Sitting of 1 July 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS

  MADAM SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
  The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of MADAM SPEAKER from this day's sitting, pursuant to leave given on 23 June.
  Whereupon, SIR ALAN HASLEHURST, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pet Passports
    Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's policy on passports for pets. [87914]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): A pilot project will be in place as soon as possible, and in any event, by next April. The main scheme will be in place by April 2001. Good progress is being made towards meeting those targets.
    Mr. Colman: I thank the Minister for what I take to be a reaffirmation of his support for the pet travel scheme, which he announced to the House in March. I was concerned about some press speculation that there had been a change, so I am pleased to hear that the scheme is proceeding as planned. To move forward those proceedings, will he release information about improved vaccines, microchips and blood-testing laboratories so that owners can prepare their pets for travel to or from the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has raised a very good point, which is at the heart of the scheme. Information about the microchips to be used is in the public domain now; for those who are interested, it can be found on my Department's website, where it was placed on 30 June. In the next few weeks we hope to be able to put in the public domain information on vaccines and the laboratories that are able to undertake testing.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Having seen the mess that the Government have made of passports for people, we shall not hold our breath for the introduction of their passports for pets scheme. The Minister must
    414
    realise that allowing the story to be spun out in April in the run-up to the local elections raised the hopes of many, such as my constituents, the Prestons, who were in Japan at the time, that the scheme might be introduced promptly. Instead, we are to have a year of foot-dragging, denying those who are prepared to take part in the scheme the opportunity to do so. Hopes have been dashed and the Minister is responsible for that.
    Mr. Brown: That is nonsensical; under the previous Government, we had 18 years of foot-dragging and no indication of any progress whatever. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), initiated the scientific inquiry. We analysed the results and then acted. We are proceeding in a measured and responsible way. The pilot scheme has been well thought through; it covers all possible modes of transportation. We intend to move from that pilot to full change and, once that change has been made, the scheme will be widely used and, from the information that is available to me, widely welcomed.

    Research Expenditure
    Mr. Derek Twigg: How much money will be spent by his Department on research in the current financial year. [87915]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Ministry's budget for research and development in 1999–2000 is £125 million. The House will be interested to know that an example of such expenditure is a report that is being published today by the Institute of Occupational Medicine on the effects of exposure to organophosphate sheep dips, which was commissioned by the previous Government in 1995. It is a very important report, about which I shall give a further, longer written answer later today.
    Mr. Twigg: Will my hon. Friend pursue his analysis with the Government's scientific adviser at the utmost speed? Will he be talking to manufacturers of sheep dips?
    Mr. Rooker: We shall immediately refer the report that has been published today, which is based on the research that we have funded, to the Veterinary Products Committee and the special sub-committee of the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. I am asking manufacturers of sheep dips for urgent meetings early next week.
    Mr. Peter Luff: The Government have recently been forced to make significant cuts in the research budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in many other areas of its expenditure, as a result of the mushrooming of the Phillips inquiry, the very tight settlement on running costs which was accepted under the comprehensive spending review and the failure to sell Covent Garden market. Yesterday, the permanent secretary made it clear to the Select Committee on Agriculture that MAFF expenditure remains very tight. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be no further unforeseen cuts in the research and development budget or other important areas of the Ministry's programmes?
    Mr. Rooker: We are not planning any more unforeseen cuts. The cuts have been regrettable. We are very much a

    415
    science-based Ministry—all the £125 million R and D budget is policy-driven; none is blue-skies research. Given our running costs of less than £700 million, hon. Members will realise the scale of MAFF's science base. We are not planning further reductions and will be very careful about those that we have had to make simply due to the comprehensive spending review. All key areas of MAFF's work in R and D will certainly continue.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: If the Institute of Occupational Medicine's scientific report suggests further investigation into the long-term adverse health effects caused by short-term exposure to organophosphates, will MAFF fund it, and to what extent?
    Mr. Rooker: The report is very large. There is a suggestion of further research, although it is clear from volume 1 that the institute has discovered a source of problems with OP sheep dips that relates to farmers or users coming into contact with the concentrate, giving unexpected results. We shall pursue that urgently with our scientific advisers.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: As chairman of the all-party organophosphate groups, I very much welcome the report and the statement that the Minister has just made. However, will he address the very serious concerns of victims, who have been waiting for the report for many years? They and the all-party group very much welcome the proactive attitude of the Minister and his colleagues, which contrasts with that of their predecessors, who always seemed to find excuses not to do anything. Will he give us an idea of the proposed timetable? How soon will COT—the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—report, and how soon after that will he be able to tell the House what action he proposes to take to help those whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined by exposure to those very dangerous chemicals?
    Mr. Rooker: As I said in my initial answer—I want to be absolutely fair about this—the report that is published today, funded by MAFF, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Health, was originally commissioned in 1995 by our predecessors. Given that it has taken a while and that the research took place over several years, we have nevertheless set up a sub-committee of COT to consider the wider issue of OPs, well beyond their use in sheep dips. The report to be published today will be referred to COT urgently, but it is also being referred to the Veterinary Products Committee urgently for a preliminary assessment. In addition, I have asked to meet the manufacturers as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As a member of the all-party group, I also welcome the announcement but is it possible, without pre-judging the matter, to suspend the use of OPs until such further research has been commissioned and received?
    Mr. Rooker: If we are to ban or suspend the use of OP sheep dips, I must have a really good reason—one that is judge-proof, so that some sleek lawyer does not run round the corner and unstitch what we have done. That is why we are sending the report urgently to our own scientific advisers on the Veterinary Products Committee
    416
    for an urgent pre-assessment, and speaking to the manufacturers. COT, which is considering the wider issue, will report before the end of the year. I shall not wait until the end of the year, however, for an assessment by our scientific advisers of the report published today to see whether they can recommend any preliminary action that we could take before that.

    GM Crops
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What progress he has made in (a) defining and (b) monitoring an effective quarantine zone around genetically modified crop trials. [87916]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Separation distances for GM crops were set out in the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops—SCIMAC—guidelines published last month. SCIMAC will enforce those through legally binding contracts, inspections and penalties for non-compliance. We are investigating the possibility of making those provisions statutory. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is monitoring gene transfer at selected GM trial sites.
    Mr. Simpson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is he aware that in April, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany identified that there has been pollen transfer well beyond the SCIMAC guidelines of 400 m where a GM crop barrier is in place? Is he also aware that the Scottish Crop Research Institute identified a pollen transfer of 4,000 m in the same month—mainly where bees are the pollen vector? Has the Minister any plans for the introduction of effective no-fly zones around GM crop trials? If not, on the basis of the principle that the polluter pays, can he say whether aggrieved parties should now look to pursue actions against the farmer, the Government or the bee?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend raised the issue of liability in an interesting debate yesterday. On recent research—specifically, the John Innes research, commissioned by MAFF, because we take the potential contamination of other crops by GM crops very seriously—we are considering the advice that we receive from the report.
    SCIMAC set those crop separation distances on the basis of accepted and established practice in the agricultural sector in relation to seed transfers and potential cross-contamination between crops of different types, so one can understand the logic behind the separation distances recommended by SCIMAC. However, SCIMAC has made it very clear that it is prepared to review the position. Some sectors, such as the organic sector, are concerned about possible cross-contamination, and we urge it to discuss that with SCIMAC to see whether current separation distances are adequate.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: I do not know whether the Minister knows much about this, because he is the Minister responsible for fish rather than for GM crops, but is he aware that if a multinational company obtains a licence to grow GM crops in Greece or any European country, it can bring the technology and the licence to

    417
    Britain without any further permissions? Therefore, the idea of quarantine zones to ban such crops is gloriously irrelevant.
    Mr. Morley: Although sanction for release can be obtained in other European countries, we have to approve it in this country. If we recognise that there is a problem, we can take appropriate action within the United Kingdom. The issue has been recently discussed further within the European Union and agreed guidelines have been put forward, which tighten control at EU level as well as national level.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is the Minister aware that only two weeks ago English Nature reiterated its advice that no herbicide tolerant or insect resistant genetically modified crop should be grown commercially in this country for at least three and probably five years? Is he also aware that this is the view of the British Medical Association, the Science and Technology Select Committee, Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and of many other responsible organisations and individuals? Why will the Labour Government not say clearly, without qualification, that no commercial planting of those genetically modified crops can take place in Britain until the research into their environmental impact has been completed?
    Mr. Morley: That is exactly the situation now. There are no commercially planted genetically modified crops within the United Kingdom. There is a commercial moratorium, but research is being carried out. That is exactly what English Nature has been arguing for. If issues such as the effect on biodiversity are identified during that research and evaluation, appropriate action can be taken. There will be no planting of pesticide resistant crops within three to five years.

    CAP Budget
    Mr. Eric Forth: If he will make a statement about growth in the CAP budget over the period 2000 to 2006. [87918]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The spending limits agreed at the Heads of Government conference at Berlin mean that after an initial increase, common agricultural policy costs will, for the first time, fall year on year in real terms from 2002 onwards.
    Mr. Forth: Does the Minister recall that early in March the Prime Minister was making it clear that he was completely dissatisfied with the deal that was then being hatched? Yet two or three weeks later, mysteriously, the Prime Minister was prepared to have his Government sign up to a deal that was palpably worse than that which he had criticised only a few weeks earlier. Is the Minister satisfied that what is going on in the CAP is remotely in concurrence with World Trade Organisation rules? If not, what will he do if, as a result, we find ourselves with another futile conflict between the European Union and the United States?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured a first-rate deal for this country at Berlin.
    418
    He secured the British rebate and for the first time ever not only constrained the costs of the CAP but got them on a downward trend. That is a substantial achievement. I am surprised that that is not acknowledged by Conservative Members. After all, it is something that they did not manage to achieve.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the agricultural component of the deal that was arranged at Brussels and modified at Berlin. I have made no secret of my view that I think that we shall be revisiting this component before the six years during which it is expected to endure. There will be much to be discussed in the WTO round and collectively we have our ambitions for enlarging the EU, and there are consequences in those ambitions for the current agricultural settlement.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: To take up my right hon. Friend's final point, obviously the CAP was originally designed for six countries. Is he satisfied that arrangements are in place for European Union enlargement, which will have major implications for agriculture throughout Europe?
    Mr. Brown: I am satisfied with the arrangements that are in place for the next spending period for European enlargement. However, further issues will have to be addressed in the next spending period. It has been my consistent view, as it has been that of the Government—I do not believe that it is a matter of controversy even between the two sides of the House—that we need to start addressing now the way in which the candidate countries can come into not only the EU but the CAP.
    Mr. Andrew George: The Minister seems to accept that the outcome of the CAP negotiations was an unacceptable fudge, which needs to be revisited. Because of all the uncertainties as a result of the fudged outcome, does the Minister accept that the negotiations should be brought forward, so that the issue of EU enlargement can be properly addressed and the uncertainty resolved as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the impact of enlargement on the current structures of the CAP, but he is mistaken to refer to either the Brussels or the Berlin outcome as a fudge. It was not a fudge. The criticism that can be made of the deal is that it did not go far enough now. The substantial gain for Britain in the deal is that we made a start on reform in each of the commodity regimes, in spite of the fact that the majority of our partners had reservations about going in that direction. We are going in the right direction. The correct criticism—it is one that I would make myself—is that we have not got far enough fast enough.

