2,290.07

  2,956.54

  Bracknell Forest

  867

  2,432.81

  3,158.95

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  868

  2,452.15

  3,107.49

  Newbury

  869

  2,319.84

  2,959.88

  Reading

  870

  2,500.98

  3,270.94

  Slough

  871

  2,849.13

  3,763.31

  Wokingham

  872

  2,218.69

  2,873.54

  Cambridgeshire

  873

  2,313.16

  2,964.17

  Peterborough

  874

  2,463.46

  3,168.50

  Cheshire

  875

  2,257.08

  2,897.44

  Halton

  876

  2,479.99

  3,224.14

  Warrington

  877

  2,235.92

  2,889.59

  Devon

  878

  2,345.12

  3,037.54

  Plymouth

  879

  2,385.66

  3,043.17

  Torbay

  880

  2,385.18

  3,076.82

  Essex

  881

  2,441.36

  3,146.74

  Southend

  882

  2,488.91

  3,200.76

  Thurrock

  883

  2,596.84

  3,349.37

  Herefordshire

  884

  2,366.24

  3,061.93

  Worcestershire

  885

  2,255.62

  2,901.99

  Kent

  886

  2,442.75

  3,149.02

  Rochester and Gillingham

  887

  2,416.98

  3,116.82

  Lancashire

  888

  2,360.82

  3,042.83

  Blackburn

  889

  2,547.76

  3,276.75

  Blackpool

  890

  2,403.52

  3,131.41

  Nottinghamshire

  891

  2,291.31

  2,961.81

  Nottingham City

  892

  2,625.75

  3,414.64

  Shropshire

  893

  2,303.98

  2,960.26

  The Wrekin

  894

  2,389.15

  3,086.39

  Cornwall

  908

  2,368.90

  3,058.30

  Cumbria

  909

  2,356.72

  3,031.45

  Gloucestershire

  916

  2,282.43

  2,935.36

  Hertfordshire

  919

  2,474.15

  3,170.11

  Isle of Wight Council

  921

  2,519.63

  3,257.30

  Lincolnshire

  925

  2,359.37

  3,040.70

  Norfolk

  926

  2,377.79

  3,051.85

  Northamptonshire

  928

  2,308.12

  2,974.27

  Northumberland

  929

  2,332.45

  3,013.54

  Oxfordshire

  931

  2,397.36

  3,070.14

  393W

  2000–01 primary and secondary provisional SSA allocations per pupil

  LEA name

  LEA number

  Primary SSA/5–10 pupil (£)

  Secondary SSA/11–15 pupil (£)

  Somerset

  933

  2,309.98

  2,983.76

  Suffolk

  935

  2,313.49

  2,960.30

  Surrey

  936

  2,436.23

  3,127.14

  Warwickshire

  967

  2,266.53

  2,918.23

  West Sussex

  938

  2,366.36

  3,044.42

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give the standard spending assessment per pupil for the primary and secondary sectors for(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Suffolk for each year from 1990–91 to 2000–01, adjusted for inflation at current values. [102695]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Real Terms Unit SSA allocations for Cambridgeshire and Suffolk 1990–91 to 2000–01

  £ (at 2000–01 prices)

  Pri SSA/5–10 pupil

  Sec SSA/11–15 pupil

  Pri†Sec SSA/5–15 pupil

  1990–91

  Cambridgeshire

  1,954.42

  2,774.14

  2,314.81

  Suffolk

  1,910.11

  2,710.26

  2,272.59

  1991–92

  Cambridgeshire

  2,098.58

  3,040.17

  2,502.31

  Suffolk

  2,054.90

  2,975.91

  2,461.93

  1992–93

  Cambridgeshire

  2,155.01

  3,146.41

  2,578.31

  Suffolk

  2,108.67

  3,077.71

  2,535.46

  1993–94

  Cambridgeshire

  2,144.65

  3,109.21

  2,561.34

  Suffolk

  2,096.12

  3,037.78

  2,513.93

  1994–95

  Cambridgeshire

  2,167.15

  3,026.24

  2,540.39

  Suffolk

  2,119.43

  2,958.47

  2,493.77

  1995–96

  Cambridgeshire

  2,138.83

  2,859.33

  2,454.82

  Suffolk

  2,075.07

  2,761.11

  2,382.07

  1996–97

  Cambridgeshire

  2,167.13

  2,887.84

  2,482.38

  Suffolk

  2,099.41

  2,803.70

  2,408.63

  1997–98

  Cambridgeshire

  2,169.87

  2,847.94

  2,464.36

  Suffolk

  2,130.92

  2,792.89

  2,419.33

  1998–99

  Cambridgeshire

  2,205.17

  2,865.74

  2,483.11

  Suffolk

  2,201.35

  2,854.85

  2,485.03

  1999–2000

  Cambridgeshire

  2,279.99

  2,914.78

  2,547.59

  Suffolk

  2,277.26

  2,904.32

  2,549.45

  2000–01

  (provisional)

  Cambridgeshire

  2,313.16

  2,964.17

  2,590.76

  Suffolk

  2,313.49

  2,960.30

  2,599.56

  394W

  Cambridgeshire Local Education Authority
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the revenue resources allocated to Cambridgeshire local education authority for 1999–2000 and the percentage increase this represents over the previous year in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms. [102696]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  SSA and standards fund only

  Cash

  1999–2000 prices

  1998–1999 (£ million)

  186.733

  190.935

  1999–2000 (£ million)

  199.463

  199.463

  Percentage increase

  6.8

  4.5

  Grammar Schools (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in relation to a petition needed to trigger a ballot on the future of grammar schools in Barnet,(a) what is the total number of signatures required for a petition, (b) what methods exist (i) for the parents seeking change, to validate the total required and (ii) for independent validation of the total required and (c) who has provided the data on which the number of signatures required is based. [102757]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998 define the number of signatures required to trigger a ballot on the future of selective admissions to grammar schools (the petition threshold) as 20 per cent. of the total number of eligible parents. The Secretary of State has appointed an independent ballot administration company, Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. (ERBS), to receive and check petitions and run any ballots. The ERBS has calculated that in Barnet the petition threshold is 7,209. The legislation does not require the ERBS to submit the number of eligible parents to scrutiny by (i) parents or (ii) any other body.

  In order to calculate the petition threshold, the ERBS required the three grammar schools in Barnet to provide details of all schools from which pupils came in the last three years. Those schools where a total of five or more children had transferred, over the last three years, to a grammar school in Barnet qualified as feeder schools and had to provide the ERBS with lists of eligible parents. From this information, the ERBS calculated the total number of parents entitled to sign a petition or vote in a ballot, and subsequently the petition threshold.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, in relation to petitions needed to trigger ballots on the future of grammar schools in Barnet,(a) the names of the schools in respect of which parents are eligible to be balloted and (b) the number of parents eligible to be balloted in each of these schools; and how many children transferred to each of the Barnet grammar schools from each of the primary schools in each of the last three years. [102755]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The number of parents eligible to ballot entered at column two, is that provided
  395W
  by the schools themselves and includes some duplication where parents have more than one child attending feeder schools. After entering all the names onto a single computer database, Electoral Reform (Ballot Services)

  Number of pupils transferred to each grammar school in each of the past three years

  Henrietta Barnett

  St. Michael's Catholic School

  Queen Elizabeth

  Name of school

  Number of parents eligible to ballot

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Alpha Preparatory School

  327

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1

  —

  Aylward School

  628

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Belmont School

  589—

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  Broadfields School

  382

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1

  2

  Brookfields

  493

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Brookland Junior School

  556

  3

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Buckingham College

  177

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  Channing Junior School

  727

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Christ Church C E School

  256

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Coleridge Infant and Junior School

  669

  4

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Colindale Primary School

  540

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Courtland

  299

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Cromer Road School

  296

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1

  Deansbrook Junior School

  465

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1

  Dollis School

  693

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Drizen

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Elmgrove Middle

  390

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Eversley School

  642

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  2

  3

  Fairway Junior School

  267

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  1

  Foulds

  441

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Frith Manor School

  851

  1

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Garden Suburb Junior School

  558

  3

  2

  7

  —

  —

  1

  4

  7

  7

  Gower School

  201

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  Grange Park

  960

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  Grimsdyke School

  573

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  Hadley Wood School

  282

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  4

  Hartsbourne JMI School

  306

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  Holland House School

  235

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Kerem

  316

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Lochniver House School

  516

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  Manor Lodge School

  513

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  Michael Sobell Sinai School

  985

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Monken Hadley School

  165

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1

  Moss Hall Junior School

  535

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  3

  5

  Mount Stewart School

  580

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Northbridge House

  1,325

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Oliver Goldsmith

  655

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Osidge Junior School

  568

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  4

  Our Lady of Grace Junior School

  365

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Our Lady of Lourdes School N12

  275

  —

  —

  1

  6

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Our Lady of Lourdes School N11

  274

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Our Lady of Muswell School

  375

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Queenswell Junior School

  477

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1

  Radlett Prepatory School

  732

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  13

  7

  7

  Roe Green

  311

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Rokesly School

  415

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Rosh Pinah School

  638

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Sacred Heart School

  523

  2

  1

  —

  4

  13

  11

  —

  2

  1

  Salcombe Preparatory School

  815

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  St. Agnes

  408

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  St. Andrew C E School

  307

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  2

  St. Bernadette School

  592

  —

  —

  —

  7

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  St. Catherine R C School

  392

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  3

  1

  St. George's School

  530

  —

  —

  —

  7

  2

  7

  —

  —

  —

  St. James

  295

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  St. John Vianney

  334

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  St. Johns' School

  262

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  St. Joseph RC Junior School NW4

  395

  —

  —

  —

  5

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  St. Joseph School W9

  354

  1

  —

  —

  1

  5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  St. Martha's Convent School

  243

  —

  —

  —

  6

  3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  St. Martin De Pores School

  343

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  2

  St. Mary Magdalen School

  510

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Mary's N3

  622

  3

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  3

  5

  1

  St. Mary's Preparatory School NW4

  348

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  396W
  Ltd have carried out checks and have removed those names entered more than once. The total number of eligible parents from the 'cleared' database was 36,045 which resulted in a petition threshold of 7,209.
  397W

  Number of pupils transferred to each grammar school in each of the past three years

  Henrietta Barnett

  St. Michael's Catholic School

  Queen Elizabeth

  Name of school

  Number of parents eligible to ballot

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  St. Mary's Primary School NW3

  422

  —

  2

  1

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  St. Michael's CE Primary School

  657

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  St. Monica's School

  609

  —

  —

  —

  10

  13

  2

  3

  —

  1

  St. Nicholas' School

  103

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  St. Paul's C E School Mill Hill

  280

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  7

  3

  4

  St. Paul's School N21

  591

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  St. Robert Southwell

  492

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  St. Theresa's RC School

  296

  1

  1

  1

  5

  4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  St. Vincent's RC School

  90

  —

  —

  —

  9

  6

  6

  1

  1

  —

  Stanburn School

  558

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  6

  2

  Underhill Junior School

  523

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1

  Walker School

  595

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  2

  Wolfson Hillel School

  553

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Woodridge School

  288

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Group Foundation Bodies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to ensure that local education authorities do not promote policies of encouraging schools to form group foundation bodies. [102827]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The group foundation mechanism enables schools without existing foundations to enter the Voluntary sector. It is for governing bodies themselves to decide whether they should apply to establish or join a foundation body for their schools. If they do so, the foundation body will hold the schools' land for the purposes of the schools, appoint foundation governors for those schools and promote co-operation between member schools. Local education authorities have no major role in any decision by governing bodies considering membership of a foundation body.

  School Organisation Committees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to prevent party political appointments, other than local education authority nominations, to school organisation committees. [102821]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The local authority has no control over membership of three of the groups on the committee, and is prevented by regulation from appointing governors who are elected members to the schools group. Since decisions on plans or proposals can be reached only if all groups vote unanimously, party politics should not be a determining factor in local decision-making. Where the groups cannot agree, the case is referred to the Schools Adjudicator for decision.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow for appeals against the composition of school organisation committees. [102820]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  School organisation committees must be set up in accordance with The Education (School Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would consider any complaints or other evidence that a local education authority had failed to comply with the regulations, or exercised its functions unreasonably.
  398W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that school organisation committees are representative of local community interests. [102819]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The composition of school organisation committees is set out in The Education (School Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999. Committees comprise the main partners in the provision of education locally: the local education authority. Church of England and Roman Catholic diocesan interests, post-16 interests and schools. The regulations allow for a sixth group representing local community interests to be set up, but this is at the discretion of the local education authority and not a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the political affiliation of members of school organisation committees. [102822]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect systematic information about membership of school organisation committees.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 421W, on teachers, if the grants are payable to (a) the school of each training graduate or (b) the company contracted to provide the service. [102844]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Training grants are paid to recommending bodies who are responsible for organising individual training programmes for trainees. The recommending body can be the school where the trainee is employed or another organisation capable of organising a training programme. The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) employs two contractors to administer the employment-based routes to Qualified Teacher Status including approval of training programmes, administration of funding and assessment arrangements and matching potential trainees with jobs. Neither of these organisations acts as a recommending body.
  399W

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the categories of specialist comprehensives, (b) the number of schools in each category and (c) the number and percentage of successful and unsuccessful applications for specialist school status. [102865]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of specialist schools designated as arts, languages, sports or technology colleges which are deemed comprehensive schools are listed in the table.

  Category of specialism

  Comprehensive

  Other1

  Arts Colleges

  29

  0

  Language Colleges

  65

  6

  Sports Colleges

  35

  2

  Technology Colleges

  241

  25

  1 The 33 other schools comprise 18 selective, 12 secondary modern and three special schools

  For competitions held in 1998 and 1999 the number and percentage of successful and unsuccessful applications for specialist designation are set out in the table.

  Number

  Percentage

  Successful

  March 1998

  51

  42

  October 1998

  35

  53

  March 1999

  37

  71

  June 1999

  41

  45

  Unsuccessful

  March 1998

  71

  58

  October 1998

  31

  47

  March 1999

  15

  29

  June 1999

  51

  55

  Home Education
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children are claimed to be being educated at home, or elsewhere outside school, on the basis of their parent signing a form presented to them by an education official; and if he will make a statement. [102970]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data on the number of children educated otherwise than at school are not collected centrally. Under the Education Act 1996, parents can opt to educate their children otherwise than at school. In such circumstances, pupils can only be removed from a school roll where the school has received written notification from the parent that the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school. Local Education Authorities have a duty to ensure that the education provided is suitable to the age, aptitude and ability and any special

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Middlesbrough

  65 per cent. good or very good

  33 per cent. good or very good

  26 primary inspections

  8 per cent. serious weaknesses

  17 per cent. serious weaknesses

  6 secondary inspections

  4 per cent. requiring special measures

  0 per cent. requiring special measures

  Stockton

  76 per cent. good or very good

  67 per cent. good or very good

  34 primary inspections

  0 per cent. serious weaknesses

  0 per cent. serious weaknesses

  3 secondary inspections

  3 per cent. requiring special measures

  0 per cent. requiring special measures

  400W
  educational needs the child may have. It is Local Education Authorities to decide how to monitor these arrangements.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he proposes to take to ensure that claims that children are receiving home education are not used to disguise truancy; and if he will make a statement. [102971]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local Education Authorities have a duty to monitor the quality of home education being provided and we expect them to carry out this duty. If home education is not being provided or is not of a satisfactory standard, Local Education Authorities can apply to the courts of an Educational Supervision Order. Alternatively they should pursue a School Attendance Order.

  Where we receive specific complaints that schools may be using home education as a method to disguise truancy, we will investigate.

  Special Educational Needs Audit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local authorities currently include a special educational needs factor in their local management of schools formula on the basis of an SEN audit. [102977]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 587W.

  Departmental Employees (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employees of his Department availed themselves of early retirement packages and at what total cost in financial year 1996–97. [102976]

  Mr. Wills
  During the 1996–97 financial year 660 employees of the Department for Education and Employment (including the Employment Service) took early retirement at a total cost in the year of £11.8 million.

  Education Standards (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the quality of education in(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Redcar and Cleveland, (c) Stockton and (d) Hartlepool local education authorities in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools since 1 May 1997, following the recent school inspections there. [102912]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is the responsibility of Ofsted to inspect education in schools. The data are based on Ofsted's school inspections since the start of the current round in September 1997. The figures are expressed as a percentage of schools inspected.
  401W

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Redcar and Cleveland

  55 per cent. good or very good

  33 per cent. good or very good

  27 primary inspections

  7 per cent. serious weaknesses

  17 per cent. serious weaknesses

  6 secondary inspections

  0 per cent. requiring special measures

  0 per cent. requiring special measures

  Hartlepool

  81 per cent. good or very good

  100 per cent. good or very good

  21 primary inspections

  5 per cent. serious weaknesses

  0 per cent. serious weaknesses

  1 secondary inspection

  0 per cent. requiring special measures

  0 per cent. requiring special measures

  Exclusions
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities in England which have issued guidance to their schools on strategies for improving attendance and preventing exclusions. [102883]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: This information is not collected centrally. However, local education authorities' Behaviour Support Plans are expected to include information on the support for schools in improving the management of pupil behaviour with a view, among other things, to minimising unauthorised absence and exclusions.

  In addition local education authorities should take account of Circular 10/99 "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" which is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's guidance on pupil attendance, behaviour, exclusion and re-integration. This is backed up with some £500 million, which we are making available over three years, for projects to help schools tackle truancy and prevent exclusions.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities in the North West Region which analyse attendance and exclusion data at(a) group, (b) pupil and (c) school level. [102888]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: The Department does not collect information about how local education authorities analyse their attendance and exclusions data.

  All schools since 1991, other than independent schools for boarders only, have been required to collect information on authorised and unauthorised absences. Absence figures at local education authority level have been published annually in the National Tables since 1992–93. The latest published information relates to the academic year 19980–99.

  Figures on permanent exclusions were collected for the first time in January 1996. They have been published annually since 1994–95. The latest published information, produced in the volume "Statistics of Education (Schools in England) 1999", relates to the academic year 1997–98.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities collect and analyse data on fixed period exclusions; and what percentage of local education authorities this represents. [102886]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: The Department does not collect information about the number of local education authorities which analyse their data on fixed period exclusions.
  402W
  For the first time, the Department has recently required all local education authorities to provide data on fixed period exclusions of more than five school days in total in any one term in the academic year 1998–99.

  Truancy
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent research his Department has commissioned to investigate the underlying causes of truancy; and if he will make a statement. [102887]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: We are aware that truancy is a complex problem with no one single cause or solution. Last year, the Government published "Truancy and School Exclusion" which set out major research findings on the causes and activities needed to address the issue. This publication drew upon research commissioned by the Department including "Truancy in English Secondary Schools" by D. J. O'Keefe and the Audit Commission Report "Misspent Youth; Young People and Crime". In July 1999 we issued new guidance to schools on attendance. On 1 November, we launched "Tackling Truancy Together" which set out our strategy in further detail including evidence of what works in increasing attendance.

  Fresh Start Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring is undertaken of Fresh Start schools' policies and actions in dealing with children playing truant. [102982]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: During all school inspections, inspectors are required to examine schools' policies on attendance and will check that attendance registers are completed accurately. Fresh Start schools are subject to the normal requirements of the school inspection system.

  Local Learning Partnerships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to support local learning partnerships where they cross the boundaries of local learning and skills councils. [102985]

  Mr. Wicks
  With the exception of London—where all learning partnerships are re-assessing their boundaries—there are only two instances of learning partnerships crossing the boundaries of local learning and skills councils. In both cases, Government Office staff are working closely with local partners to ensure a smooth transition. In addition, support funding is available both to Government Offices and learning partnerships to facilitate the process of change.
  403W
  Learning partnerships have a key role in the new post-16 arrangements; they are very well placed to provide the in-depth understanding of local needs that will be needed to inform the work of local learning and skills councils. In general, learning partnerships are being advised to ensure that they have a sufficiently local focus to enable them to identify local needs and co-ordinate effective local action.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102328]

  Mr. Wills
  There is a designated room for Muslim prayers in Caxton House, London. There is also a designated room for nursing mothers in Moorfoot, Sheffield. In addition, first aid rooms and rest rooms at other headquarters sites can be used for a variety of purposes as staff needs dictate.

  The number of smoking rooms at each of the main HQ locations is as follows:

  London: 8

  Sheffield: 7

  Runcorn: 5

  Darlington: 2.

  The Employment Service maintains 1,000 smoking rooms in their 1,253 properties.

  Education Act 1996
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment with reference to section 486, what the procedure is for applying for grants under the Education Act 1996, Part VIII; and if guidelines are available. [103570]

  Mr. Wills
  This section of the Education Act 1996 allows for the making of regulations to provide grant to bodies other than Local Education Authorities whose object, or main object is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, to promote learning or research. Grants are paid to a variety of organisations for different specific purposes. There is no single set procedure for applying for such grants.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many British citizens who have been educated in other European Union countries are currently unable to access student loans on the ground of recent non-residence in the United Kingdom. [102924]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Post-16 Education
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of administration in providing education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds by(a) schools, (b) further education colleges, (c) sixth form colleges and (d) TECs. [103577]
  404W
  Mr. Wicks
  The administration costs of each of these sectors are made public through the Revenue Outturn Statement from Local Education Authorities and annual reports/accounts produced by the Further Education Funding Council for England and TECs. However, the information requested on the administration costs of education and training provision for 16 to 19-year-olds is not identified separately.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of administration of the provision of education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds under his proposals by(a) schools, (b) further education colleges, (c) sixth form colleges, (d) the National Learning and Skills Council, (e) local learning and skills councils, (f) local life-long learning partnerships and (g) sixth form colleges maintained by the Learning and Skills Council. [103576]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have not made separate estimates of the costs of providing education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds by sector. However, the new arrangements for learning and skills will cut through the present duplication and bureaucracy and will secure savings of at least £50 million a year across post-16 learning, which will be invested in improving the quality of learning.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the significant differences between the updated Transition Plan for Post-16 Education and Training published on 26 November and the draft published on 30 June; and what is the reason for these differences. [102926]

  Mr. Wicks
  The joint DfEE/DTI National Transition Plan, first issued alongside the White Paper, is a working document that is intended to evolve and develop as discussions with partner organisations take place. The Plan has been updated to take account of partners views and to set out in more detail the steps needed to set up the Learning and Skills Council, subject to Parliamentary approval.

  There is a new section which lists the progress made since the launch of the White Paper; an overarching plan which summaries the key milestones; and a new annex which details the groups which have been set up to support arrangements.

  We intend to produce further regular updates over the next year.

  Examination Bodies (Standards)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to ensure that examining bodies maintain consistent and mutually coherent standards. [102922]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Education Act 1997 confers powers on the ACCAC and QCA to keep under review all aspects of external vocational and academic qualifications. This year, Ministers endorsed detailed arrangements, developed by the ACCAC, CCEA and QCA, for the regulation of external qualifications. These arrangements set out the criteria which these bodies are applying to accredit qualifications to a national framework and will use to monitor the performance and practices of examining bodies in the delivery of these qualifications.
  405W

  Curriculum 2000
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to ensure that Curriculum 2000 qualifications are of equal rigour and reflect equal attainment to their predecessors. [102921]

  Mr. Wicks
  All the AS/A level and GNVQ specifications to be introduced for teaching from September 2000 will have to meet the demanding criteria set out by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. These are designed to ensure that the rigour of the qualifications is at least fully maintained. In approving these criteria, Ministers took steps to strengthen the rigour of the new A levels by requiring all candidates to take a demanding synoptic test at the end of the course covering the who syllabus, and by allowing only one opportunity to re-take individual modules. Ministers have also taken steps to upgrade the GNVQ assessment regime.

  Accommodation Transfers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to transfer buildings(a) from the Further Education Funding Council to the Learning and Skills Council and (b) from TECs to local Learning and Skills Councils; and what will be the net cost of transfers, sales and reprovision. [102923]

  Mr. Wicks
  It is our intention that the Learning and Skills Council should take over the lease on the Further Education and Funding Council's main premises in Coventry. Government Offices are currently undertaking an exercise, in consultation with TECs, to identify suitable premises for the local Learning and Skills Councils. Our priority will be to work closely with TECs to make the most cost effective use of existing premises wherever possible, either for the LSC, for a franchisee of the Small Business Service or for other local activities. It is too early at this stage to estimate the net costs of transfers, sales and reprovision.

  Medical Techniques
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many medical schools offer training in complementary and alternative medical techniques; what percentage this constitutes of the total number of medical schools; and if he will make a statement. [103477]

  Mr. Wicks
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Student Drop-out Rates
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students left each United Kingdom university before completing their course in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [103131]

  Mr. Wicks
  Information published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Higher Education Performance Indicators" gives for the first time projected non-completion rates for students beginning full-time degree courses in 1996–97 for each of the HE institutions in the UK. A copy is available in the Library. This information will be published annually.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Macpherson Report)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Royal Ulster Constabulary Chief Constable in respect of recommendations 20, 21 and 22 of the Macpherson Inquiry report regarding procedures, record keeping and policy directive adherence at scenes of crime. [101858]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 December 1999]: Following the publication of the Macpherson Report, discussions took place on a tripartite basis between representatives of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office to consider the implications of the Report in the wider context of policing in Northern Ireland.