    Whaling
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What discussions he has had with EU partners on the control of whaling. [87919]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We regularly co-ordinate policies with other countries opposed to whaling, both inside and outside the EU.
    Mr. Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the rest of the Front-Bench team on putting animal welfare

    419
    issues at the centre of their policy objectives and the work of the Department. Will my hon. Friend examine the way in which the International Whaling Commission works, and consider whether it is possible for that organisation to deal not only with the stopping of whaling, but with the management of whaling, and how we can do more to protect the existing whale stock and increase the number of whales in the world's oceans?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The IWC was set up to exploit whales commercially. The Government have made it clear that we reject the idea of a return to commercial whaling, and we want the IWC to concentrate more on global threats to whales, such as environmental threats, global warming and pollution, and to extend its competence to small cetaceans, many of which are under threat internationally. In the IWC discussions that I attended to underline the importance that the Government attach to the issue, we received significant support from other EU states and other countries, without which we could not have made the advances that we have achieved internationally.
    Mr. John Bercow: In rightly continuing the policy of the previous Government of support for the continuation of the moratorium on commercial whaling, is it the Government's policy to support the exemption to allow the Makah Indian tribe in the United States to continue subsistence whaling which, as I am sure the Minister knows, has been undertaken there for about 2,000 years? If that policy is being continued, what progress is being made?
    Mr. Morley: We accept the case for indigenous aboriginal whaling in certain parts of the world. That is regulated by the IWC and a quota is set. However, I thought that the Makahs' case for restarting whaling was unimpressive and had not been proved.

    Coral
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What studies he has commissioned on the importance of coral in the marine food chain. [87921]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): MAFF has not commissioned any studies specifically aimed at assessing the importance of corals in the marine food chain. However, MAFF's research includes assessments of the impact of fishing, gravel dredging and other activities on benthic communities.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not coral—not least the north-west Atlantic coral in our own waters—crucial as a nursery for many species of fish? I was invited by the Foreign Office to a conference on coral for the dependent territories that was held yesterday at London zoo. Could reflection be given to which Department is the lead Department? The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is involved, as are the Department for International Development, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and, marginally, the Department of Trade and Industry. Is it not important that there should be a lead Department, particularly to follow up the report of
    420
    Dr. Charles Sheppard, which was published this week and gives an alarming picture of the bleaching of coral, which affects everyone on the planet?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. That is a serious matter for the cold-water corals in our waters, of which Lophelia is the main species in the north-west. However, I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is taking the lead role in co-ordinating research, which is one of its functions in relation to UK issues. The Natural Environment Research Council is also conducting research, as is Norway. Some of those corals are in international waters and we are sharing information because we take this issue seriously.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Under the current fishing regime, British fishermen are dumping more dead fish back into the sea than are being landed for human consumption. What effect is that having on the marine food chain?
    Mr. Morley: The discarding of fish is an important issue, which we are addressing. I emphasise that the bulk of discarded fish are under-sized and non-marketable. We are commissioning a research programme in conjunction with the EU and other member states to look at the reasons for discarding and technical solutions for reducing and eliminating it.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What possible confidence can we have in the results of the survey that the Minister has announced on the reason for fish discards? As he well knows, as long ago as 1991 the Commission's 10-year survey of the common fisheries policy said that discards were not simply a by-product—some unintended consequence—of the CFP, but a positive obligation under it. Will he also admit that many discards are purely and simply fish that are quite edible and of proper and fit size, but which cannot be landed because of the iniquities of the CFP? That is the reality of the situation and he should not need to commission a survey to tell him what is already an obligation under the CFP.
    Mr. Morley: I repeat that research programmes that we have carried out, most recently in the North sea, show that 90 per cent. of discards are under-sized and non-commercial fish. Some marketable fish are discarded as a by-product of quota control. Although I have repeatedly invited the industry and the Conservative party to put forward alternatives to quota control, no workable alternative has ever been suggested. I received a letter this morning from a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, who was unable to explain the Conservative party's fisheries policy, and it seems that Conservative MEPs have no idea of where their party stands on fisheries policy and tackling such issues as the conservation of fish.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. John Healey: What recent representations he has received on the current state of the pig industry. [87922]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Over recent months I have received a number of letters, from hon. Members and others, about the difficulties currently faced by the pig industry. In addition, I have listened to the views of pig farmers, their representatives and other interested parties at seminars and regional events.
    Mr. Healey: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to difficulties faced by Mr. and Mrs. Brookes at West Melton? They are pig farmers in my constituency and last year, for the first time in four generations of farming, they took out a bank overdraft. What reassurances can he give to Mr. and Mrs. Brookes and thousands of pig farmers like them that the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the exemplary standards of pig husbandry, feed and drugs treatment in this country are an advantage, not a disadvantage, in the marketplace?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am very sympathetic to farmers who find themselves in such circumstances. I am meeting the representatives of the agricultural divisions of the main high street banks specifically to discuss the problems of the pig industry. Furthermore, the Government's strategy, which is aimed at getting the industry through what I freely acknowledge are difficult times, is aimed at securing for pig producers such as his constituents a premium in the marketplace for the animal welfare measures that Parliament voted to be put in place. I have been working, with some success, not only with the British Retail Consortium, but with the Meat and Livestock Commission and others with an interest in this matter to secure that premium for the industry in the marketplace. The figures to date show that there is a 15 per cent. premium for United Kingdom pigmeat in the United Kingdom market.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the Minister accept that the Government are presiding over the biggest crisis in the pig industry that the country has known? He will be aware that the breeding herd is 23 per cent. down in only 18 months and threatens to go lower. The Government have had the opportunity to help the industry, but they have failed. For example, they recently decided not to allow the separate rendering of porcine offals for feed.
    Is the Minister aware that I have asked questions about help from other Ministries? He should be, because I have raised that issue with him previously. On 20 May I wrote to Ministers at the Department of Health and at DETR and asked them to use their
    "best offices to ensure that Local Authorities"—
    and health authorities—
    "purchase only pork and pork products derived from pigs produced to the same high health and welfare standards as are applied in the UK."
    I have had no reply, other than an acknowledgement saying that the letter would be passed on to the Minister of Agriculture. Is that joined-up government?
    Mr. Brown: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is joined-up government. I have made the representations that I previously promised to my colleagues within the Government and we have had a supportive response,
    422
    not least from the Ministry of Defence, which makes sure that its procurement of fresh pork products is 100 per cent. United Kingdom sourced. That is an important support for the industry. In addition, I have on my desk draft letters waiting to go out to the major public authorities—the prisons, the health authorities and local authorities—not via other Departments but directly, urging them to source products of the highest welfare and animal hygiene standards, thus supporting the Meat and Livestock Commission's quality assured campaign.
    I believe that the strategy that we are pursuing is the right one. Of course, the size of the national herd has come down; it is right that it should do so. The only way through for the industry is to bring supply and demand closer into alignment. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have presided over the crisis, but over-optimistic decisions that were made in 1995–96 about the amount of product that the market could bear have, more than anything else, served to get us into the present difficulties. Those decisions were made not just in the United Kingdom but across the European Union. External factors, such as over-optimistic assumptions about a rising market in the far east and the former Soviet Union, turned out not to be well founded. Those were market judgments, which are not the fault of the Government.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I appeal for briefer questions and briefer answers?
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following a debate in the House last Thursday in which I referred to excellent pork sausages from Garstang, our worthy Hansard reporters asked where they could get them? May I tell them that a consignment is heading this way a week on Monday? Would my right hon. Friend like some as well?
    On a more serious point, may I urge my right hon. Friend to use his considerable weight and presence with the British Retail Consortium and with supermarkets everywhere to ensure that excellent products such as Mary Miller's pork sausages get into our supermarkets instead of lower quality pig products from abroad?
    Mr. Brown: I hope to meet the British Retail Consortium shortly to reaffirm the arrangements that I made with it before Christmas. I shall add to my weight, and perhaps my responsibilities, by consuming the product that my hon. Friend recommends.
    Mr. William Thompson: Is the Minister aware that in Northern Ireland the problem is particularly acute, because the selling price received by the farmer is a lower percentage than that in the rest of the United Kingdom? There are still many rumours that other European Governments are subsidising their pig farmers through the back door. What investigations has MAFF made into those allegations, and what representations have been made to the Commission about them?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there are particular difficulties with the market in Northern Ireland. Prices there are not as buoyant as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is a mistake to use the word "buoyant", because although we have obtained for the industry a premium in the

    423
    marketplace, the industry is still not back to break-even point. I accept that we have more work to do. I have made representations to the Commission relating to the suggestion that the French Government plan to introduce state aids that go beyond EU rules, and the Commission is investigating that. Moreover, I recently met our agricultural attachés in the different EU embassies and went through a number of detailed questions with them on points that the Government hope that they will look out for.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Given the collapse of the incomes of pig farmers since Labour came to power, how long will the Minister stand idle while imports of pig meat produced under conditions not permitted in Britain continue to flood into this country? How long will the French Government be allowed to pay unlawful state aids to their pig farmers before a murmur of protest passes the Minister's lips? How many British pig farmers will go bust before the Minister translates his warm words of sympathy into effective action to help the remaining British pig farmers to survive?
    Mr. Brown: I do not want to go through again the answer I gave earlier. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the explanation, but does not seem able to understand it. As I told the House, when other member states are trying to introduce state aids that we believe are outwith European Union rules, we complain to the Commission and ask it to investigate. We have raised with the Commission the matter of the alleged state aids in France—I notice that the hon. Gentleman has no hard evidence—and the Commission is requiring information from the French Government.
    On the hon. Gentleman's other points, I should say to the whole House that there is no solution to this problem in protectionist measures. We must fight for our industry to get a premium in the marketplace, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. The hon. Gentleman would serve the pig industry better if he joined forces with me and fought to secure for the industry the premium in the marketplace which the production systems in this country rightly merit.