  In relation to recommendation 20, the RUC is acutely aware of the importance of effective co-ordination of police resources and activity at major incidents. Consequently all existing Force orders, manuals of guidance and policy are being distilled into generic procedures which will ensure clear roles and lines of responsibility.

  On recommendation 21, the experience gained by the RUC in three decades of investigating major crime has resulted in tried and tested procedures. There are current RUC Force instructions concerning records made by individual officers and specialist units in relation to their functions and strict rules require the retention of all such records as long as an investigation remains open.

  As for recommendation 22, the RUC in line with GB constabularies is to obtain an updated version of HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) and the resourcing requirements are addressed in the draft ACPO Major Incident Room Standardised Agreed Procedures (MIRSAP). These guidelines, which should be confirmed early in the new year, will define the resources necessary to operate HOLMES investigations. A Detective Inspector is dedicated to the overall supervision of all HOLMES units deployed throughout the RUC, which includes checking on the adequacy of resources and that difficulties are reported.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102370]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussions.

  H-blocks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the H-blocks in the Maze Prison which are still in use; which group of convicted terrorist prisoners are in occupation of each block; and if he will list the H-blocks in use and which groups occupied each on 1 December 1998. [102161]
  407W
  Mr. Ingram
  At the present time, five of the eight Blocks are in use. Loyalist prisoners occupy three Blocks and Republican prisoners occupy the remaining two.

  This was the position on 1 December 1998 also.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the next H-block in the Maze Prison to be cleared of prisoners; and which one it will be. [102159]

  Mr. Ingram
  I an unable to forecast when the next H-block within Maze Prison will close.

  Prisoner releases between now and July 2000, when Maze is expected to close, are relatively small. The situation will be kept under review.

  Prisoners (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the organisations dealing with rehabilitation of terrorist prisoners which receive funds from the public purse; which department funds them; and what sums went to each such organisation in each of the last five years and the current year to date. [102158]

  Mr. Ingram
  Rehabilitation services are provided by the Prison Service to all prisoners in Northern Ireland mainly through educational and vocational training courses and services. In addition, welfare and rehabilitation services are provided by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.

  Overall costs for the last five financial years are:

  £

  Prison Service Education and VT costs

  Prison Service payments to Probation Board for NI

  1994–95

  239,000

  822,100

  1995–96

  258,600

  822,100

  1996–97

  191,600

  822,100

  1997–98

  216,500

  810,000

  1998–99

  230,600

  810,000

  1999–20001

  90,500

  360,000

  1To date

  Other bodies such as the Training and Employment Agency and the Local Enterprise Development Unit have provided services on occasions at no additional charge.

  During the current financial year, in accordance with commitments in the Good Friday Agreement, a number of individual payments have been made for the delivery of courses for the rehabilitation of prisoners released from HMP Maze at an overall total of £16,215.

  Ex-prisoner groups also receive funding from the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. Since the beginning of this Programme, £4.3 million (of which the Government fund 25 per cent.) in respect of Measures 4.4 and 4.6 has been allocated to ex-prisoner groups. Groups may also have received EU funding from District Partnerships and other funders.

  Welfare Organisations (Prison Visits)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the criteria for payments 408W
  to the representatives of welfare organisations making visits to prisons in Northern Ireland for meetings with terrorist prisoners. [102308]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no such criteria, because no payments are made to representatives of welfare organisations making visits to prisons in Northern Ireland for meetings with prisoners.

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department. [102731]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Northern Ireland Office is composed of staff from the Home Civil Service (HCS) and the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). Of the HCS group based in London, 20 per cent. are of ethnic minority origin. Information about the ethnic origin of staff within Northern Ireland is not yet available. Race Relations legislation was recently introduced to Northern Ireland and the NIO has surveyed all staff on their ethnic origin. The data are presently being analysed.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office set out in his reply of 16 December 1999, Official Report, column 264W, corporate action that we are taking to encourage the employment of people from ethnic minorities. Staff are recruited to the NIO HCS group by way of a recruitment agency and figures indicate that candidates from ethnic minorities are joining the Department.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102078]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Since May 1997 the money spent by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on external consultants and advisers was £2,358,138.99.

  Electoral Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost of registering an elector on the electoral register in Northern Ireland; and what is the cost of entering a name to correct an omission from the register. [102547]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The cost of registering an elector on the 1999 Northern Ireland electoral register was approximately 44p. In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland spent £12,465 on press adverts encouraging voters to check the draft register and displaying both the draft and final versions of the register at sub-post offices throughout Northern Ireland.

  Correcting the register to amend a clerical error would incur a nominal cost of approximately 20p. It is not possible to estimate the cost of including a name on the register as a result of a successful claim considered at

  409W
  revision hearing and at which a Deputy Electoral Officer presides. The administrative cost of such hearing varies depending on the location and the number of claims heard.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of(a) non-departmental public bodies and (b) task forces in Northern Ireland (i) on 1 May 1997, (ii) on 1 May 1998 and (iii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [102488]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1 May 1997 to 1 November 1999 the number of non-departmental public bodies for Northern Ireland has been nine. A nil return for task forces.

  RUC Station Closures
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the closure of the(a) Greencastle and (b) York Road RUC stations. [102485]

  Mr. Ingram
  The allocation and use of all resources is entirely a matter for the professional judgment and operational discretion of the Chief Constable.

  The RUC and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland have advised that there are no plans for the closure of (a) Greencastle and (b) York Road RUC Stations.

  RUC Insignia
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules and guidelines govern the use of RUC insignia; and what penalties apply to the use of insignia without permission. [101879]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: It is a matter for the discretion of the Chief Constable as to whether he may seek the assistance of the courts to prevent or stop the unauthorised or alleged misuse of the insignia.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to refuse permission for use of the RUC insignia in association with political campaigns. [102082]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: The use of the insignia of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Constable.

  Police (Auditors)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is the appointed auditor for the(a) Northern Ireland Police Federation, (b) the Police Association for Northern Ireland and (c) Northern Ireland Police Authority; and what recommendations have been made by each of those auditors concerning the guidelines for expenditure on political campaigning. [101876]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: The auditors to the Police Federation for Northern Ireland are George Hay & Co. The Police Association for NI receives no funds and has no accounts. The National Audit Office audits the accounts of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Neither George Hay & Co. nor the Comptroller
  410W
  and Auditor General made any recommendations concerning guidelines for expenditure on political campaigning by either organisation.

  RUC (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland(a) when, (b) how many and (c) for what periods RUC officers will be deployed in the former Yugoslavia; under whose discipline they will operate; and in which areas they will be deployed. [101880]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: In accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, the RUC have seven officers serving with the United Nations International Police Task Force in Bosnia, four since March 1999 and three from October 1999, where they are monitoring the performance of the Bosnian police service. At the end of November, 60 RUC officers took up positions with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo where they are undertaking an executive policing role pending a new Kosovan police service being trained and ready to take over law enforcement there. All of the secondments are for a period of 12 months and the officers are under the command of the United Nations Police Commissioner.

  RUC (US Training)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the US Congress concerning US-sponsored training and exchange programmes with the RUC. [101875]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: I have received no representations from the US congress concerning US-sponsored training and exchange programmes with the RUC.

  Illegal Parades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the RUC were unable to identify persons involved in illegal parades in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [101874]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: Police actions in relation to such parades are constrained by the need to minimise disruption to the wider community. In many instances such parades are short-lived affairs where police intervention to arrest participants would exacerbate the situation.

  The primary aim of police is therefore to monitor such parades in order to prevent serious disorder. The secondary aim is to gather sufficient evidence to allow the identification/prosecution of participants. If sufficient notice of the parade is obtained, technical resources can be deployed to gather video and still photographic images. These efforts can however be frustrated by a number of factors such as:

  (1) Many illegal parades take place at night

  (2) Clarity of images can be affected by distance and weather conditions.

  (3) Participants are often strangers to the area.

  (4) Band uniforms are not always worn.

  411W
  Furthermore, in order to be able to substantiate a prosecution, police must be in a position to prove that individuals knew the parade to be illegal. Often such parades can be over before the police can respond and for operational reasons police may be deployed at some distance from the parade.

  Union Flags
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what days the Union flag was flown at RUC Garnerville in the last year; what body is responsible for policy on flags and emblems at this establishment; and on what date policy on the flying of flags was last reviewed. [101758]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: The Union Flag has been flown at RUC Garnerville on the following occasions over the past year:

  6 February 1999—Her Majesty's Accession

  8 February 1999—Death of King Hussein of Jordan

  19 February 1999—Birthday of HRH the Prince of York

  8 March 1999—Commonwealth Day

  10 March 1999—Birthday of HRH the Earl of Wessex

  21 April 1999—Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

  2 June 1999—Coronation Day

  10 June 1999—Birthday of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

  12 June 1999—Official Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

  4 August 1999—Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the

  Queen Mother

  15 August 1999—Birthday of HRH the Princess Royal

  21 August 1999—Birthday of HRH the Princess Margaret

  14 November 1999—Birthday of HRH the Prince of Wales/ Remembrance Day

  20 November 1999—Anniversary of Her Majesty's Wedding.

  The Chief Constable is responsible for determining Force policy on flags and emblems at this and all other RUC establishments. The policy was last reviewed in September 1998.

  Police Federation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) funds and (b) benefits in kind have been provided from public funds to the Police Federation for Northern Ireland in the past two years; what rules govern the Federation and its staff; how many staff are employed by the Federation, at what cost; what payments have been made by the Federation to assist the Daily Telegraph Defend the RUC campaign; and what payments were made by the Federation to cover the expenses of staffing phonelines associated with the campaign. [101759]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: No contributions are made to the Police Federation for Northern Ireland from public funds. The body, which currently employs six staff, is governed by Federation Rules drawn up in accordance with the provision of the Police Association for NI Regulations 1991.

  I am advised the Federation has not made any payments to the Daily Telegraph or Defend the RUC campaigns.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of(a) installing and operating for one quarter the additional
  412W
  telephone lines and 0845 number and (b) printing by the Police Federation in connection with its campaign against the Patten Commission. [101762]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: I am advised that the estimated total cost of the 0845-telephone number, which has now been discontinued, was £1,947. There were no additional telephone lines installed. I am also advised that the printing costs in connection with Patten Commission issues cannot be readily disaggregated from overall Federation printing costs.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many advertisements entitled, "Where Patten Got it Wrong", have been placed in which newspapers by the Police Federation; and what the cost of each was. [101760]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: I am advised that the Police Federation for Northern Ireland placed advertisements in the Belfast Telegraph, The Irish News and The Belfast Newsletter at a total cost of £1,688.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times since 1 September the Police Federation of Northern Ireland has met; and what decisions have been made concerning the allocation of funds for a public campaign against the findings of the Patten Commission. [101761]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: The Central Committee of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland meet under the rules for three days bi-monthly although this may be split with the approval of the Chief Constable. I am advised that one additional meeting was held to approve the response to Government on the findings of the Patten Commission and a special one day meeting of all representatives was held with the approval of the Chief Constable on 24 September. The use of funds for a public campaign was approved by the Central Committee and at the direction of the special meeting of representatives.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been received in donations by the Police Federation since 1 September; and what arrangements have been made for financial oversight of the allocation of these funds. [101763]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: I am advised that no donations have been received by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland since 1 September 1999.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what body has responsibility for overseeing the financial arrangements entered into by the Police Federation; and what powers he has to prevent the Federation from making ultra vires payments. [101764]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: The financial arrangements of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland are governed by the provisions of Regulations 18 to 22, inclusive, of the Police Association for NI Regulations 1991.
  413W

  RUC Reform
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations HM Government have received from(a) political parties in Northern Ireland,
  (b) other Governments and (c) other interested parties concerning the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if he will make a statement. [102623]

  Mr. Ingram:
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: Since 9 September the Government has held 14 meetings with Northern Ireland political parties to discuss police reform. Nearly all of the political parties have also provided written submissions. Meetings have also been held with the Irish Government and there have been 32 meetings with other interested parties. In addition a large number of written submissions and calls to the freephone number have been received.

  Formal consultation about the proposals in the Patten Report has now ended. The Government is considering all the comments and representations it has received, before coming to decisions about the way forward.