    Meat Labelling
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement about the labelling of country of origin on meat sold in Britain. [87924]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Information on the country of origin of meat can be given by retailers voluntarily. It is helpful to consumers to be provided with full information, including the country of origin. As a consumer, I want that. If meat is not labelled as British, people should not assume that it is British.
    Mr. Syms: Have not the British public the right to know the country of origin of the meat on their table, so that they can make an informed choice about hygiene and welfare standards? We have pretty high standards in this country, and if we have health scares many consumers feel helpless when they go to a supermarket, because they do not know what they are buying for their children and their family.
    Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We cannot introduce rules unilaterally. There is a
    424
    Europe-wide beef labelling scheme, which is separate. Retailers can put the country of origin on other meats, and consumers should insist on that. If that information is not on the product, people should not buy it because they do not know where it has come from. If people want to buy British because of our high welfare and hygiene standards, they should look for the British label. If meat is not labelled as such, people should not assume that it is British.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are two large beef processing factories in my constituency—Wessex Foods and Bird's Eye? It has been said that Lowestoft is the burger capital of the region, if not the country. Sales of beef products have soared since the Government restored confidence in British beef and the Meat and Livestock Commission quality mark label was introduced. The only concern that my factories have is whether they can get enough British beef. Is not that really good news for British beef farmers, by stark contrast with the dark days under the previous Government during their BSE crisis?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. British consumption of British beef has risen 10 percentage points since December 1997, because British consumers' confidence in British beef is greater than it has ever been. That is right, and that increase in consumption is shown by the amount of purchasing. It will increase further when we persuade our European partners to accept the flow of British beef once again.
    Mr. James Paice: It is now several months since the Minister promised to investigate meat hygiene charges for British-produced meat. Yesterday at the Norfolk show I met abattoir owners who are concerned that they may go out of business, which will encourage imports of overseas meat. Will the Minister stop this absurd notion that there will have to be a fully qualified vet in every abattoir, at huge cost to the abattoir owner? That will lead to increased employment of foreign vets, who are clearly not up to the job. None of that is in the interests of British-produced meat.
    Mr. Rooker: It was the hon. Gentleman's final inquiry that gave me the clue to whether his supplementary related to Question 9 or Question 10. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question, although it does not relate to the question that is on the Order Paper. We have not yet announced the outcome of the review of the charges, but we have undertaken investigations of the requirements for vets to be present in abattoirs.
    I fully accept that the meat industry, although it is one industry, involves two cultures. For instance, the fact that 80 per cent. of cattle are slaughtered in 20 per cent. of abattoirs demonstrates that there are a few very large abattoirs and a good many very small ones. We are trying our best to establish a regime that will meet the requirements of both small and large abattoirs, so that they can work in harmony. We do not intend to put small abattoirs out of business, but we cannot recruit the vets we need. That is why we have imported some from the European Union.
    Mr. Paice: We do not have to do that.
    Mr. Rooker: Unfortunately, the supply of vets in this country is restricted for reasons connected with education

    425
    and the requirements of the royal college of veterinary Surgeons. The Government have been addressing that. [Interruption.] It is no good saying that we do not need vets in the first place; there is a European requirement, and a legal requirement, for us to have qualified vets. Nothing that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) says can knock that on the head.[Interruption.]
    We are apparently being asked—by someone in a sedentary position—to diminish our standards in abattoirs. We are not prepared to do that.

    Specified Risk Materials
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What measures he is taking to ensure that controls on specified risk materials do not place additional burdens on the livestock industry. [87925]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The House will be aware that the Government have deferred plans to charge the meat industry for the cost of specified risk material enforcement for a further year. That will save the industry some £20 million.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Farmers in my constituency are very grateful to the Government for meeting the costs of the scheme, and I think they accept in principle that the time has come for the costs to return to the industry. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the possible timing, and about whether he is considering any phasing in of costs?
    Mr. Rooker: The time mentioned in the announcement was a year. When my right hon. Friend announced the concession, having noted the industry's problems, we indicated that there was a potential for phasing in, probably over two years.
    This is a public health measure, and as such it is very important. It does not relate to every single abattoir; it is intended to deal with cattle and, to a lesser extent, sheep. We feel that the industry should take the cost on board, but it would probably be wrong to ask it to take all of it on board in one go.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the postponing of the SRM costs, but will the Minister act urgently to reverse the decision to have qualified vets on site at the time of the slaughtering of all animals? This is an unacceptable charge which has more than doubled the cost of the slaughtering of all animals, and poses the risk that small local abattoirs will have to be closed in the coming months.
    Mr. Rooker: We have considered the matter, and are still considering it. We have not yet announced the charging regime for this year. At present the Ministry is bearing about £300,000 of the charges, and the industry is therefore benefiting from the delay. When we present our proposals, however, I hope that they will take on board what the hon. Lady has said about the requirement for full-time veterinary supervision.

    Organic Farming
    Ms Julia Drown: If the Government will introduce targets for the proportion of land that is farmed organically in the United Kingdom. [87926]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have no plans to do so at present. To be sustainable, production should be in response to market demand. The Government are committed to supporting the expansion of the organic farm sector, which in the United Kingdom has increased by over 400 per cent. in the past 12 months.
    Encouragement of organic farming in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Parliament; in Wales, it is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. I understand that there are no plans to set a target for organic production in Northern Ireland.
    Ms Drown: My hon. Friend spoke of the need to respond to market demand, and then described the huge increase in demand that has taken place. In February this year, supermarkets reported an increase of between 35 and 40 per cent.—yet we are importing 80 per cent. of the organic fruit and vegetables that we consume. Will my hon. Friend consult his counterparts in Austria, which is farming 10 per cent. of crops organically—the figure here is less than 1 per cent.—and in Denmark, which has set ambitious targets, to establish whether there are lessons that we can learn?
    Mr. Morley: We are keen to expand the organic sector for the reasons that my hon. Friend states. However, an expansion of more than 400 per cent. in 12 months is a sign of the success of the extra support that the Government have given to organic farming; there has been a near doubling of aid for organic research. We want organic production to expand up to the market available for it. We are at about the 2 per cent. mark; it is under 2 per cent. Given market demand, there is further room for progress.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Disclosure
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions about reforming the law on disclosure in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement. [87904]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions routinely to discuss the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. At those meetings, we have discussed the application of law of disclosure. The director recently initiated a programme of work to ensure that the law is applied properly.
    Our discussions have not covered reform of the law, policy responsibility for which rests with the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, when he and I were on the Standing

    427
    Committee that considered the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, we both took the view that it was not sensible to allow the police and prosecution to decide what material should be made available to the defence? That is still my view. Is it his?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that my hon. Friend is reminding the House precisely of what I said. I think that I said that the proposal was a distinct improvement in that both prosecution and defence would be able to focus on relevant material. The director and I share the concern that justice be done, and justice demands proper disclosure.
    Although 100,000 persons, in both the CPS and the police, were trained initially, there is need for more training. The director has begun a programme of work and emphasised the importance of the issue to the new chief Crown prosecutors. As regards the police, some of the work may be done together. That is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary, but I reiterate the director's words:
    "Innocent people may be convicted and guilty defendants acquitted if the CPS fails to properly disclose material to the defence in criminal trials."
    I attach great importance to that. We can move forward with proper training and proper retraining, if that is necessary.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: What discussions has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had with the DPP about disclosure in cases under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989? In the light of that, why did it take his Department 17 days to advise the Home Department of the errors that were discovered in the recent version of the PTA? Is 17 days an acceptable period of delay when dealing with a matter of that importance and urgency?
    The Attorney-General: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the translation to his new office. Who knows—his learning curve may turn out to be as long as mine: 18 years.
    On the precise question, the position is as follows. I have read the debate in the House. The matter was discovered by one of my staff; the Home Office was informed; it requested advice on 1 June. The Solicitor-General and I took a preliminary view. The advice sought by the Home Office was not solely on the problem that the regulations had not been properly delineated; there were other issues involving the procedure to revive them. It was an unprecedented situation. There was also the knock-on effect in relation to the case that is to be before the House of Lords on 19 July.
    In those circumstances, I deemed it right to seek the advice of, eventually, two Treasury counsel. That was obtained on 17 June. The instructions were given to counsel on 8 June. It was important to get it right. We saw a preliminary view from Treasury counsel and, on the day we eventually received the final joint advice, it was conveyed to the Home Office.
    There was no unacceptable delay whatsoever. I am sure that, 18 years from now, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing my job, he will do precisely the same to get it right.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend recollect a situation in which any
    428
    member of the Crown Prosecution Service has been subjected to disciplinary procedures for failure to disclose?
    The Attorney-General: The answer is none. Frequently, the problem is not one of non-disclosure but of late disclosure, as in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). There are also obvious difficulties unless non-disclosure is clearly an unambiguous fault, as opposed to something that has been overlooked. Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service has to rely on material provided by the police; hence the need to continue to be vigilant and to retrain, so that both the police and the CPS can ensure that justice is done.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What percentage of Crown Prosecution lawyers in Wales are able to conduct trials through the medium of the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement. [R] [87905]
    The Attorney-General: In Wales, 14.08 per cent. of Crown prosecutors are able to conduct trials through the medium of the Welsh language, which compares with the 13.6 per cent. of the population who can speak, read and write Welsh. In fact, it is estimated that the ability is needed in fewer than 1 per cent. of trials.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. In some areas of north Wales, provision is considered very good; but in some areas of Wales, it is considered very poor. Moreover, where provision has developed, it has done so solely on an ad hoc basis. For example, in Dyfed—which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, is a Welsh-speaking area—three out of 15 prosecutors speak Welsh. There is under-provision in some areas, but proper provision in others.
    When the CPS next comes up for appraisal of service delivery, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that such provision is a definite subject heading, so that each and every area will report on this important issue?
    The Attorney-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman regards it as an important issue, and I share that belief. A long time ago, I had the privilege of prosecuting a case—a substantial part of it in Welsh—in his own constituency. Two of the four newly appointed chief Crown prosecutors speak Welsh, and one of them is learning it. All four were born in Wales. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we attach importance to the fact that, if required, 20 of the prosecutors in Wales are able to conduct cases in Welsh. If any case goes to the Crown court, a substantial number of barristers—including the hon. Gentleman—are capable of conducting it in Welsh.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the legal system has progressed quite a long way from the days when it was the instrument of official suppression of the Welsh language in Wales. None the less, does he accept that there is still a long way to go before the principles enunciated in the Welsh Language Act 1993 are realised?
    The Attorney-General: I am not sure whether I follow every material part of my hon. Friend's suggestions;

    429
    I know, having practised on the circuit a very long time ago, of problems arising. However, the figures show that the number of such cases are very small indeed. The case that I prosecuted concerned sheep stealing, which, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) will know, is a very important matter in that part of the world. On language itself, the CPS has produced for the Welsh Language Board a draft report in which it sets out its policy in detail. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find it acceptable.