  Northern Ireland Police Authority
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the executive or non-executive members of the Northern Ireland Police Authority for any part of the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [103565]

  Mr. Ingram
  The names of all executive members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland from 1997–99 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The following list provides the names of non-executive members of the Police Authority who have served for any part of the years 1997, 1998 and 1999:

  Mr. P.J. Armstrong (Chairman)

  Professor H. Wallace (Vice-Chairman)

  Lt. Col. R.H. Bicker (from July 1997)

  Mr. H.B. Casey (from July 1997)

  Ms S. Chamberlain (to June 1997)

  Rev. R.J. Coulter (from July 1997)

  Mr. R.L. Cree (from July 1997)

  Ms S. Cherry (to June 1997)

  Mr. S. Davidson (to June 1997)

  Sir R. Empey

  Mrs. K.F. Hargan

  Mr. A.R.A. Huston (from July 1997)

  Mr. B.R. Johnston (to June 1997)

  Mr. T. Kerrigan (to June 1997)

  Mr. S.J. McCammick (to June 1997)

  Mrs. R.A. McCormick (to June 1997)

  Mr. J.O. McDonald

  Mr. W.R. Martin (to June 1997)

  Mr. J.L. Neeson (to June 1997)

  Mrs. N.P. O'Loan (to October 1999)

  Mrs. R.I. Peters-Gallagher

  Mrs. E.A. Rea

  Mrs. F. Reid (from July 1997)

  Mrs. G.A. Rice (from July 1997)

  Mr. F.A. Rocks

  Professor R.A.J. Spence

  Mr. T. Wilson.
  414W
  In addition, the names of two Authority members have been omitted to maintain their wish of anonymity for security reasons.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which executive or non-executive member of the Northern Ireland Police Authority has taken responsibility for the testing or evaluation of vehicles for police use in the last three years. [103569]

  Mr. Ingram
  Executive members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland have taken responsibility for the testing or evaluation of vehicles for police use in the last three years.

  No non-executive members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland have taken the responsibility for the testing or evaluation of vehicles for police use in the last three years.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102334]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There is nothing in the Civil Service Code that specifies that any accommodation is to be set aside for religious use, pregnant and nursing mothers or smokers.

  The Secretary of State has staff located in 24 buildings. Eleven of the buildings have a room set aside for smokers. None have rooms specifically set aside for ethnic minority religious use or by pregnant or nursing mothers. However, in many cases staff have access to rest rooms or interview rooms which they can use.

  Carrickfergus Police Station
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he plans to take as a result of receiving reports of the likely cause of the fire at Carrickfergus police station on 10 January 1990. [102083]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Defence has not received any report on the likely cause of the fire at Carrickfergus police station, which would in any case be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary. With regard to the recent allegation in The Sunday Times, the MOD is not aware of any evidence to support it. The Secretary of State for Defence has written to the editor, recommending that any evidence of criminal activity be made available to the police.

CABINET OFFICE

  Outsourcing
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what steps she has taken to ensure that proposed changes to the TUPE Regulations are taken into account in ongoing outsourcing negotiations; and if she will make a statement; [103715]
  415W
  (2) what guidance her Department has issued to cover previously outsourced staff when contracts with private sector suppliers are (a) renewed, (b) renegotiated and (c) put out to tender on their expiry; [103717]

  (3) what guidance her Department has issued on the inclusion in outsourcing contracts of penalties for failure to abide by the TUPE Regulations; what plans she has to vary these penalties following her assessment of performance by private-sector companies subject to the TUPE Regulations; and if she will make a statement. [103628]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Cabinet Office published on 5 July 1999, for public consultation, a "Statement of Practice for Staff Transfers in the Public Sector",Official Report, column 388W. The Statement of Practice sets out the Government's policy for the application of TUPE where the public sector is the employer or client in a contracting-out or subsequent retendering situation. These should be conducted on the presumption that the protections of TUPE will apply, unless there are genuinely exceptional reasons not to do so. This includes second and subsequent round contracts that result in a new contractor and should ensure that all staff involved are treated fairly and consistently and their rights protected. Employees or employee representatives who consider that their rights under the Regulations have been infringed may seek legal redress. The response to the public consultation on the Statement of Practice was extremely positive with strong support from public and private sector employers and employee representatives. I aim to publish a final version of the Statement early in the New Year.

  The Department of Trade and Industry are currently conducting a review of the TUPE Regulations and will shortly be consulting on proposals for revising them. Changes to the regulations will be reflected in guidance to public sector employers.

  Copies of "Staff Transfers in the Public Sector: Statement of Practice" are in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside her Department. [102372]

  Mr. Stringer
  The format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much support has been made available for(a) action against illegal drugs and (b) education in schools regarding illegal drugs as a result of the seizure of the assets of convicted drug offenders; and how much she expects to be made available in each of the next three years. [102767]
  416W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Confiscated Assets Fund will total £3 million for 1999–2000, increasing to £5 million in 2000–01.

  The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator is currently identifying initiatives which might receive funding from the Confiscated Assets Fund to support action against illegal drugs. I hope to be able to make announcements shortly.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much of the funding for the anti-drugs strategy made available under the Comprehensive Spending Review is to be spent each year on(a) drugs education in primary and secondary schools and (b) other forms of drugs education for children and young persons under 16 years of age. [102793]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review some £7.5 million per annum is being made available through the Department for Education and Employment to assist all schools, including pupil referral units and the youth service, to deliver effective education about drugs in line with the aims relating to young people identified in the Government's anti drug strategy.

  Other education and prevention activities are funded by the Department of Health who will be spending £6 million per year to support a range of drugs education and prevention activities, and by the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service providing £6 million per year to encourage and support good practice in drugs prevention at a local, regional and national level.

  Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102100]

  Mr. Stringer
  My Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies expenditure on external advisers and consultants since May 1997 is £930,744.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what factors account for the increase in costs of special advisers over the period from 1995–96 to 1998–99. [101452]

  Mr. Stringer
  I can only answer for the period since May 1997. We always made it clear that, if elected, we would have a strengthening of the centre to ensure a firm political focus and greater co-ordination to the work of this Administration. This is what we have done, and this accounts for some of the increase. The costs also include the Standards and Effectiveness Adviser to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the three members of the Council of Economic Advisers and the appointments of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator and his deputy. These appointments are new to this Administration and are not covered by paybill figures for the years before May 1997.
  417W

HEALTH

  Meningitis C Vaccine
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the distribution of meningitis C vaccination to the primary health care sector; whether enough vaccine is available; and if he will make a statement. [101188]

  Yvette Cooper
  Distribution of the new meningococcal C conjugate vaccine to the primary care sector commenced during the week beginning 22 November 1999 to allow immunisations to start on Monday 29 November 1999. Weekly distribution continues thereafter. Enough vaccine has been made available through this route to immunise babies in the first phase of the programme, that is, those presenting at 2, 3, and 4 months of age for their primary immunisation of Hib/DTP and those presenting for their first measles, mumps and rubella immunisation at around 13 months of age. The allocation of vaccine will automatically be increased to provide for other age ranges as the programme rolls out.

  Organs Retention
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are for the Chief Medical Officer's investigation into retention of organs; when he expects the Chief Medical Officer to report; and if he will ask the Chief Medical Officer to consult the Bristol Heart Children Action Group during his investigation. [101453]

  Mr. Denham
  The terms of reference of the Chief Medical Officer's investigation are: to look at the extent of organ and tissue retention following post-mortem examinations within the NHS as a whole; how NHS staff manage the process in the interests of the public health, and what bereaved family/partners and the public should expect.

  The investigation will take full account of the work of the Bristol inquiry, including the views of the public and patient representatives, and the findings from the Alder Hey investigations. The CMO will make his report available to the Secretary of State for Health at the end of September.

  Physiotherapists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation his Department has made of the role physiotherapists play in cutting waiting lists and reducing patients' stay in hospital. [102556]

  Mr. Denham
  We have not made a formal evaluation. However, physiotherapists play an increasingly important role in preventing admissions to hospital and enabling people who no longer need to be in hospital to return home.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapists left the NHS in each of the last five years. [102557]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is given in the table. Information on the numbers of physiotherapists joining and leaving the National Health Service is not 418W
  collected centrally, but the annual non-medical workforce census gives total numbers of physiotherapists at 30 September each year.

  NHS hospital and community health services—Physiotherapists in England at 30 September each year

  Year

  Headcount

  1994

  13,260

  1995

  13,400

  1996

  13,740

  1997

  14,030

  1998

  14,490

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  3. Figures exclude learners.

  4. Due to a change in classification in 1995 for collecting the data, from payscale to occupational code, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 figures are non-comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS physiotherapy posts are vacant in each health region in England. [102558]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is given in the table.

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey. Vacancies in NHS Trusts by Region; physiotherapists as at 31 March 1999

  whole time equivalents

  Physiotherapists

  Total vacancies 1

  3-month vacancies 2

  England total

  990

  420

  Northern and Yorkshire

  100

  30

  Trent

  80

  40

  West Midlands

  130

  70

  North West

  130

  60

  Eastern

  110

  50

  London

  200

  100

  South East

  150

  50

  South West

  80

  20

  1 Posts that Trusts were actively trying to fill at 31 March 1999

  2 Posts that had been vacant for three months or more at 31 March 1999

  3 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey 1999

  Diabetes
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much his Department spent on the treatment of diabetes and diabetic complications in each of the last three years, expressed(a) in absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of the total NHS budget; [102575]

  (2) if he will publish statistics relating to the comparative performance of diabetic clinics throughout the UK. [102576]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not collect data in a way that enables us to distinguish the amount spent on the treatment of diabetes and diabetic complications. Owing to the complications, acute and chronic, which may arise
  419W
  from diabetes, it would be a very complex task to derive the precise expenditure for diabetes. Nor do we currently collect information that would enable us to compare the performance of diabetic clinics.

  As part of our programme to build a fairer and more modern National Health Service, we have launched national service frameworks to drive up quality, and reduce unacceptable variations in key service areas. My noble Friend the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath announced last week the commencement of work on a national service framework for diabetes. We would expect that the issues relating to the costs, and to the cost-effectiveness, of care provision for diabetes and its complications will become clearer as part of this work.

  We shall publish the diabetes national service framework in 2001. It will set national standards, define service models and put in place strategies to support implementation, delivery and monitoring of performance.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Prescription Pricing Authority will resume paying actual prices of drugs to pharmacies; [102641]

  (2) what is the Prescription Pricing Authority's current backlog of unprocessed prescriptions. [102706]

  Ms Stuart
  The Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) is due to finish processing September dispensed prescriptions by 5 January 2000. At that point the backlog will consist of October and November dispensing-around 88 million prescriptions.

  Pharmacies are being reimbursed the appropriate amount by the PPA, but to a later timetable than normal. In the interim, pharmacies are paid an estimated amount each month at the time they would normally have been paid.

  The PPA has increased overtime working, recruited additional staff and re-engineered computer systems to speed up the data entry process. All these actions are helping to alleviate the problem, but more needs to be done. We are currently looking at a range of options to enable the PPA to return to its normal timescales of processing prescriptions and to deal with the backlog of prescriptions.

  GPs (Bolton, South-East)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners have (a) practised,(b) retired and (c) been appointed in the Bolton, South-East constituency in each of the last three years; and how many of them worked in single doctor practices. [102763]

  Mr. Denham
  The published data relate to the number of unrestricted principals and equivalents in Wigan and Bolton Health Authority. However, they do not separately identify the constituency of Bolton, South-East.
  420W
  The information relating to Wigan and Bolton is as follows:

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPES)

  287

  290

  290

  UPEs in single handed practices

  60

  59

  57

  Newly appointed UPEs

  13

  11

  8

  Newly appointed UPEs in single handed practices

  3

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1. There are no figures available for the number of UPEs retiring.

  2. UPEs includes restricted principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  3. Figures relate to UPEs in post at 1 October each year. Newly appointed UPEs are those appointed since 1 October of the previous year to the list of the health authority.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1999,Official Report, column 53W, on Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust, for what reason he was unable to specify the exact number of patients who had waited more than 18 months for treatment in the Middlesex Hospital Trust area on 9 December. [103117]

  Mr. Denham
  The last published figures for waiting times are those for October 1999. These show that, at the end of October 1999, no patients waited over 18 months for treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Services Trust.

  The next published figures will be those for November 1999, due to be published in the week commencing 10 January 2000. Until these figures are published, no centrally collected and validated figures are available.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the third report to Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. [103540]

  Ms Stuart
  The Third Report to Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The PPRS: Third Report to Parliament covers both the operation of the 1993 PPRS until it ended in September 1999, and the introduction of the new scheme from October 1999. It provides an insight into the running of the PPRS; reports on considerations taken into account by the Government in formulating the 1999 PPRS; and describes the principal features of the new scheme, including the benefits expected to arise from it for the National Health Service and the British pharmaceutical industry.

  Physiotherapists and Physical Therapists
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning protection of the job titles of physiotherapist and physical therapist; and if he will make a statement. [103230]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 21 September 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State has received 50 representations about the protection of the job titles of physiotherapist and physical therapist.
  421W
  We have accepted the recommendations of an independent review of The Professions Supplementary to Medicine Legislation, including that common titles should be protected. The titles to be protected will be the subject of consultation.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 4 November. [103088]

  Ms Stuart
  My right hon. Friend will reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire's letters of 23 August regarding Mrs. G. Hague, and 29 September regarding Mr. P. Hodgson. [102798]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: I replied to the hon. Member's letter of 23 August regarding his constituent, Mrs. Hague, on 14 December. I replied to the hon. Member's letter of 29 September regarding his constituent Mr. P Hodson on 16 December.

  CE Marking
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that local government social services departments establish traceability systems for medical devices registered for CE marking. [R] [103094]

  Mr. Hutton
  All medical devices when first placed on the market have to be CE marked by the manufacturer or supplier to demonstrate they are safe to use and conform with the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations. These Regulations are enforced by the Medical Devices Agency (MDA). The MDA distributed the good practice guide "Medical Device and Equipment Management for Hospital and Community-based Organisations" to the National Health Service and social services in January 1998. This included guidance on record-keeping for good equipment management, including the tracing of products. This guidance was referred to in the later publication "Good Practice in Disability Equipment Services", which was commissioned by the Department from the Disabled Living Centres Council and distributed to the NHS and to social services in October 1998.

  Nurses
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses employed in the NHS have their salary paid for by(a) a commercial organisation and (b) sponsorship. [R] [103091]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Patient Policing
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow doctors and hospitals to withdraw life-sustaining food and water from patients; and if he will make a statement. [103599]
  422W
  Ms Stuart
  Food and fluids should always be offered to patients who are capable of swallowing them. Where nutrition and hydration have to be provided by artificial means, their possible withdrawal is in all cases a matter of clinical judgment which is undertaken in accordance with professional advice provided by a responsible and recognised body of medical opinion and the general law.

  Consultant Vacancies
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant vacancies currently exist in accident and emergency departments. [102084]

  Ms Stuart
  The latest available information about consultant vacancies in accident and emergency is contained in the Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey, March 1999, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments currently have no consultant in post. [102085]

  Ms Stuart
  Information about the number of staff in individual hospital departments is not collected centrally. The latest available data show that, of those National Health Service trusts with a major accident and emergency department (consultant-led service with full resuscitation facilities) on 31 March 1998, every one had at least one consultant in post on 30 September 1998.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of UK CCST holders who are available to fill consultant vacancies in accident and emergency departments. [102086]

  Ms Stuart
  For England and Wales, information about the current numbers of higher specialist trainees holding Certificates of Completion of Specialist Training (CCST) is not collected centrally. Information from the Regional Postgraduate Deans suggests that around 20 higher specialist trainees in accident and emergency medicine should have gained their CCST in 1999. We anticipate that around 40 should qualify in 2000 and there will be around 320 qualifying for consultant posts in accident and emergency medicine between now and 2004.

  Questions relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the First Secretary for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  E112 Forms
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directions are given to health authorities and trusts regarding the issue of form E112 for continuing medical and surgical treatment in the EU paid for by the NHS. [103210]

  Ms Stuart
  Advice to health authorities and trusts was issued in 1994. Decisions on issue of forms E112 are taken centrally by the Department, taking into account the view of the relevant health authority and the individual patient's medical and social circumstances. Information for the general public is contained in the Department's leaflet "Health Advice for Travellers", copies of which are available in the Library.
  423W

  Relenza
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Age Concern was consulted by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence during the appraisal of relenza. [101677]

  Ms Stuart
  I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence consulted Age Concern informally during its rapid appraisal of Relenza. For a full appraisal, including the review of Relenza next year, interested parties such as professional and patient groups will be invited to submit evidence and to comment on guidance in draft.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will receive a reply to his two questions on deficits at Mid Essex Hospital Trust and North Essex Health Authority, which were due for an answer on 24 November. [102868]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply to his two questions as soon as possible.

  Life Expectancy (Babies)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the life expectancy of new baby(a) boys and (b) girls, broken down by health authority area of England. [102229]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  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. Jim Cousins, dated 20 December 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on life expectancy of new baby boys and girls.
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Life expectancy at birth (in years) by Health Authority, England 1995–97

  Females

  Males

  Avon

  81.1

  75.7

  Barking and Havering

  79.6

  74.3

  Barnet

  80.4

  76.7

  Barnsley

  78.3

  73.4

  Bedfordshire

  80.0

  75.0

  Berkshire

  80.3

  75.9

  Bexley and Greenwich

  79.6

  74.7

  Birmingham

  78.8

  73.2

  Bradford

  78.8

  73.4

  Brent and Harrow

  80.5

  75.1

  Bromley

  81.4

  76.4

  Buckinghamshire

  80.4

  76.3

  Bury and Rochdale

  78.0

  73.0

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  79.0

  73.9

  Cambridgeshire

  80.5

  76.0

  Camden and Islington

  80.1

  73.0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  80.4

  75.3

  County Durham

  78.5

  73.2

  Coventry

  78.9

  73.1

  Croydon

  79.9

  75.2

  Doncaster

  78.4

  73.4

  Dorset

  81.4

  76.0

  424W

  Life expectancy at birth (in years) by Health Authority, England 1995–97

  Females

  Males

  Dudley

  79.6

  74.6

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  79.7

  74.0

  East and North Hertfordshire

  80.6

  76.3

  East Kent

  80.2

  74.9

  East Lancashire

  78.0

  72.8

  East London and The City

  78.5

  71.9

  East Riding

  79.4

  74.3

  East Surrey

  81.2

  76.7

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  80.8

  75.0

  Enfield and Haringey

  80.1

  74.6

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  78.4

  72.9

  Gloucestershire

  80.5

  75.7

  Herefordshire

  80.7

  75.7

  Hillingdon

  80.2

  75.6

  Isle of Wight

  80.7

  75.1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  81.7

  75.0

  Kingston and Richmond

  81.5

  76.3

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  78.7

  72.2

  Leeds

  79.7

  74.4

  Leicestershire

  80.1

  75.5

  Lincolnshire

  80.0

  74.9

  Liverpool

  77.0

  71.2

  Manchester

  76.9

  70.1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  80.1

  74.7

  Morecambe Bay

  79.9

  74.6

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  78.5

  73.3

  Norfolk

  80.9

  76.2

  North and East Devon

  81.2

  76.3

  North and Mid Hampshire

  80.7

  76.1

  North Cheshire

  78.1

  73.0

  North Cumbria

  79.0

  74.3

  North Derbyshire

  79.4

  74.4

  North Essex

  80.7

  76.0

  North Nottinghamshire

  79.3

  74.3

  North Staffordshire

  79.1

  73.4

  North West Lancashire

  78.8

  73.2

  North Yorkshire

  80.6

  75.8

  Northamptonshire

  79.9

  74.8

  Northumberland

  78.8

  73.9

  Nottingham

  79.9

  74.6

  Oxfordshire

  81.1

  76.8

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  79.7

  75.2

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  80.2

  75.1

  Rotherham

  78.7

  74.0

  Salford and Trafford

  78.5

  73.2

  Sandwell

  78.5

  72.5

  Sefton

  79.2

  73.9

  Sheffield

  79.3

  74.2

  Shropshire

  80.4

  75.1

  Solihull

  80.8

  76.4

  Somerset

  81.0

  76.1

  South and West Devon

  80.7

  75.4

  South Cheshire

  80.2

  75.1

  South Essex

  80.1

  75.3

  South Humber

  79.8

  73.7

  South Lancashire

  79.4

  74.6

  South Staffordshire

  79.9

  75.0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  80.7

  75.6

  Southern Derbyshire

  79.7

  74.8

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  77.8

  72.4

  Stockport

  80.3

  75.2

  Suffolk

  80.8

  76.0

  Sunderland

  78.2

  73.0

  Tees

  78.5

  72.9

  Wakefield

  78.6

  73.5

  Walsall

  79.4

  73.6

  Warwickshire

  79.8

  75.1

  West Hertfordshire

  80.9

  76.6

  West Kent

  80.0

  75.3

  West Pennine

  78.2

  72.3

  West Surrey

  81.1

  76.7

  West Sussex

  81.1

  76.2

  425W

  Life expectancy at birth (in years) by Health Authority, England 1995–97

  Females

  Males

  Wigan and Bolton

  78.4

  73.6

  Wiltshire

  80.4

  75.9

  Wirral

  79.1

  73.3

  Wolverhampton

  78.6

  73.2

  Worcestershire

  80.0

  75.5

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the total workforce in her Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps she is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in her Department. [102732]

  Clare Short
  7.8 per cent. of DFID' s Civil Service staff are of ethnic minority origin.

  Our recruitment adverts state that we are committed to a policy of equal opportunities and encourage applicants from all sectors of the community. Vacancies are advertised by various means, including national newspapers, professional journals, several south-east London newspapers with a broad readership base, and local job centres. For posts and grades where there is a particular lack of representation from certain sectors of the community, our advertisements now carry a specific invitation, encouraging under-represented groups to apply. Selection is on merit.

  We took part in a recruitment fair in London in the summer of 1999 specifically aimed at ethnic minority graduates and we plan to do so again in 2000.

  Hurricane Mitch
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to provide assistance for women in Nicaragua since Hurricane Mitch. [102818]

  Clare Short
  Our post-hurricane emergency assistance to Nicaragua was in the health, education and water sectors. It is our policy to ensure all emergency assistance takes account of the needs of women and does not leave them marginalised.

  Women's NGOs in Nicaragua form a strong voice within civil society and we have supported their roles through our capacity building fund with the Inter American Development Bank and also in post Mitch reconstruction activities and decision making through the Joint Funding Scheme. The funds have gone to supporting a number of projects with non-governmental organisations, including Christian Aid and Oxfam, that are aimed specifically at women particularly in the fields of health and training.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what debts(a) Honduras and (b) Nicaragua have paid to the (i) World Bank and (ii) IMF (A) before and (B) since Hurricane Mitch. [102816]
  426W
  Clare Short
  The levels of debt service payments (principal and others) by Honduras and Nicaragua to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are shown in the tables.

  Year

  World Bank 1 in Us$ millions

  International monetary fund in SDR2 millions

  Honduras

  1996

  94.1

  27.31

  1997

  77.8

  7.05

  1998

  73.5

  1.51

  1999

  63.7

  5.08

  Nicaragua

  1996

  25.9

  6.68

  1997

  23.4

  0.1

  1998

  14.9

  0.29

  1999

  10.9

  2.3

  1The World Bank figures include International Board for Reconstruction and International Development Association.

  2SDR-Special Drawing Rights

  Note:

  The figures are based on calendar years

  In the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, the UK proposed a Central American Trust Fund in order to help Honduras and Nicaragua cover their debt service payments to the International Financial Institutions. In the period December 1998 to November 1999, Honduras received US$ 71.8 million and Nicaragua received US$ 41.3 million. The UK contributed US$ 16.3 million to the Central American Emergency Trust Fund.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response has been made by the Government of Burundi to the request by the United Nations Security Council that it should stop its policy of forced regroupment into recruitment camps. [101522]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: Following an open debate on Burundi in the UN Security Council on 12 November, a Presidential statement was issued calling on the Government of Burundi to "halt the policy of forced regroupment and allow the affected people to return to their homes, with full and unhindered humanitarian access throughout the process".

  In response to this and other international pressure, on 13 November the Government of Burundi made a statement to the international community on the "organisation of protective settlements for rural populations". The statement justified the policy of regroupment as necessary for security reasons. There is no specific commitment to reversing the policy although the Government of Burundi claims that
  "the settlements are gradually dispersed at the first signs of a return to a satisfactory state of security".

  More recently, in a statement to the press on 3 December, UN Security Council members repeated their concern at the policy of forced regroupment.

  I am placing a copy of the Government of Burundi statement in the House of Commons Library.

  Kosovo (Economic Costs)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of
  427W
  the economic cost of the Kosovo war to (a) Bulgaria and (b) Romania; and how much development assistance is planned for those countries from her budget for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [102642]

  Clare Short
  We have not made estimates. The IMF has estimated the output in the six most affected countries of the region, including Bulgaria and Romania, has been reduced by 2 per cent. in 1999, and that budget and current account deficits have been significantly increased. The international community has pledged a total of $1,372 million to bridge Bulgaria and Romania's estimated funding gaps in 1999.

  We have budgeted a total of £8 million for Bulgaria and £12 million for Romania, in bilateral assistance, over 1999–2000 and 2000–01. We also provide our share of multilateral aid to both countries through the EU and the International Financial Institutions.

  Nicaragua/Honduras (Reconstruction)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what mechanisms are in place to monitor funds pledged for reconstruction in(a) Nicaragua and (b) Honduras. [102817]

  Clare Short
  The Consultative Group meeting for the Reconstruction and Transformation of Central America in Stockholm agreed that a group of five major donor countries, (Germany, Canada, the United States, Sweden and Spain), would be set up to monitor the process of reconstruction and transformation in Central America.