    Fraud Cases
    Dr. Brian Iddon: When he last met the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss the failure rate of prosecutions in fraud cases. [87907]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Attorney-General and I meet the Director of the Serious Fraud Office on a regular basis to discuss the operational work of the office, and on an ad hoc basis as issues require. In the past 12 months, the Serious Fraud Office has brought 19 cases against 39 defendants, of whom 32 were convicted. The overall conviction rate in each year since 1996–97 has been in excess of 80 per cent.
    Dr. Iddon: Has my hon. and learned Friend expressed to his colleagues the dissatisfaction of the general public at the fact that millions of pounds have gone down the drain as a result of the failure of several high profile serious fraud cases? Does he believe that people should benefit from serious fraud? I am minded to ask that question because of the case of Nick Leeson, who collapsed a bank, spent only six years in jail, and will apparently benefit to the tune of at least £100,000. Will my hon. and learned Friend condemn the media, as in assisting him to do that they are encouraging people to commit serious fraud?
    The Solicitor-General: As I said, the Serious Fraud Office has a very good record. It was not involved in the case of Nick Leeson because he was prosecuted in Singapore. If my hon. Friend is asking me whether people should profit from doing wrong, my reply is that as a general principle they should not. My hon. Friend may know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has taken proceedings against George Blake, who profited from writing his memoirs about spying against the country. I understand that the Press Complaints Commission can take up the matter; that may be appropriate.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Minister may be aware that an all-party group of right hon. and hon. Members was invited to visit the stock exchange yesterday and heard a detailed explanation of the regulatory regime, particularly in respect of insider trading and other offences that may come to light there. We were told that in the past two years 70 such offences, or suspected offences, had been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the fraud squad, but that no
    430
    successful prosecutions had followed. Is that considered an acceptable outcome, when white collar fraud clearly has the capacity to produce great dividends for those who practise it and is often seen as being victimless?
    The Solicitor-General: I am not aware of the particular statistics to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly look into the problem. Insider dealing is a difficult offence to prosecute as it is particularly difficult to obtain evidence. Under the new regime in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the regulatory authorities will be able to take disciplinary action, but at the end of the day serious cases have to be pursued. I shall certainly look at the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Kidney: When the Financial Services Authority is given the power under the Financial Services and Markets Bill to prosecute fraud cases alongside the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, how will that affect the responsibilities of the Law Officers in this place?
    The Solicitor-General: The Serious Fraud Office will continue to prosecute the most serious fraud and cases will be referred to it by the regulatory authorities. Of course, under the new regime more cases should be pursued as a result of the activities of the Financial Services Authority. So as a result of the Bill, a more efficient regime will be in place.

    Lenient Sentences (Appeals)
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the number of appeals against lenient sentences in the latest year for which figures are available. [87908]
    The Solicitor-General: In 1998 in England and Wales, 94 individual references were made to the Court of Appeal and 88.1 per cent. of the references heard resulted in an increased sentence. Eleven cases have yet to be heard. This year, as of the end of June, 54 cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal. Of the 12 cases that have been heard, the sentence was increased in 10 cases.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that informative reply. Does he have any plans to extend the number of offences in respect of which lenient sentences can be referred to the Court of Appeal—and if not, why not?
    The Solicitor-General: In our manifesto, we undertook to look into that matter, and we have done a great deal of preliminary work. I hope that an announcement will be made in the fairly near future. The previous Government made two minor extensions to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but experience has shown that not many references have been made. Most of those that arise are for truly serious offences, but statistics demonstrate that more references are being made now than in the past. We take the matter seriously.

Child Support Reform
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our reforms of the Child Support Agency—a key part of our strategy for supporting families and children.
Last year, we published a Green Paper setting out our proposals, and there was overwhelming support for change. I am placing in the Library a summary of 1,500 responses to the Green Paper, along with a list of those who contributed. I am also publishing our White Paper on child support, setting out reforms that will get money to 1 million children who currently miss out. I have written to all hon. Members enclosing a summary of the White Paper, and I have placed copies in the Vote Office.
The reforms that I will set out today are driven by principle. We are putting children first, and we are making sure that the new system is fair on fathers who want to support their children, and tough on those who will not. Our reforms mark a new contract for child support, based on the right of a child to the care and support of its parents, and on the responsibility of parents to provide it.
The responsibility for bringing up children lies squarely with both parents, and that responsibility endures whether they live together or apart. All children have the right to a decent start in life. The Government are already doing a great deal to help. We are increasing child benefit by a record amount and providing more help for low-paid families through the new working families tax credit, tax changes and the national minimum wage. Taken together all that means that a family on £13,000 a year will be better off by up to £2,500 a year.
We are investing £540 million in the sure start programme for very young, disadvantaged children. We are committed to ending the scandal of child poverty in a generation. We are determined to make sure that children receive all the help that they need, which is why we are introducing a new system of child support that is simple, effective and fair.
Today, many children miss out on the support that they should receive from both parents. Under the present system, only 250,000 children receive maintenance, and only 100,000 children get all that they should. Some 30 per cent. of parents using the CSA pay nothing towards the care of their children. That cannot be right. The child support system should help parents to meet their responsibilities, and, where necessary, it should take action when parents will not do so.
The system that we inherited has failed. It does not help parents who want to pay, and it is not tough enough on those who will not pay. The previous Government set up the Child Support Agency in 1993 to replace a court system that could not cope. Going back to the courts is not the answer. In 1979, 52 per cent. of lone parents on income support received maintenance, but by 1990, the courts were getting money to only 20 per cent. On top of that, decisions were often unpredictable, unreliable and unfair. The CSA was meant to sort that situation out, but it did not. The percentage of lone parents on income support getting child maintenance is the same today as it was when the agency was set up.
The CSA became a bureaucratic nightmare for parents and staff alike. The reason for that is clear. Under the current system the CSA can require more than
432
100 different pieces of information to make a single decision, meaning that a third of all child support cases wait at least six months for a decision. The CSA spends 90 per cent. of its time chasing information, and only 10 per cent. chasing parents who will not pay. The result is that many responsible parents who genuinely want to support their children often find themselves facing a mountain of debt through no fault of their own, while irresponsible parents can play the system to their advantage and end up paying nothing for their children. We must always remember that it is children who lose out.
These failures have their roots in the complexity of the current system, and the result is an administration so burdened that only root-and-branch reform will turn things round. We are tackling that inheritance by introducing a simple, new and effective system of child support to deliver for children by reforming the policy and rebuilding the agency.
We will put the confidence back into child support by introducing radical reforms in four key areas. First, we are abolishing the current system for calculating child support, replacing unworkable policy with a workable new system that is based on a simple way of deciding how much parents should pay. Secondly, we are turning the agency round so that it provides a decent and effective service to all parents to make sure that children actually get the money from their parents, and quickly.
Thirdly, we are introducing tough new measures to deal with parents who try to run away from their responsibilities. Fourthly, we are helping the fight against child poverty by introducing new help for children in the poorest families.
I now wish to refer to the detail of our proposals. I want to set out our plans to reform the formula that is currently used to calculate how much parents pay towards the care of their children. That is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the system. It was designed to take account of any—in fact every—detail that might affect how much a father could pay. The result is a calculation so complex, it is barely workable; so complex, it is often difficult for parents to know whether a decision is right or not; so complex, it takes months to get a decision.
Today, I can announce that we are abolishing the complex formula and replacing it with a system of simple rates that is so easy to understand that parents can work out for themselves how much they should pay. We will publish these rates—indeed, they are in the White Paper—by putting leaflets in post offices, libraries and elsewhere.
The new rates are reasonable because they reflect the amount a parent would pay if he were still living with his children. Under the new system, a father will pay a flat-rate percentage of his take-home pay. The amount will be 15 per cent. if he has one child to support., 20 per cent. if he has two and a maximum of 25 per cent. where he has three or more children. For fathers on less than £100 a week, there will be a flat-rate payment of £5 a week.
Every parent knows that one cannot calculate the cost of bringing up a child down to the last penny. However, our proposals are fair and reasonable. The changes are fairer to fathers, because they are more reasonable and realistic. They are fairer to mothers, who will get money much more quickly. They are fairer to children, who will actually get the money they need. As the system is so