  The five countries met for the first time in September and drew up a proposal for a permanent dialogue with the governments of Honduras, Nicaragua, (and El Salvador and Guatemala).

  Their remit is to negotiate and agree with the affected countries a system of follow up and support. The affected countries will provide progress reports on their reconstruction programmes.

  The aim of the group is to reduce the social and ecological vulnerability of the region; improve transparency; consolidate democracy and good governance; promote respect for human rights; coordinate donor efforts; and intensify efforts to reduce the external debt burden.

  Representatives from each of the five major donor countries and each of the four affected Central American countries will meet on a frequent basis to ensure that all conditions are adhered to. They will be reporting back to the next Consultative Group meetings to be held in Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua in the week beginning 7 February 2000. Britain will be represented at these meetings.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid has been provided to(a) Indian-controlled Kashmir and (b) Azad Kashmir since May 1997. [102978]

  Clare Short
  Since May 1997, we have provided £650,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross for their humanitarian assistance programme in Jammu and Kashmir and £132,500 to the Save the Children Fund 428W
  to support their work there. In addition, about £19,000 has been provided under the Small Grants Scheme to help equip a maternity hospital in Anantnag.

  Azad Kashmir has received no direct Department for International Development (DFID) assistance during the period in question, but it has benefited from our support for Pakistan's Social Action Programme. Prior to the military coup in Pakistan, we were in preliminary discussions with the Azad Kashmiri and Pakistani authorities about possible direct support for elementary education in the area. Those discussions were suspended when our bilateral assistance to the Pakistan Government was frozen on 15 October. We are also willing to consider assistance for victims in Azad Kashmir of the conflict in the region, if a suitable channel for our funds could be identified.

  Tariff-free Products
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her oral answer of 8 December 1999, Official Report, column 811, which products will be excluded when the EU offers tariff-free access for essentially all products to the least developed countries. [102995]

  Clare Short
  The EU has not yet decided which products will be excluded from its offer of duty free access for essentially all exports from developing countries. The UK has called for duty free access for all imports for the least developed. We will be pressing for minimum exceptions to the EU scheme.

  Ministerial Visit (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what meetings she held with members and officials of the United States Government during her visits to the United States on 4–6 October 1998 and 10–11 December 1998; who was present from the US Government at each meeting; and what was the date and location of each meeting. [103048]

  Clare Short
  The purpose of my visit to Washington was to attend the annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank on 2 October 1998. I attended a G8 Development Ministers' meeting at the World Bank Headquarters, at which Brian Atwood, then USAID Administrator was present.

  The purpose of my visit to New York on 10-11 November was to deliver a speech on the future of the United Nations to an audience of permanent representatives and others concerned with the work of the UN. I did not hold any meetings with officials of the United States Government.

  Humanitarian Relief
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance her Department gives to British companies wishing to donate their products or services to assist in the provision of humanitarian relief organised by charities. [103594]

  Clare Short
  We advise such companies to get in touch with the Disasters Emergency Committee, a joint body of 15 of the leading British Non-Governmental Organisation concerned with humanitarian relief.
  429W

  Sub-equatorial Africa
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much British bilateral aid was given to the Governments in sub-equatorial Africa over the past five years; how much of that money is not accounted for; and if she will make a statement. [103198]

  Clare Short
  Total UK expenditure to sub-equatorial Africa1 over the last five years is shown in the table:

  £ million

  1994–95

  351

  1995–96

  293

  1996–97

  321

  1997–98

  335

  1998–99

  393

  1This covers the following countries—Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Madagascar, Seychelles, Mauritius, Kenya, Uganda and Comoros.

  Over this period, a total of £7,000 could not be properly accounted for.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was paid to the British Council for managing DFID contracts in sub-equatorial Africa over the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [103197]

  Clare Short
  The value of contracts awarded to the British Council, in sub Saharan Africa, since 1 April 1996 (the earliest date for which reliable figures are available), is£ 64,027,377. These contracts cover a variety of services including management. Disaggregated figures for contracts limited to management functions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people are employed to monitor British bilateral aid given to Governments in sub-equatorial Africa over the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [103196]

  Clare Short
  During the past five years, the Department for International Development employed the following numbers of UK based administrative staff in our regional offices in Harare, Pretoria and Nairobi.

  1995: 30

  1996: 34

  1997: 34

  1998: 36

  1999: 45.

  These staff are engaged on a wide range of administrative activities, ranging from policy formulation to the oversight of programme and project management, including expenditure monitoring.

  Pakistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on women's rights in Pakistan; and if she will make a statement. [103213]
  430W
  Clare Short
  I have received no representations since my reply to the hon. Member's almost identical question on 10 November 1999,Official Report, column 555W. We regularly receive such representations and take every opportunity to ensure that the Pakistani authorities are aware of concerns. We take account of gender equality issues as a matter of course in our bilateral development assistance, which has focused upon reducing poverty and increasing basic rights and access to essential services—especially for women and girls.

TREASURY

  Population Flows
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual population(a) inflow to and (b) outflow from the Government Office, North East Region; and what was migration between the Government Office North East Region and (i) other parts of the UK and (ii) other countries in each year from 1992 to 1998. [102810]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  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 Bolt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 20 December 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question about the estimated in and outflows from and to the North East region.The attached table presents the information you require. The estimates of internal population movements are based on the movement of NHS doctors' patients between the former Family Health Services Authority Areas. They should not be regarded as a perfect measure of migration as there is variation in the delay between a person moving and registering with a new doctor. Additionally, some moves may not result in a re-registration: for example, individuals may migrate again before registering with a doctor. Conversely, there may be others who move and re-register several times a year.Moves between the individual Government Office Regions (GORs) of England and the rest of the United Kingdom are now published in Key Population and Vital Statistics, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Prior to 1997, the analysis related to moves within England and Wales only.The estimates of international (external) migration are derived from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), a sample survey of passengers arriving at and departing from the main air, sea and Channel Tunnel routes. Estimates derived from the IPS are subject to both sampling and non-sampling error. Some types of migrants are not covered by the IPS as it does not cover routes between the UK and the Irish Republic, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. All movements of diplomats and armed forces personnel are also excluded, as are asylum seekers and visitor switchers—persons admitted as short-term visitors who are subsequently granted a stay for a year or longer. These estimates can be found in the publication International Migration, which is available in the House of Commons Library.The following table shows total inflow and outflow (in thousands) to and from the North East Government Office Region: to and from the rest of the UK, and to and from outside the UK.431W

  Migration to and from the North East Government Office Region, 1992–98

  (Thousand)

  Total

  Of which

  Total

  Of which

  Year

  Inflow to the North East

  Internal from the rest of the UK

  External from other countries

  Outflow from the North East

  Internal to the rest of the UK

  External to other countries

  1992

  46.6

  40.3

  6.3

  45.4

  40.1

  5.3

  1993

  42.6

  38.3

  4.3

  45.7

  41.7

  4.0

  1994

  42.7

  37.1

  5.6

  48.2

  43.5

  4.7

  1995

  40.3

  37.9

  2.4

  48.1

  45.6

  2.5

  1996

  41.7

  38.6

  3.1

  48.7

  44.5

  4.2

  1997

  50.8

  38.6

  12.2

  55.9

  44.5

  11.4

  1998

  48.0

  41.5

  6.5

  49.2

  45.5

  3.7

  Ghana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditions connected with(a) Government and (b) economic development were placed on the Government of Ghana by (i) the IMF and (ii) the World Bank in the last five years. [101976]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The conditions connected with Government and economic development which have been agreed between the Government of Ghana and the IMF and World Bank in the last five years are intended to promote policies that reduce poverty, promote structural reform, macroeconomic stability and support balanced growth. Conditions refer to agreed objectives to;

  improve fiscal policies

  enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy and accelerate financial sector reform

  improve external debt management and trade policy continue public sector reform

  improve private sector development and economic competitiveness.

  Other major objectives and conditions relate to the Government of Ghana's policies and commitments to implement agreed sector and cross sectoral reforms (e.g. in agriculture, environment, water, transportation, electricity, petroleum sector), to improve the quality and coverage of social services (education, health) and to reduce poverty.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, at the latest available date, was the proportion of people who said that they could speak Welsh in each of the counties of Wales. [102968]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  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. Denzil Davies, dated 20 December 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the proportion of people who said they could speak Welsh in Wales.432W The percentage of persons aged three and over speaking Welsh, extracted from the 1991 Census County Reports, for each of the former counties of Wales are:

  Counties

  Percentage

  Clwyd

  18.2

  Dyfed

  43.7

  Gwent

  2.4

  Gwynned

  61.0

  Mid Glamorgan (Morgannwg Ganol)

  8.5

  Powys

  20.2

  South Glamorgan (De Morgannwg)

  6.5

  West Glamorgan (Gorllewin Morgannwg)

  15.0

  Copies of the 1991 Census County Reports are held in the House of Commons Library

  Paris Club
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what terms of agreement the Paris Club of creditor countries operates; and if he will place a copy of such terms in the Library. [103397]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Paris Club has no formal terms of agreement. It is an informal and voluntary gathering of creditors who have agreed to treat in a coordinated way the debt due to them.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 11 October on behalf of his constituent Mr. Gent. [103083]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have done so.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 26 October on behalf of Mr. Bastow. [103078]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have done so.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 28 September on behalf of his constituent Mr. Walkinshaw. [103079]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have done so.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names and designations of those who
  433W
  attended the meeting chaired by him on 9 December, involving representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the devolved administrations, to discuss combating poverty in the UK; and if he will publish the minutes of this and future such meetings. [103053]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Under paragraph A.11 of the agreement on the Joint Ministerial Committee (Cm 444), which has been agreed between the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the Cabinet of the National Assembly of Wales, the proceedings of meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee are regarded as confidential by participants, in order to permit free and candid discussion. As such minutes of JMC meetings will not be published.

  Red Diesel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's policy is in respect of passenger service vehicle operators who, having legally filled their vehicles with red diesel in Norway, have traces of red dye discovered in their fuel tanks by HM Customs and Excise in the United Kingdom. [103015]

  Mr. Timms
  The presence of any fiscal marker as listed in The Hydrocarbon Oil (Designated Markers) Regulations 1996 in the fuel tank of a road vehicle in the UK constitutes an offence under section 24A of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt horticulture from the climate change levy. [102988]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government believe that all sectors of the economy must play their part in helping tackle the problem of climate change. So there will not be complete exemptions from the climate change levy for particular firms or sectors. However, like other sectors, firms in the horticulture sector will be able to take advantage of the proposed exemptions from the levy for electricity generated from 'new' forms of renewable energy and in 'good quality' combined heat and power plants, and the enhanced capital allowances for firms making energy saving investments. All sectors will also benefit from the lower overall rates for the levy announced by the Chancellor in his Pre-Budget Report.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) the projected receipts from the climate change levy and (b) the projected level of national insurance refunds in each of the Government standard regions; and if he will make a statement. [102861]

  Mr. Timms
  The climate change levy is designed to be revenue neutral for the private sector as a whole, with all the revenues raised being fully recycled back to business through a cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and additional support for energy efficiency measures. The levy package is also expected to be broadly neutral between manufacturing and services.

  It is not possible to say what the exact final impact of the levy package on specific regions will be. That will depend on a number of factors, including the future energy consumption of firms in the region, the level of employment in those firms, the number of energy
  434W
  intensive sectors in the region that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement, what use firms in the region make of electricity generated from 'new' renewable sources of energy and in 'good quality' combined heat and power plants, and the extent to which firms in the region take advantage of the proposed introduction of a system of enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments.