433
simple, it will take the agency only a few days to confirm what should be paid, rather than the six months it takes now. It is fast and simple for parents and fast and simple for the agency—but, above all, it is right for children.
To do this, we need also to reform the way in which the CSA operates and to improve significantly the service that it provides. This is not going to be easy. The CSA will never be popular—it will always be doing a difficult job at a difficult and emotional time. However, by replacing the complex formula with new, simple rates, we are laying the foundations for a far better service than would ever be possible under the current system.
These reforms mark a new contract for the CSA, too—a new system in return for a radical change in culture, service and approach. The shake-up has already started. We are strengthening the agency's management and we are importing private sector know-how to work together with public sector experience to sort things out.
From next week, we are bringing in the private sector to help the agency to collect more money from more parents and get it to children. I can announce today that we will invest an extra £28 million over the next three years, but, in return, the CSA must deliver clear and tangible improvements—a better service, quicker decisions and more money getting to children than ever before.
The CSA will get new information technology, and will make more use of the phone to sort out queries quickly. It will be there at times that suit parents, so that they can call in the evenings or at weekends from the privacy of their own homes, and not in the daytime while they are at work.
The CSA will introduce also a more effective complaints system to ensure swift and effective action if things go wrong. Parents will get a clear statement setting out what they have paid and what is due. They will receive a clear picture of where they stand, just as one would get from a bank statement. In short, the CSA will move from an organisation that is bogged down in paper to an organisation that will focus on the needs of parents, and, above all, on the need to get money to children, fast. Our new contract for child support is good news for responsible parents, who will get a better service that helps them to do what they want to do. However, it is bad news for the minority—the hard core who persistently let their children down. We will make sure they are brought to book.
I can announce that, for the first time ever, we are making it a criminal offence to fail to provide, or to misrepresent, information to the agency. If parents lie to the agency, if they try to dodge their duty or persistently pay late, they will face a fine or even time in jail. Although most self-employed parents are highly responsible, there are some who are not, so we are introducing new measures allowing us to access tax records to get a true picture of their income. That will ensure that fathers who run around in the company Porsche, but plead poverty to their children, cannot get away with it.
We are also closing a loophole that allows fathers to string out a decision by denying that they are the father of their child. In future, if a child was born while the father was married to the mother, the burden will be on him to prove that he is not the father. We shall also make sure that teenage boys who become fathers face their
434
responsibilities. They must realise that bringing a child into the world is a lifelong responsibility; it is not something that they can ever walk away from. We shall make sure that once they can pay towards the care of their child, they do pay.
Furthermore, because we are determined to make sure that all parents meet their responsibilities, we are looking at further measures to achieve that—including taking away driving licences from fathers who persistently shirk their responsibilities. The message is simple: there is no hiding place, no excuse and no easy way out. They must realise that their child is their responsibility. Every parent has to face up to that; they owe it to their children to do so. This is our new contract for child support. We will deliver a new, fair and simple system that will help responsible parents to support their children, but, in turn, we will take tough action to ensure that the rest deliver for their children.
We are also reforming the system to make sure that it does more for children in the poorest families. Under the current system, mothers lose their income support, pound for pound, whenever any maintenance is paid; because mothers lose out, their children lose out too. So, today, I can announce significant new help for children in the poorest families, worth up to £10 a week. More than 250,000 children will gain from that change alone. That is real help from the Government for children in the poorest families. For the first time ever, we are making sure that money goes to the poorest children, not to the Treasury.
I can announce today that, to make work pay, from October, low-paid families in work and receiving the working families tax credit will keep every pound and every penny of child maintenance paid. All those measures are delivering on our commitment to do more for those who need it most, to end child poverty and to make sure that the Government, parents and the Child Support Agency together deliver for children.
Of course, we need to make sure that those changes are introduced smoothly and successfully. We want to introduce the new scheme as soon as possible, but it is vital to get it right. The present system collapsed under its own weight because the previous Government tried to introduce reforms too quickly, and with too little thought. It is a massive task. Within a year of the millennium, the Child Support Agency will be dealing with more than 1 million cases—that is more than 2 million parents. Radical change on that scale will take time. The new system needs legislation and new computer systems, as well as a radical change of culture and working practices in the CSA itself.
We plan to introduce the new system for new cases towards the end of 2001, with existing cases coming on to the new system later, once it is up and running. However, we want to introduce some measures earlier, such as making it a criminal offence to lie to the agency, closing the loophole that allows fathers falsely to deny their paternity, and improving the administration of the CSA itself.
The future of child support lies in our new contract, which puts the rights of children first, and puts the unshakeable duty of parents at centre stage. The new system will be simpler and fairer for those fathers who want to support their children, but it will be tougher on those who will not. The agency will be turned around, so that it provides the standard of service that we all expect.

435
We are putting the confidence back into child support, replacing complexity with simplicity, replacing delay with quick and accurate decisions, and replacing bureaucracy with a high-quality customer service. Together, our reforms will help I million children who, today, are let down by the current system. We are delivering for children and putting their needs first.
I commend these proposals to the House.
Mr. David Willetts: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement and the White Paper. Both sides of the House agree that the CSA needs reform, just as both sides of the House supported the creation of the CSA in 1993, and the reforms that we introduced in 1995. The system that Ministers inherited is one that we all supported—including those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. The trouble is that the problems in the CSA have continued—if anything, they have become worse.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the latest annual report from the chief child support officer shows a further decline in the number of correct maintenance assessments? Will he now give a cast-iron promise to the House that that trend of deteriorating performance will be reversed, and tell the House when that will happen? It has taken Ministers more than two years to reach this statement, and it is eight months since the deadline for consultation on their previous Green Paper. It has taken Ministers longer to reach a decision than it takes the Child Support Agency they criticise.
The Opposition accept the need for a simpler system, with better enforcement and less fancy arithmetic to calculate liability. We accept that that approach is the right one. However, we have three areas of concern about today's proposals. First, rough justice is the new buzz phrase, but how rough is the rough justice to be? How many liable parents will have their obligations reduced, and by how much? How many of the parents with care will have their entitlement to maintenance reduced, and by how much?
Specifically, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will no longer take account of the income of the parent with care? Does he not recognise that one of the most important grievances arising from the current arrangements is felt by those absent parents who have a lower income than the family with care? Is not one of the effects of his proposals to redistribute dramatically toward the more affluent families with care?
Instead of addressing that point about liabilities, I fear that the Secretary of State will change the subject and talk about enforcement. His spinners have been making a lot of the new criminal penalties for absent parents who do not pay maintenance. That is a snappy soundbite, but a stupid policy. Putting absent parents in prison makes it less likely that they will be able to earn any income, less likely that they will ever pay any maintenance, and less likely that they will have any access to their children.
The Government should make existing civil remedies work. After all, the Minister's colleagues in the legal Departments are boasting about their reforms of civil justice and new fast-track procedures, so why does he not practise some joined-up government, trust his Government's reforms of civil justice and use those
436
remedies effectively and energetically? Even if he does not trust his own colleagues, why does he not agree with the response to the consultation exercise of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? It said:
"We are not convinced that it is the powers themselves that are deficient, but rather the way in which they are being exercised".
The Minister thrashes about with any old wheeze to give the impression of action. We are told that absent parents might lose their driving licence—presumably as part of the Deputy Prime Minister's attack on the motorist. Today, we read that they will lose their passport—presumably that is a desperate attempt to get them out of those queues at the passport offices. Such gimmicks are not the answer.
Our third area of concern is Inland Revenue access to information. Let me quote to the right hon. Gentleman an assurance from his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), given when a clause of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that is designed to give the Revenue access to information was debated in Standing Committee. The Under-Secretary said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles):
"the clause will be used as a last resort, after all attempts to get information from other sources have failed, to enable the CSA to check tax records in the interests of the children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 April 1999; c. 1000.]
When did a last resort become a first resort? How is the Secretary of State's announcement today compatible with the assurance given by his colleague to the Standing Committee only a few months ago?
Yes, the CSA needs reform. Yes, more money needs to go to children. Yes, we accept that the current arrangements are not working. However, we need to know more about who gains and who loses. We need to know why Ministers will not use civil remedies more effectively. We need assurances about Inland Revenue access to information. The principle of the CSA is absolutely right; what has gone wrong is the practice, and that is where further reform is needed. It is pity that it will take Ministers four years to do anything about it.
Mr. Darling: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State. I believe that this is his first time out. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that I let him read the White Paper, although that is perfectly normal practice.
The hon. Gentleman expressed three concerns, but what struck me was that only towards the end of his remarks did he mention children. If there is rough justice in the present system, it is that 66 per cent. of children do not get everything that is due to them. The reforms that we are introducing today are designed to ensure that an assessment is not theoretical but realistic, and that the child sees the money to which he or she is entitled.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we are not taking into account the income of the parent with care. I point out that 96 per cent. of parents with care have an income of less than £100 a week, so that will not be a widespread problem. We are ensuring that the formula, which takes into account the children in first and second families, is simple and fair. The more complex the system becomes—as more and more disregards and other considerations are brought in—the further we shall slip back into the mire that bogs down the CSA at present. If the hon. Gentleman

437
is saying that we ought to have more exceptions to the general simple formula, he must accept that every added complexity will mean that it will take more time and be more difficult to get money to the children.
The hon. Gentleman also complained about penalties. There is nothing wrong in saying that there ought to be a criminal sanction for people who lie to the CSA, misrepresent their circumstances and give the agency the run-around. Those people are not cheating the Government or the agency—they are cheating their children. In any decent, civilised society, people recognise that there ought to be a deterrent and, if necessary, punishment for those who have obligations to society or to their children but who, at the end of the day, after every stone has been turned and every difficulty has been addressed, still insist on trying to avoid their responsibilities.
Most of those who have to deal with CSA cases know that there are mothers who are trying to bring up their children and, in the same town, the father is driving around in his Porsche, living the high life while his children are not being properly looked after. I make no apology whatsoever for taking the necessary action against the minority—I stress that they are a minority—of parents who insist on ducking their responsibilities.
I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's complaint about us allowing access to the Inland Revenue in cases where people will not tell us how much they earn, or where we have good reason to believe that they are not telling us the truth. If we do not take action, the state will have to support the children of people who are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. The Conservatives used to believe that that was wrong, but they are more concerned about protecting the interests of people who want to hide their affairs from their own children than they are about the children themselves. I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's complaint. Using the access to the Inland Revenue is, of course, an action that we shall take when every other option has been exhausted, but I disagree with the Conservatives' proposition that we should not allow access to the Inland Revenue so that we can find out the truth about those matters.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman complained about the time that the reforms will take. The Conservatives had six years to sort out the CSA, and they did not do so. We have tackled the problems and we are making improvements. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the CSA's performance is improving. If he reads the departmental report, which will be published later this month, he will find that the CSA has improved in a number of respects, although it has a long way to go before it provides an acceptable service. As I said in my statement, I do not believe it will be fully acceptable until we get rid of the complex formula that it must operate at present. However, the agency is making improvements and things are getting better.
These reforms will be introduced in a way that is manageable. The hon. Gentleman was trying to urge us to repeat the same mistakes that his Government made in 1993. We shall not do that. I want the agency to work because, above all, I want children to get the money and support to which they are entitled.
Mr. Frank Field: I want to give the warmest welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement and
438
I hazard a guess that 1 million or so children may well, in time, also thank him. More immediately, taxpayers, who have to foot a bill of 5p on the standard rate of tax to pay for the shambles that the Government inherited from the Conservatives, will also thank my right hon. Friend for his statement.
Will my right hon. Friend consider two modest reforms? Because the Government are rightly taking their time and not rushing, and thereby risking getting things wrong, and because the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is due to return to the House, will he consider taking powers to intervene and stop the clock in exceptional cases when the rules are operating in a weird and mad fashion that will lead to the destruction of the second family? Secondly, given that it is so crucial that the reforms succeed, as if they do not we shall have to give up thinking about child support, will he consider asking the Revenue to collect the money? It is after all its culture to do so, and not that of the Department of Social Security, which is good at paying out money.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his general welcome for our proposals. He raised two specific points. Although this is the first time that he has raised the point, I can see some difficulty in giving the Secretary of State power to intervene when something is wrong. Unless that is a general power to allow me or my successors to intervene in every case—which would mean that I would have to look at every case, which I will not volunteer to do—it might be difficult to operate the system satisfactorily. However, I will reflect on what he says.
Although the Inland Revenue has its problems like any other organisation, it works well. It certainly would not welcome—we should not consider it lightly—the requirement to collect information on 1 million quite difficult cases. At the moment, we have one organisation that works well and one that does not. There is a risk that we would end up with one organisation that does not work at all. I would be reluctant to go down such a route, which is why we excluded using the Inland Revenue. It is working well; we should let it get on with what it does. The key to success is to ensure that we reform the CSA so that it does a far better job collecting money on the one hand and paying it out to parents with care on the other.
Mr. David Rendel: The Secretary of State will not be surprised to learn that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are disappointed that he has not introduced a system that can deal with each case individually. Only such a system can be seen to be entirely fair. Only when one has an entirely fair system will judgments be accepted and people be free to pay up quite generously.
We welcome several things in the White Paper, including giving access to tax records, which was a sensible move to make. I am surprised that the Conservatives object to it. The better shared care arrangements are also welcome, as is the fact that people will be allowed to keep maintenance if they receive the working families tax credit. That and the £10 disregard on income support must be good for children—and we welcome anything that is good for children. We also welcome the fact that he has not changed or narrowed the definition of good cause, which we were slightly concerned he might.

439
However, several things are not welcome, about which I should like to ask the Secretary of State. He surely must agree that imprisoning or confiscating the driving licences of non-resident parents can only hinder their opportunities to provide an income for their children, or share in their care, which is also very important. Will he reconsider that move?
Secondly, does he agree that the fines for late payment, which I understand go purely to the Treasury, should at least partly be offered to the family with care, who will have also suffered from the non-resident parent's late payments? Thirdly, will he tell us a little more about the powers and the tasks that he will ask the private sector to introduce? What accountability will there be? He did not say very much about that in his statement.
Fourthly, what assurance will he give that the information technology that he will introduce will work any better than that surrounding the fiascos of the new passport system, the new national insurance system and the system in post offices? Fifthly, what will the ombudsman be able to do about cases that are dealt with over the phone? It is my understanding that, at present, the ombudsman cannot consider phone calls as part of the evidence that he is prepared to take into account. If so much more is to be done by the CSA over the phone, the Secretary of State will have to address such a problem.
It is rumoured in the press that travel-to-work costs will now be properly taken into account. It is important that we should know a bit more about that.
Finally, why has the Secretary of State decided to shorten the time before the benefit penalties kick in? There are some very good cases where time is needed for the women concerned to come up with the relevant evidence. I should like to know a little bit more about that.
Mr. Darling: I shall deal with all the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although when he refers to "we on the Liberal Benches" I think that he uses the word "we" rather loosely. The others, presumably, are away on the leadership campaign. He has been left a somewhat lonely figure on the Benches. [Interruption.] Well, his seconder is there, so he is all right; his deposit is safe if nothing else.
Let me deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I know that it is his view, if not necessarily that of the entire Liberal Democrat party, that the CSA should be wound up and that we should return to the court system—because that is the only way, I suppose, that every case can be considered individually. Under the new system, the people who are required to use the Child Support Agency are those on income support and those on income-related jobseeker's allowance. Others will be able to use the courts; they will be able to opt into the CSA if they want to, but in many cases the courts will reach settlements that determine how much maintenance is paid.
However, it would not be possible to burden the courts with about 1 million cases without severe consequences to the entire justice system. Many of the children would be pensioners by the time that their maintenance was calculated. The court system could not cope 20 years ago and it would not be able to cope now. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is the only one who is actively advocating that course; I do not accept that argument.
440
The hon. Gentleman raised several detailed points. I believe that he opposes the stiffer penalties—including, possibly, imprisonment or fines—for people who persistently refuse to co-operate. That is not a new prospect. Such penalties are imposed in many cases in the criminal law. Of course, in such criminal cases one does not imprison or fine people at once, but when someone persistently refuses to co-operate, or lies to the Child Support Agency with a view to preventing money going to their children, there comes a point when we must say, "Enough is enough. The sanction will be visited upon you." Whether it is a fine or imprisonment is a matter for the courts. There is nothing new in that. Most people find it extraordinary that those powers do not already exist.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the private sector. As far as accountability is concerned, the chief executive of the CSA is responsible to me for everything that happens in the CSA, including anything that may be done on our behalf by private sector partners. We want to improve the way in which the CSA operates. Let me take an example. At the moment, the agency's record of collecting maintenance that is due is not very good. Instead of going to someone who owes tens of pounds, we wait until they owe us thousands of pounds, when it is much more difficult to get the money from them. Banks in this country and elsewhere have experience of far more effective collection of sums due. We should use that expertise.
The hon. Gentleman asked about IT. I readily agree that the Government's record on IT—I do not wish to make a political point, as we have as many problems as the previous Government had—has led us to believe that one should be very cautious before saying that a new computer system will work from day one. I am determined to ensure that before we start the new system, we know that the IT systems work, because much depends on that. I will ensure that that happens, but we now have funding to replace the IT system in the CSA and elsewhere in the DSS, and we intend to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from it.
I shall look at the powers that the hon. Gentleman mentions in relation to the ombudsman.
More and more work throughout the DSS, not just the CSA, will be done by phone in future. It is far more effective, far more accurate and far better for customers.
The costs of travel to work will not be taken into account. Under the new system, the absent father will pay 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of his take-home pay, depending on the number of children. We are moving away from all the exceptions and disregards in the previous system, because they were what bogged it down.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cooling off period in relation to a good cause. We are not changing the definition of good cause. Parents will still be able to show that there are reasons why a father should not be pursued. The cooling off period has been shortened to four weeks, but it can be extended if there is good reason for doing so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that we can now step up the pace, otherwise many right hon. and hon. Members will be disappointed. Let us have brief questions, please.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: In terms of responsibility for this mess, the figure of the absent parent

441
has now been joined by the absent-minded shadow Minister, given his version of history. However, this is a serious matter. Hundreds of thousands of children in Britain will spend all or some of their childhood away from one parent. It is my guess that family insecurity is now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get to the question."] I will get to the question. Family insecurity is probably as much a cause of poverty as economic insecurity.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that however we reform the process—I warmly welcome what he is saying today, not least about maintenance disregard for lone mothers—we need to win the public debate? We need to convince our people, including children at school, that if someone has a child, the child is for life, and that the financial maintenance of that child is the parent's responsibility. Will my right hon. Friend put some effort into winning the public debate as well as reforming the system?
Mr. Darling: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the culture is changed throughout the country. People, especially young people, must realise that if they help bring a child into this world, they are responsible for that child's well-being for the rest of that child's life. People must realise that that is a very important principle, and that is why we are introducing reforms. It would not be right to take the place of absent parents, but we can make sure that they fulfil their entire responsibilities.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State has set out many interesting changes but has put very little flesh on the bones in terms of who will be affected by these changes. Will he tell us how many parents with care responsibilities—they are mainly women—will receive less money every week as a result of the absent parent's having a reduced maintenance liability? Will he tell us also how many in the present case list he thinks might qualify to be the errant fathers whom he has described, who may find themselves criminals as a result of the proposed changes?
Mr. Darling: As I understood it, the shadow spokesman said that he welcomed the principle of what we are doing. Clearly he does not carry the whole of the Opposition with him on that.
The point of the reforms is to ensure that children benefit. The difficulty now is that many assessments are made but the money is not paid. About 40 per cent. of assessments are not paid in full. We are making changes to ensure that although in some instances the notional assessment is reduced, the amount of money that a mother receives is increased.
Mr. Chris Pond: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Many of my constituents, whose lives have been destroyed by the inadequacies and inefficiencies of the current system, will also welcome what he has to say. They will certainly welcome the disregard on the working families tax credit. It is important that we ensure that those parents on low incomes receive help.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in promoting his proposals he will propose others to encourage parenthood and family life? I have in mind particularly the
442
Government's policy on parental leave, which many of us would like to see paid. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to deal with shared care between the parents? I know that this is something that the Government wish to promote.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. He is right to say that the changes that I have announced today are not the only matters that we should consider. The directive on parental leave is also an important part of ensuring that parents can spend more time with their children.
My hon. Friend asked about shared care, which we want to encourage. We are making arrangements to ensure that if a child stays with another parent for one night a week, the amount of maintenance payable will be abated by one seventh—by two sevenths for two nights, and so on. That will avoid getting into ridiculous arguments with the agency about who was where on a Saturday night. We are banding days. Maintenance will be reduced by one seventh if a child stayed with the non-resident parent for between 52 and 103 nights, and so on further up the scale.
Secondly, we are ensuring that where there is equality of care, maintenance is still payable so that there is not a disincentive to enter into that arrangement. At the same time, there will be a reduction in the amount of maintenance paid by the absent parent, which is roughly equivalent to about half child benefit.
Mr. Peter Brooke: How many cases of access to the Inland Revenue as a last resort is the Secretary of State expecting?
Mr. Darling: That depends on how difficult people are. In an ideal world, there would be none. Unfortunately, some people are so determined not to pay what is due to their children—sometimes for wholly extraneous reasons and as part of another battle that they are fighting—that they will not co-operate. I find it extraordinary that Conservatives seem to be united in the belief that it is important to keep a person's affairs with the Inland Revenue away from another part of government that is simply trying to help that person's children and to avoid a situation in which the taxpayer, instead of the individual who has that responsibility, is paying to support the children.
Ms Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. Many people have long wanted a straightforward formula. Given the time that it will take to implement the proposals, what attention will my right hon. Friend give to transitional arrangements? As part of the changes to the CSA, will he make it possible for fathers to have a named child support officer to help them sort out what they must pay, so that they can do what is right by their children?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a matter of regret that it will take time to make the changes. Unfortunately, we could do nothing without changing the legislation, and there will have to be changes to the IT and so on. We are making changes in the meantime, and some of them will start next week.
We are bringing in more staff. Some 600 staff will be allocated to face-to-face interviews, which I think is what my hon. Friend has in mind. I have constituency cases in