  Excise Duty (Fuel)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on exchequer income of reducing the excise duty on lead replacement fuel to the level for unleaded fuel. [102774]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The cost of a reduction in the excise duty on lead replacement fuel to that of unleaded fuel in 2000–01 is estimated at £45 million.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was received by the Exchequer in each of the financial years 1994–95 to 1998–99 as a result of the reinstatement of public service employees who were mis-sold personal pensions into public service pension schemes. [102796]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public service pension schemes first received receipts in 1996-97 to pay for the reinstatement of employees identified under Phase 1 of the mis-selling review as having been mis-sold personal pensions. Receipts from this source, which are matched by future benefits to pensioners, have been received in all subsequent years but not all of the unfunded schemes financed from the Exchequer have separately identified receipts from this source throughout this period. With the exception of the NHS Pensions Scheme, the profile of Exchequer receipts relating to the main public service pension schemes is estimated as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  0

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  1

  1997–98

  44

  1998–99

  115

  In addition, receipts relating to the NHS Pensions Scheme up to the end of 1998–99 totalled approximately £500 million, of which £227 million was received between August 1998 and March 1999, and the balance between October 1996 and July 1998. A more detailed breakdown of these receipts could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. These figures exclude receipts by public service pension schemes which are not financed by the Exchequer, such as the Local Government Pension Scheme.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 448W, if he will provide a breakdown of receipts in respect of public service employees mis-sold personal pensions being reinstated into public service

  435W
  pension schemes, including the (a) number of employees involved, (b) public sector schemes of which they were members and (c) average payment. [102815]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The estimates given in my earlier answer, of receipts of £100 million to 160 million in this financial year and each of the following three financial years, were global estimates as detailed forecasting would not be productive given the uncertainties about the number of cases of mis-selling which Phase 2 of the review will identify, how restitution will be made and how fast cases will be dealt with. Receipts relating to reinstatements, mainly from Phase 1 of the review, in the current financial year are now expected to be approximately £195 million, bringing cumulative receipts up to the end of 1999–2000 to about £850 million. The latest estimate of receipts in the following three years is £100 million to 200 million a year. This is based on an expectation of receipts of about £95 million next year from schemes other than the NHS, with no certainty about the level of receipts thereafter. In addition, it is estimated that the NHS Pensions Scheme will receive about £300 million in respect of Phase 2 cases, based on an expectation that some 50,000 cases will require reinstatement to the NHS Pensions Scheme at an average cost of £6,000 each. The NHS Phase 2 receipts are assumed to be spread evenly over the next three years.

  Excess winter mortality by standard region of usual residence, 1988–89 to 1998–99, England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Standard region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–991

  North

  1,230

  3,030

  1,980

  2,580

  1,590

  1,990

  1,610

  2,490

  2,620

  1,760

  2,830

  Yorks and Humberside

  2,310

  4,660

  3,650

  3,980

  2,470

  3,120

  2,790

  4,040

  4,550

  2,460

  4,870

  North West

  3,530

  6,900

  5,460

  4,650

  3,700

  2,610

  3,400

  5,220

  5,960

  2,550

  7,080

  East Midlands

  1,650

  3,540

  3,040

  3,150

  2,180

  2,470

  2,330

  2,930

  3,540

  2,000

  4,200

  West Midlands

  2,200

  4,890

  4,050

  3,370

  2,590

  2,410

  2,310

  4,160

  4,530

  2,450

  4,990

  East Anglia

  1,180

  1,770

  1,700

  1,200

  1,120

  1,150

  1,180

  1,600

  2,140

  1,070

  2,250

  South East

  6,380

  14,470

  11,930

  10,740

  8,360

  8,690

  9,310

  13,240

  16,450

  7,200

  14,730

  South West

  1,830

  5,110

  3,910

  3,350

  2,190

  2,590

  2,840

  4,140

  5,060

  2,230

  4,300

  Country

  England

  20,330

  44,370

  35,720

  33,010

  24,190

  25,030

  25,760

  37,810

  44,850

  21,730

  45,240

  Wales

  920

  2,950

  2,330

  1,990

  1,610

  1,010

  1,650

  2,440

  2,880

  1,290

  3,000

  Northern Ireland

  350

  -1,170

  900

  960

  410

  640

  660

  80

  230

  600

  1,180

  1Provisional

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 8 October on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Sawyer. [103087]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on 17 December.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 27 October on behalf of his constituent Mr. Jones. [103085]

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the excess winter deaths for each English region, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1998–99. [100919]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  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. Steve Webb, dated 20 December 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking for the excess winter deaths for each English region, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1998–99.
  Excess winter deaths are defined by the ONS as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).
  Figures for Scotland are now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Figures are provided in the attached table for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  Numbers of excess winter deaths can vary greatly from year to year, depending, for example, on the winter's severity or the occurrence of infectious disease epidemics. Figures are therefore presented for years 1988/89 to 1998/99. The figures for the final year are provisional.

  Ms Quin
  My noble Friend the Minister of State replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on 16 December.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 22 October on behalf of his constituent Ms Hodson. [103084]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied on 14 December 1999 to the right hon. Member's letter of 22 October on behalf of Ms Hodson.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Ludlow dated 20 July concerning CJD and BSE. [102685]
  437W
  Ms Quin
  My noble Friend the Minister of State replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Ludlow on 17 December.

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 14 to 15 December; and if he will make a statement. [103470]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the UK at the Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 14 December, accompanied by Ross Finnie, Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive.

  The Council agreed to postpone for 12 months the introduction of compulsory labelling of beef in the light of evidence that the majority of member states would be unable to guarantee the integrity of such labels. Only France voted against. The precise legal form of the measure would depend upon the terms of the European Parliament's opinion on the Commission proposal, due to be delivered later in the week.

  The Council also decided by QM (Portugal voting against) to defer for six months implementation of a 1997 Decision on Community-wide measures controlling Specified Risk Material pending agreement on a new Decision.

  The Council agreed that adjustments to export refunds for processed agricultural products in order to meet budgetary and WTO limits should in future be governed by a strategic and targeted approach rather than via across the board cuts in refund rates. Officials were mandated to develop this strategy urgently with a view to adoption by March 2000 at the latest. I pointed out that in the medium term, the solution was to bring down CAP support prices. Meanwhile I endorsed the Council's proposed approach and expressed regret at the Commission's decisions to apply across the board refund cuts to date.

  Commissioner Byrne updated the Council on developments in response to last summer's dioxin crisis and on the Commission's plans in relation to food safety. Commissioner Fischler reported on his participation in the recent WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle and on new Commission proposals for reform of the CAP cotton regime.

  EU Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 16 and 17 December; and if he will make a statement. [103840]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Fisheries Council in Brussels on 16–17 December, together with Mr. John Home Robertson, Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive and Mrs. Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, the first Minister from the newly devolved administration to attend an EU Council.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with France voting against, the total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas to apply in 2000 in Community waters and for
  438W
  Community vessels fishing in waters where catch limitations apply. Details of the final TACs are given in the following table.

  Following from the advice of fisheries scientists in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Commission had initially proposed substantial cuts in many TACs, reflecting the poor state of some stocks, reduced recruitment to them or the need to bring fishing effort back to levels which will help to sustain the future availability of stocks. Working on the basis of the scientific advice but using some of the precautionary management options identified by the scientists, we were able to secure smaller cuts than originally proposed for a number of TACs including nephrops in Area VII, anglers (monk fish) in West of Scotland, the North Sea and in Area VII, and in some flat fish TACs. As a result, at the end of the negotiations, the total UK quotas agreed were some 95,000 tonnes higher in cod equivalent tonnes than in the Commission proposals. This increase reduces the estimated loss of quota value to the industry in 2000 from £70 million to £40 million.

  Recognising the need to take steps to promote the recovery of the badly depleted cod stock in the Irish Sea, we were able to secure a Council and Commission commitment to introduce a recovery programme, after consultation with a new regional group made up of fishermen, scientists, and administrators involved in this fishery. The Commission will for the first time use the emergency conservation powers available to it to bring forward measures closing those areas in the Irish Sea in which spawning cod congregate from February to April 2000, as a way of protecting the stock. This commitment to an EU recovery programme, which followed intensive preparatory discussions between us, the Irish and the Commission, sets an important precedent for regional co-operation under the Common Fisheries Policy and the involvement of the industry in management decisions on stock recovery.

  The Council also agreed on the closure from 1 January 2000 of the sandeel fishery off the Firth of Forth in the interests of protecting seabirds dependent on sandeels. This measure which is in line with scientific advice resulted from close co-operation between us, Denmark and the Commission.

  The Council further agreed not to reduce in 2000 the minimum landing size for plaice to 22 cm. As a result, I am pleased to confirm that this will remain at 27 cm.

  I successfully invoked the Hague Preference on all those stocks where it was in our overall interest to do so.

  The Regulation on TACs and Quotas adopted by the Council incorporates for the first time in a single Regulation the outcome of all the Community's international fisheries arrangements for 2000 between the Community and Norway, Faroes, Greenland and Iceland, and under the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.

  The Council also adopted unanimously, with Portugal abstaining, the Regulation applying control measures for Community vessels in 2000 required under the North East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation arrangements.

  Commissioner Fischler confirmed that he would be meeting the Moroccan Minister of Fisheries on 20 December to initiate negotiations on a new fisheries

  439W
  agreement between the EU and Morocco. He also made brief presentations on a Commission report on regional meetings, which will become available and be considered from January 2000, and the Commission's proposals for further amendment of the Technical Conservation Regulation, which includes provision for a three year closure of the Firth of Forth sandeel fishery.

  2000 TACs

  Stock

  1999 TAC (tonnes)

  2000 TAC (tonnes)

  Gain/Loss (%)

  Sandeels Ha, IV

  1,000,000

  1,020,000

  2

  Herring I, II

  1,300,000

  1,252,000

  —4

  Herring IVa,b

  240,000

  240,000

  0

  Herring IVc, VIId

  25,000

  25,000

  0

  Herring Vb, VIaN, VIb

  68,000

  42,000

  —38

  Herring Via (Clyde)

  1,000

  1,000

  0

  Herring VIIa

  6,600

  5,350

  —19

  Herring VIIe,f

  1,000

  1,000

  0

  Herring VIIg-k

  21,000

  21,000

  0

  Herring ha, IV Ind. by-catch

  30,000

  36,000

  20

  Cod Ea, IV

  132,400

  81,000

  —39

  Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  11,800

  7,480

  —37

  Cod VIIa

  5,500

  2,100

  —62

  Cod VIIb-k, VIII, a, X

  19,000

  16,000

  —16

  Megrim Ea, IV

  3,000

  3,000

  0

  Megrim Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  4,840

  4,840

  0

  Megrim VII

  22,400

  17,920

  —20

  Dab and Flounder lia, IV

  30,070

  30,070

  0

  Anglers lia, IV

  22,070

  17,660

  —20

  Anglers Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  8,600

  8,000

  —7

  Anglers VII

  26,670

  23,000

  —14

  Haddock Ea, IV

  88,550

  73,000

  —18

  Haddock Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  19,000

  19,000

  0

  Haddock VII, VIII, IX, X

  22,000

  13,200

  —40

  Haddock Vila

  4,990

  3,400

  —32

  Whiting lia, IV

  44,000

  30,000

  —32

  Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  6,300

  4,300

  —32

  Whiting VIIa

  4,400

  2,640

  —40

  Whiting VIlb-k

  25,000

  22,500

  —10

  Hake ha, IV

  1,930

  1,480

  —23

  Hake Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  30,910

  23,600

  —24

  Lemon sole and witch Ea, IV

  12,000

  12,000

  0

  Blue whiting ha NS

  90,000

  90,000

  0

  Blue whiting Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  407,000

  407,000

  0

  Blue whiting VIIIabde

  26,500

  26,500

  0

  Nephrops Ha, IV

  15,200

  17,200

  13

  Nephrops Vb, VI

  12,600

  12,600

  0

  Nephrops VII

  23,000

  21,000

  —9

  Northern prawn Ea, IV

  7,013

  7,113

  1

  Plaice lia, IV

  102,000

  97,000

  —5

  Plaice Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  2,400

  2,400

  0

  Plaice VIIa

  2,400

  2,400

  0

  Plaice VIId,e

  7,400

  6,500

  —12

  Plaice VIIf,g

  900

  800

  —11

  Plaice VIIh,j,k

  1,350

  1,350

  0

  Pollack Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,100

  1,100

  0

  Pollack VII

  17,000

  17,000

  0

  Saithe Ea, Iilb,c,d, IV

  110,000

  85,000

  —23

  Saithe Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  7,500

  7,000

  —7

  Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X

  8,800

  6,500

  —26

  Turbot and brill Ea, IV

  9,000

  9,000

  0

  Skates and rays Ea, IV

  6,060

  6,060

  0

  Mackerel Iia(EC), III, IV

  Mackerel Ea (non EC), Vb, VI,

  500,000

  560,000

  12

  VII, VIIIabde, XII, XIV

  440W

  2000 TACs

  Stock

  1999 TAC (tonnes)

  2000 TAC (tonnes)

  Gain/Loss (%)

  Sole II, IV

  22,000

  22,000

  0

  Sole Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  155

  155

  0

  Sole VIIa

  900

  1,080

  20

  Sole VIId

  4,700

  4,100

  —13

  Sole VIIa

  700

  660

  —6

  Sole VIIf,g

  960

  1,160

  21

  Sole VIIh,j,k

  720

  720

  0

  Sprat lia, IV

  175,000

  225,000

  29

  Sprat VIId,e

  12,000

  12,000

  0

  Spurdog ha, IV

  8,870

  9,470

  7

  Horse mackerel Iia, IV

  60,000

  51,000

  —15

  Horse mackerel Vb, VI, VII,

  265,000

  240,000

  —9

  VIIIa,b,d,e, XII, XIV

  Hill Farm Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received in response to the Government paper, The Hill Farm Allowance Scheme in England; how many of them were from the West Country; and how long was the consultation period. [102172]

  Ms Quin
  The consultation paper was published on 5 November, and the deadline for responses was four weeks later on 3 December. By then we had received 48 responses. Most were from national organisations, but seven were sent from south-west interests.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what (a) economic and (b) environmental impact studies he has undertaken with regard to the effect on less favoured areas of the proposed Hill Farm Allowance Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [102173]

  Ms Quin
  In formulating the proposals account was taken of the evaluation report on the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance scheme in England which was published in April 1998, of the latest data on hill farm incomes, and of management reports on the less favoured areas overgrazing controls and other advice from the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency. The proposals also reflect an assessment of their likely redistributive effect. The impact of the new scheme will be monitored, and it will be reviewed in 2003.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the proposed Hill Farm Allowance Scheme will come into force in(a) England and (b) the rest of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [102174]

  Ms Quin
  The proposed Hill Farm Allowance Scheme will apply only in England, and the first payments will be made
  during the early months of 2001.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the views of the(a) hygiene service and (b) Meat and Livestock Commission were sought on

  441W
  each of the companies who submitted a tender in the recent award of contracts to abattoirs by the Intervention Board under the over-30-month scheme. [102357]

  Ms Quin
  Decisions were reached following a competitive tender under which bids were considered and evaluated against objective criteria by a Project Board. The Project Board's membership included representatives of the Intervention Board, the UK Agriculture Departments, the Meat Hygiene Service, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland Veterinary Service and the Livestock and Meat Commission.