443
which a parent cannot make head or tail of what has happened. Such parents will be able to sit down with a member of the agency's staff, go through the documents line by line and try to reach a resolution. We are also bringing some of the best people from the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency into the Child Support Agency, because the middle management of that agency needs to be tightened up. It is a relatively new agency and it lacks expertise in several areas. Those are some of the improvements that will be made. We also want people to make better use of the telephone.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it should be possible to ensure that an individual deals with one member of staff. It is entirely consistent with our philosophy for the ONE service agency that we launched this week that someone has a named member of staff to whom to go, to avoid the situation that is common in various organisations, where members of the public speak to someone on the telephone who has no recollection of ever having spoken to them previously. That must stop.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the changes. Many of us have sympathy with office staff who have been engaged hitherto, and we welcome the additional funding and support that will be given to the CSA. I welcome the fact that children are being put first; that abandoned mothers will be supported; and that fathers, especially those from Northern Ireland who skip over to Great Britain and sometimes to the continent to avoid all responsibility, will be pursued.
Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that when fraud is identified in the father's case from false returns—or in the case of the caring mother who is exploiting the situation—no expense will be spared, and the matter will not be pushed aside and written off because a prosecution would involve court costs? It is important to give confidence and to insist that the whole truth is presented by both parties to such disputes.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that where there is fraud, the agency will take prompt action. One of our problems is that more than 90 per cent. of the agency's time and effort goes into calculating liability, and only 10 per cent. into enforcement. Because the new formula will be simpler, more staff will be available to deal with cases such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will take powers to ensure that where someone has, for example, deliberately diverted his income to avoid his liabilities, that can be looked into, and if necessary referred to a tribunal to determine the matter. We want to ensure that every single child gets what he or she is entitled to—the right amount from his or her parent who, after all, has not just a moral but a legal obligation to look after his or her children.
Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he accept that threatening criminal charges and defining a criminal offence will make it less likely that men will want to cheat the system? Only a small number want to do so, but even that can cause serious problems. So that I can be comfortable with his remarks about a simple formula for identifying commitment, will he outline that formula once again? I am concerned about wives in second families.
444
Will their income, which is often—although not always—included in assessments, be included in the new assessments and the new formula defining commitment from fathers?
Mr. Darling: No, that income will not be taken into account, as I told the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts); he was not paying attention, which is why he was uncertain about it. The object of the exercise is to make the formula as simple as possible. The net income—the take-home pay—of the absent parent will be taken into account. We want to keep the departures and the exceptions to the absolute minimum, otherwise we will be back in the trouble that we were in in the first place.
We will take children in a second family into account. Relationships may end, perhaps leaving a couple of children, and the father or the mother may go into a new relationship and have another child. It is right to take all those children into account, and we will do that, but I repeat that we want to keep the system as simple as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend's point about deterrence. I find it quite extraordinary that Conservative Members do not understand that, throughout the criminal system, the principle of deterrence is very important and actually works.
Mr. David Curry: Although many parents want to evade their responsibilities, many others want only to find out where they stand within a reasonable time. My constituents have to deal with Belfast. It is difficult to get through on the phone and difficult to find the same person answering successive queries. Callers often get different stories from different people and years can elapse before matters are settled. Circumstances can change, which is not taken into account. If more reliance is to be placed on the telephone, will the Secretary of State ensure that people are able to gain rapid access to a known person who will always be at the end of the phone when necessary so that matters can be settled within a reasonable time?
Mr. Darling: I agree with almost everything the right hon. Gentleman has said, which is why we are changing the system. The problem just now is that the calculation is so complex that it is difficult for parents to understand how on earth the end result was reached. We all have constituents who have come to us with problems and we cannot work out what on earth the agency has done. That is why we are simplifying the whole process.
An advantage of the new system is that parents will be able to get a statement similar to a bank statement so that they can see what they have paid and what they are due. That is important. What is more, by being able to do those things quickly, we will avoid the build-up of huge levels of arrears, which lead to all sorts of difficulties.
We are investing £28 million more to improve the staff and staff retention. The CSA loses far too many staff and the result is that it is not common for the same person to deal with a case. The new money will help to address that problem. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to make far more use of the phone. With new technology, which banks now use, it is quite easy to ensure that calls coming in through a call centre are referred to the person dealing with a case. We are making those improvements. They will take time, but I hope that, by the time that we introduce the new system, the CSA

445
will be well on th way to becoming the sort of organisation that is taken for granted in almost every other sector.
Mr. Paul Goggins: I welcome the emphasis placed by my right hon. Friend on tackling child poverty. What estimate has he made of the number of children and families who will be better off as a result of the introduction of the disregards on income support and the working families tax credit?
Mr. Darling: We estimate that, overall, about 1 million children will be better off. We think that about 250,000 will be better off as a result of the disregard. Others will be better off as a result of the working families tax credit. Overall, the effect of everything we are doing will mean that more and more children gain. About 120,000 will gain through the working families tax credit. Others will gain because the current cash compliance is some 60 per cent.; we think that we can raise it to 80 per cent., which will mean that 300,000 children will get what they are due.
Mr. Charles Wardle: The theory of the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be welcomed, but is not one of the pitfalls for the CSA the huge backlog of cases in which arrears are in dispute? How will that backlog be cleared, and will the new formula apply retrospectively to cases in that backlog?
Mr. Darling: No, the new formula will apply to new cases. It would be very difficult to apply it retrospectively, because all sorts of repayments would have to be made to people and that would almost guarantee that the new system collapsed within a few days of opening. Thus the new system applies to new cases. We shall then transfer existing cases to the new system in phases, once we are satisfied that the system is fully operational.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's general point about the backlog, we shall continue to pursue cases where maintenance is due, because it would be wrong to write off payments that people should have made to their children.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not important to recognise that there will be losers as well as gainers as a result of my right hon. Friend's proposal? The message that we must spell out is that the new system will be fairer, more workable and more acceptable. May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibilities of carry-over legislation? Might not this be an appropriate Bill to introduce sooner, so that the proposals can be implemented a few months earlier than if we had to wait for the new parliamentary Session?
Mr. Darling: On the latter point, my hon. Friend will be aware that virtually all my colleagues have a long list of Bills that they would like introduced under the new carry-over system. I hope that we can do more through that system because we could get a lot more legislation through the House, especially where there is broad agreement.
On the other point that my hon. Friend makes, it is important to bear it in mind that when a system is introduced that has a simpler formula, there will inevitably be cases where the amount to be paid, which
446
may be a theoretical amount, is less than at present. However, because of the changes, more cash will flow through the system and into the hands of the children. That is the advantage of the new system, which is why most people welcome what we are trying to do.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I certainly want the children to be the winners when it comes to maintenance, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that given that there will be winners and losers among those who pay, under the new system cases that are currently settled would need to be backdated to the date at which the new cases are being settled? Will not there be a delay between new cases coming on board under the new system and old cases being referred? Can he assure the House that the old cases will pay from the date of introduction of the new legislation and that the amount to be paid will be recalculated?
Mr. Darling: If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is asking whether somebody who transfers two years after the new system comes in will have his assessment backdated. I do not think that that would be possible. What I am desperate to avoid—I think that there is sympathy from some Conservative Members on this—is burdening the system as the CSA was burdened in 1993, with the result that it stopped working almost before it got going. I understand that many people who are currently toiling with the CSA, who want the system to work better, cannot wait for the new system to come in. We all share that sentiment, but if we try to rush it before the CSA is operating properly and without the new IT, and if we burden the CSA unduly, the system will collapse again. That would be good for nobody. The hon. Lady and I share the same view: we must be concerned about the children. If the CSA collapses, the losers will be the children, not us. That is why I want to phase in the new system and to make sure that it works.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he as astonished as I have been to hear not a hint of apology from the Opposition for the shambles that was left behind and the thousands of lives that have been ruined by the legislation as they left it?
In the case of an absent parent who has abandoned more than one family, how will the available finance be shared between those families?
Mr. Darling: If an absent parent had two separate children in different family units his liability would be 20 per cent., and it would divided between the two children. On my hon. Friend's first point, she may be astonished, but I am not.
Sir David Madel: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if there is a large second family, there will be flexibility in respect of what the father pays? If MPs have reason to believe that the CSA is acting carelessly or unreasonably, we should have the power to tell it to put a stop on the deduction of earnings order while the matter is carefully investigated. I am not asking for widespread cancellations: merely for a pause while the work is thoroughly and carefully carried out.