  Numeric Tagging
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department's cattle numeric tagging system will be in operation. [102065]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The change to numeric tagging will be effective from 17 January 2000.

  GM Foods
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to continue to process

  £ million

  Financial year and RDR measure

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Agri-environment

  95

  119

  136

  152

  167

  182

  197

  Farm Woodlands

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  Increase in Woodland Grant Scheme

  0

  0

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Less Favoured Areas

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Rural Enterprise

  0

  8

  12

  24

  36

  36

  36

  Processing and Marketing

  0

  4

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Training

  2

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Energy crops

  0

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the trials being carried out to counter TB as recommended by the Krebs report. [102222]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 19991]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1999, Official Report, column 186W.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under the CAP that will be transferred to other payments through modulation in each of the seven years from 2001; [102786]

  (2) if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under the CAP that will be transferred from each sector that currently receives direct payments to other payments through modulation in each of the seven years from 2001. [102787]
  442W
  applications for (a) GM varieties to be placed on the national list and (b) the use of herbicides on GM crops in the period up to 2003. [101752]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: We intend to continue to process National List applications for GM varieties. However the Government have decided not to grant a commercial level of approval to any herbicide for use on a crop genetically modified to be tolerant to that particular herbicide unless and until such a time as the crop itself is legally on the market. In the meantime, approvals for such use will be restricted to experimental approvals to allow for the use of the pesticide in question on a limited scale so that research work may be carried out.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the expenditure profile of each head of expenditure under the Rural Development Regulation for each of the seven years of the programme. [102800]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: Proposed expenditure under the England Rural Development Plan, subject to European Commission approval, and the Government's 2000 Spending Review is as follows:

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Government announced their intention on 7 December to introduce modulation of farm payments as from 2001 and to use the funds released, with Government match funding, towards the seven-year Rural Development programme. A list of the farm payments affected is given in the following table.

  Levels of modulation receipts will vary each year; proposed expenditure from these receipts under the Rural Development Plan (subject to European Commission approval, Parliamentary procedures and the Spending Review) is as follows, with deficits in some years being funded by carry over surplus receipts in others:

  £ million

  2001–02

  22

  2002–03

  45

  2003–04

  50

  2004–05

  54

  2005–06

  62

  2006–07

  70

  443W

  CAP scheme payments

  Sector

  Legal base

  Notes

  Arable crops

  Articles 2 and 5, Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999

  Area payments including set-aside payments and including durum wheat and special aid

  Potato starch

  Article 8(2), Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92

  Payment

  Grain legumes

  Article 1, Regulation (EC) No 1577/96

  Area aid

  Flax

  Article 4, Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70

  Area aid (the portion paid to farmers)

  Hemp

  Article 4, Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70

  Area aid

  Silkworms

  Article 2, Regulation (EEC) No 845/72

  Aid to encourage rearing

  Tobacco

  Article 3, Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92

  Production aid

  Seeds

  Article 3, Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71

  Production aid

  Hops

  Article 12, Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 Regulation (EC) No 1098/98

  Area aid Payments for temporary resting only

  Beef and veal

  Articles 4,5,6 and 10,11,13, Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999

  Special premium, deseasonalisation premium, suckler cow premium (including when paid for heifers and including the additional national suckler cow premium when co-financed), slaughter premium, extensification payment, additional payments

  Milk and dairy products

  Articles 16 and 17, Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999

  Dairy premium and additional payment

  Sheep and goats

  Article 5, Regulation (EC) No 2467/98

  Ewe and she-goat premium and LFA supplements

  Agri-money

  Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98; Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC)

  Payments to producers (including those under the transitional Regulation)

  Poseidon

  Articles 5, 13(1), 17, Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91

  Sectors: beef and veal, development of fruit, plants and flowers, sugar

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the percentages of direct payments under the CAP that will be modulated in each of the seven years from 2001. [102785]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Government announced on 7 December their intention to introduce modulation of farm payments as from 2001 and to use the funds released, with Government match funding, towards the seven-year Rural Development programme. In 2001, 2.5 per cent. of payments will be modulated, rising to 3 per cent. in 2002, 3.5 per cent. in 2003 and 2004 and 4.5 per cent. in 2005 and 2006.

  Ministerial Communications (French Agriculture Minister)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions he has(a) met the French Agriculture Minister and (b) spoken to him by telephone since 8 November. [102791]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 285W.

  Apiculture
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the money promised by the Government in 1998 in order to tackle varroa disease and to educate beekeepers to become more self-reliant was spent; and if he will make a statement. [102454]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Government fund a range of measures in England through their bee health programme, which is delivered by the
  444W
  Central Science Laboratory's National Bee Unit. In 1998–99 the programme cost £1.3 million. The measures included a free diagnostic service for varroa, American Foul Brood and European Foul Brood as well as providing training and guidance on how to improve bee husbandry to help control bee diseases. Under the latter we issued a new leaflet on varroa monitoring to help beekeepers time treatments. This was accompanied by a varroa mite calculator.

  In addition in 1998–99 we spent around £248,000 on research and development (mainly on varroa), including a new five-year project on the biological control of varroa.

  Arrangements for bee health matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.

  Over-30-month Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the names and addresses of the slaughterhouses awarded slaughter contracts under the over-30-month scheme by the Intervention Board. [102919]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: The names and addresses of abattoirs to whom OTMS slaughtering contracts were offered and accepted are as follows.

  England

  ABP Nuneaton

  St. Mary's Road Nuneaton

  Coventry

  CV11 SAS
  445W
  J. A. Jewitt

  Low House

  Middlestone

  Spennymoor

  Co. Durham

  Alec Jarrett

  High Street

  Oldham Common

  Bristol

  BS15 6TN

  Madron Meat

  The Abattoir

  Madron

  Penzance

  TR20 8SF

  Anglo Dutch

  The Abattoir

  Charing

  Kent

  TN27 OJL

  North West Meats

  The Abattoir

  Dunkerley Street

  Oldham 012 7SX

  Beesons (Bradeley Meats Ltd.)

  Bradeley Hall Road

  Haslington

  Crewe,

  Cheshire

  CW1 5QN

  R. B. Elliott & Son

  Stud Farm Calow

  Chesterfield

  S44 5UN

  Bridgwater Beef

  Comeytrowe Lane

  Taunton

  Somerset

  TA2 6EA

  Southern Counties Fresh Food Ltd.

  Munchelney Road

  Huish Episcopi

  Langport

  Somerset

  TA10 9HG

  E. J. Duerden

  Lindal Moor Abattoir

  Lindal

  Ulverston

  Cumbria

  LAl2 OLT

  Wholesale Meat Supply

  Wood Street

  Great Harwood

  Blackburn

  Lancashire

  BB6 7UA

  F. Redfern

  Haslin Abattoir

  Buxton

  SK17 9HT

  Woolley Brothers

  Rother Valley Way

  Holbrook

  Sheffield

  S20 5RW
  446W
  Wales

  Oriel Jones

  Oriel Jones & Son Ltd.

  Teify Park Abattoir

  Llanybydder

  Carmarthenshire

  SA40 9QE

  TWM

  Glanlliedi Butchers

  Unit 1 Dafen Llanelli SA14 8PD

  Scotland

  Holbeck Holdings Ltd.

  Kilmarnock Abattoir

  Dundonald Road

  Kilmarnock

  Ayrshire

  Matheson Jess

  The Abattoir

  Montrose Road

  Brechin

  Tayside

  DD9 7PL

  Northern Ireland

  Calf Marketing Services

  73 Largy Road

  Crumlin

  Co. Antrim

  BT29 4RS

  Dungannon Meats

  Woodside Industrial Estate

  Woodside Road

  Ballymena

  Co. Antrim.

  Subsequently the abattoir at Llanybydder withdrew its tender, and the Intervention Board is in discussions with a potential alternative. The award of any further contract will be announced by Press Notice.

  Organophosphates
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assess the Committee on Toxicity report on organophosphates. [103250]

  Ms Quin
  We are today publishing the advice Ministers have received from the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC), the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) on the regulatory implications of the report on organophosphates (OPs) by the Committee on Toxicity (COT). Copies of this advice have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This Government have ensured that OPs have been subject to a more rigorous and transparent scrutiny than ever before. Publication of this advice, and our conclusions on it, marks the end of a key stage in that process.

  The regulatory committees all take note from the COT report that any ill-health effects from prolonged low-level exposure to OPs remain unproven, although there remains a question over whether there may be a small group of

  447W
  individuals particularly susceptible to OPs. They endorse the need for further research to address this and the other areas of uncertainty identified by COT.

  On the basis of current scientific knowledge, the regulatory committees advise against any general withdrawal of OPs from the market. However, in the light of the research by the Institute of Occupational Medicine, which identified the main risk of exposure to OP sheep dips as coming from the concentrate, the VPC has advised that all OP sheep dips should be withdrawn from the market pending the introduction of new containers which would minimise operator exposure.

  The Government accept this advice. We shall be implementing the committees' advice and carrying forward work on OPs through a four point plan.

  Firstly, we are taking immediate action on OP sheep dip concentrate containers. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) has today written to all holders of marketing authorisations for OP sheep dips requiring the withdrawal of these products from the market until containers are introduced which will minimise operator exposure to OP concentrate. Product recall from distributors and farms will also be implemented. The issues surrounding packaging of OP pesticides are rather different. However, in line with the ACP advice, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) is taking urgent action to confirm that all containers of OP pesticides concentrates comply with modern standards; and PSD will take regulatory action if they do not.

  Secondly, we are ensuring that data packages for OP compounds enable full evaluations in line with modern safety standards through the continuing reviews of OP veterinary medicines other than sheep dips (by the VPC) and of anticholinesterase pesticides (by the ACP). The ACP has recommended that regulatory action should be taken against approvals for products containing three OP
  448W
  compounds for which supporting data have not been submitted under the anticholinesterase review. Revocations of the approvals are being sent immediately to approval holders. This means that in all 14 OP compounds (more than half the OP compounds formerly approved) have now been revoked as a result of this major review.

  Thirdly, we shall be implementing measures aimed at continuing to promote best practice. For sheep dip, we accept the advice from the Health and Safety Commission that extension of mandatory certification would not be appropriate. Best practice will be promoted through a range of measures including further improvements to labelling to highlight necessary precautions in the light of the IOM report; a continuing programme of targeted inspections by HSE inspectors to reinforce messages on risk control and training and competence for sheep dippers; and supply of protective gloves with sheep dip. We have also decided not to further extend mandatory certification for pesticides uses in the light of the advice we have received and comments on the consultation we conducted earlier this year. We shall, however, be improving the guidance and the syllabus for the certificate of competence in this area.

  Fourthly, MAFF, acting jointly with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Department of Health, intend to develop a targeted research programme to take forward the research recommendations from COT and the regulatory committees. We want to involve expertise from the wider scientific community in this process. We therefore plan to hold a broadly based seminar in the new year to determine the scientific input and approaches required to meet these defined research needs. In addition, we are currently discussing a proposal to investigate databases of people who believe they are suffering from the effects of OPs. We hope to conclude contractual negotiations with a view to the project starting as early as possible in the new year.