447
I have just stopped the CSA demanding £10,000 from a constituent. He had already paid £8,500, but it took God knows what to get that across to the agency.
Mr. Darling: That case shows why we need to improve the administration of the CSA. No one should be allowed to run up such debts before anything happens. I have also come across such cases. I am not sure that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that MPs should be given statutory powers to stop administrative action. That would have ramifications for other parts of government. It is tempting, but I am not sure that we would want such powers, because it would lay us open to a great deal of pressure.
I am determined to ensure that such problems are less likely to arise under the new system. The CSA has been told to develop a close working relationship with Members of Parliament—as the Benefits Agency does—so that if such problems arise they can be dealt with quickly. That is what MPs are there to do: if there is an injustice because of something that the Government are doing, MPs should be able to speak to the local agency to try to resolve matters. If an MP remains dissatisfied, he has every right to take the matter up with the appropriate Minister in my Department or with me.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We inherited a dreadful mess, and I understand why my right hon. Friend wants to proceed slowly. Will he tell us when all existing cases will transfer to the new system? I suspect that many people who read the newspapers tomorrow will think that these changes, of which I approve, will affect their lives sooner rather than later, whereas they will happen four, five or perhaps six years down the line.
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. To be blunt about it, these changes will not happen until towards the end of 2001 at the earliest. It is not possible to get the legislation through the House: even if there were all-party agreement, it would take some time. We must install the computer equipment, and we must make a number of changes within the CSA. I do not want to raise people's expectations falsely.
I have made it clear that the first people to be transferred will be the new cases. I then want, as quickly as is prudent, to transfer the existing case load on to the new CSA. As some people will see a difference in their assessment, we will allow their payments to be phased in. If someone's assessment has changed dramatically, it would be wrong to make him pay a massively increased amount the following day. Steps set out in the White Paper will allow those payments to be phased.
I want the changeover to be as smooth as possible, and to move at whatever speed is consistent with that. Despite people's frustrations about the system, they would not forgive us if we rushed it as happened in 1993, and to a certain extent in 1995, with the inevitable result that the whole system fell apart.
Mr. David Lidington: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the difficulties has been the inadequacy of civil court recovery procedures to get hold of the money that the agency has been seeking?
448
Does he have any specific proposals to strengthen or alter the recovery procedures of the civil courts, so that the agency will find it easier in the future to get hold of that money on behalf of children?
Mr. Darling: The agency has numerous remedies. The difficulty is that it does not always exercise them.
Mr. Willetts: Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position says, "Oh, absolutely". What on earth was he doing during the last six years of the Conservative Government? They had six years to sort this problem out, and it has yet again fallen to us to do so. We are sorting it out by diverting more staff to enforcing payments, so that we avoid the problem of money that we know is due not being collected.
We are not waiting for new legislation in order to do that. As I told the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), we are bringing in private sector expertise next week to ensure that we are as efficient as, for instance, banks in identifying customers who owe us tens of pounds rather than thousands of pounds. If we cannot persuade people to pay what is due voluntarily, we shall then be able to enforce the remedies that we have at our disposal.
Ms Jenny Jones: I, too, welcome these much-needed reforms. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as part of his proposed reform of the culture of the CSA, staff will be trained—or retrained—in effective communication skills? There is a danger that these good reforms will be weakened if staff cannot communicate properly with the public.
Mr. Darling: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I also want to try to slow down the rather large turnover. Many of our best people, having been trained, then leave—to the benefit of, usually, the financial services industry. We want to try to keep our good-quality staff.
I believe that, if we achieve the change in culture, the CSA will be a much more attractive place in which to work. Many of our staff have to put up with quite difficult people, and, through no fault of their own, have to operate systems that do not work. I agree, however, that it is important for us to employ good-quality staff who can communicate with the public.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The Green Paper rightly emphasised the need to protect the children of second families. There is no point in impoverishing one set of children at the expense of another. The paper set out two methods of calculation. One method involved the netting of income according to the number of children in the second family, while the other involved the netting of income according to the combined number of the two sets of children. Did the Government finally decide which calculation was the more reasonable?
Mr. Darling: Yes, we did. Our conclusion is set out in the White Paper. We decided on the first option. When a person has a second family, we take the children of the second family into account. We deduct the same percentage as we would for the other set of children. For

449
example, if someone has two children in the first family and three in the second, we take 20 per cent. of that person's net income for the first family and then, off the balance, 25 per cent., which is then given in respect of the other three children.
The tables in the annexe to the White Paper make it very easy to calculate exactly how much people will have to pay, and how much the deductions are for first and second families. The White Paper is well worth a read.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on. I suspect that hon. Members will have other opportunities to pursue this matter.

Business of the House
1.33 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 5 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 6 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate described by the Opposition as "Crisis in the dairy industry", followed by a debate entitled "Choice and diversity in education". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 9 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
As I am sure the House will understand, some uncertainty remains about the business for the week commencing 12 July. The business will, however, include:
MONDAY 12 JULY—Estimates day [2nd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of schools in England, followed by a debate on transport policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 16 JULY—There will be a debate on the policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 7 July, there will be a debate on the 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget Overview and the Agenda 2000 inter-institutional agreement. That debate will be in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 7 July 1999:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: SEC(99) 600: 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget; COM(99) 200: 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget; 7698/99: Agenda 2000: Institutional Agreement. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 34-xxi and xxiv (1998-99).]
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business—which is clearly an important factor at this time—it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Tuesday 27 July, and return on Tuesday 19 October.
Sir George Young: I thank the right hon. Lady for next week's business and a framework for business for the following week.
The right hon. Lady will have heard of the sad death of one of her predecessors as Leader of the House: Lord Whitelaw. We all send our sympathy to Lady Whitelaw and the family. Willie Whitelaw was a brave, loyal, decent, wise and honourable man. His popularity and the respect in which he was held went way beyond my party:

451
it extended to all parts of the House and, indeed, to the wider public, who liked and trusted him and who will miss him, as we do.
We understand all the difficulties about Northern Ireland. I assume that that is the uncertainty to which the right hon. Lady referred in relation to the week after next, but what arrangements has she in mind to keep the House informed about the important discussions that have been and, indeed, still are taking place?
The right hon. Lady announced a debate on the dairy industry. Would not that debate be informed by the publication of the Milk Marque report, which has been available for some time? As she will have heard, there is growing frustration at its non-publication. Will she seek to make it available before that debate?
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges reported on the premature disclosure of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report and recommended that an hon. Member should be suspended. When will the House debate that report and recommendation? Will the Foreign Secretary, whose arguments were rejected by the Committee, take part in that debate to address what was said about him, his advisers and civil servants?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, before the House rises, we shall have a debate on economic matters, and that the much postponed debate on the royal commission on long-term care will also take place before then?
We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for the dates of the summer recess, but when will she be able to announce the date of the state opening?
Mrs. Beckett: I join the right hon. Gentleman and Members on both sides of the House in asking for our sympathy to be conveyed to Lady Whitelaw. Lord Whitelaw was liked, respected and admired in all quarters of the House. He was a most distinguished Leader of the House—that was only part of a distinguished career. I am certain that he will be widely missed throughout the House.
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: the uncertainty to which I referred is events in Ireland, where we cannot clearly anticipate what the needs of the House may be. I am not able to give him any more firm information at present. The Government are, of course, mindful of the need to keep the House informed and we will do our utmost to do so. Any arrangements involved will be discussed through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to ensure the release of the former Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on milk marketing. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday. He has already drawn the interest in the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I will also do so. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that these matters are complex and difficult, and that it is only right that the report should be published when proper consideration of its recommendations has been undertaken.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me when the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges would be discussed. A motion will be tabled at the appropriate time, in accordance with the terms of the Committee's
452
recommendations. I cannot give him a time for that at this moment, but I assure him that we are looking for such a time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that there would be a debate on economic matters. I certainly hope to be able to secure one before the recess. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on long-term care before the summer recess, but I do not rule it out later in the Session.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I associate myself fully with the remarks about Willie Whitelaw. He was a great parliamentarian and a great believer in this place above all.
I remind my right hon. Friend that today is the day of the transfer of functions to both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. We have not had an opportunity to debate how we will handle business in the House of Commons relating to Wales and Scotland. There is an interim report by the Select Committee on Procedure. It is urgent that we debate it, so that the House can clarify hon. Members' position in relation to Welsh and Scottish business. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make time available as soon as possible, so that we may debate and come to a decision on those matters?
Mrs. Beckett: I am very aware of the interest that my right hon. Friend has long taken in these matters. We are, of course, aware of the Procedure Committee's report, but I cannot undertake to find time for a very early debate on it. As he will be aware, the situation is developing—the Scottish Parliament, for example, is being opened only today. The Government will respond to the Procedure Committee's report in due course, but I cannot find time in the immediate future for a debate on it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of my colleagues, I endorse what has been said about Willie Whitelaw—with whom, as a very new Member, 1 had the pleasure of working in the 1974 Parliament. I had the greatest respect for his talents in this place.
I also endorse the statement that we should have early information on the outcome of the MMC report on the milk retailing industry. May we have an undertaking that a Department of Trade and Industry Minister will participate in Wednesday's debate—so that, even if we do not have the Government's final determination, the Minister might at least hear the very real concerns of all hon. Members representing dairy farmers about the very long delay in reaching a decision?
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to this morning's judgment in the case of the Department of Health v. Aldridge, concerning specialist cheese production. It raises some very important issues. Will the Secretary of State for Health come before the House to make an early statement on the role of the Food Safety Act 1990, and the emergency control orders deriving from it, in driving out—I do not exaggerate; that will happen if the situation is allowed to get out of control—some of the United Kingdom's most important specialist food producers?
Reports today state that the chaos in the passport office may have been caused partly by preparations to ensure 2000 compliance. If it is true that the millennium bug is part of the cause of the chaos, which is causing so much

453
misery to our constituents, will the right hon. Lady and her team please consider the matter urgently and make it the subject of an early report to the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I should first like to use this opportunity to reply to the final question asked by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), on the date of the state opening. I cannot do so now, but hope to do so in the not too distant future. I shall do so as soon as I can.
I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) confirm what has been said on both sides of the House about the late Lord Whitelaw.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a DTI Minister would participate in next Wednesday's debate. I cannot give him that undertaking. Although the report is a very important matter, the aspects of it that are for the DTI are on competition policy, not on other policy. However, as I told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I undertake to draw the concerns expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to ask him whether it would be possible for a DTI Minister to attend the debate. I cannot say now whether it will be possible to arrange that, as Ministers have many commitments.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about cheese production. Although I am aware of the concern, as he rightly said the judgment has only just been given. I cannot anticipate whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will wish to make a statement on the matter, but I shall certainly draw the request to his attention.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me—very understandably, after the press reports—whether there is any truth in suggestions that the problems in the passport office have some relationship with the millennium bug. I am assured that the millennium bug has no relationship to the problems at all. The new system was developed to introduce a more secure digital passport, and has no connection in any way, shape or form with the millennium bug. Indeed, the passport office has been processing dates beyond 2000 for many years—as hon. Members will readily appreciate when they realise that passports have a 10-year validity. Such reports are, therefore, yet another piece of scaremongering by people who should know better.
Mr. Tony McNulty: I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the annual debate on policing in London, which is to take place on 16 July. Although I know that she cannot control events, will she at least try to ensure that that Adjournment debate is not interrupted by a statement at 11 am, as such statements tend to get in the way of things on Fridays? Will she find out through the usual channels who will be speaking for the Conservatives, given that the shadow Home Secretary is from Kent and their London spokesperson is apparently from Oxfordshire?
Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to say that I have no responsibility for what the Conservatives choose to do about these matters, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's remarks will have been taken on board. I shall certainly bear in mind what he said about the need to avoid a statement during the debate on policing
454
in London. I am well aware that hon. Members consider it to be an important debate for which they have long sought a suitable day. We are trying to avoid statements on Fridays, but my hon. Friend and the House will understand that it is not always possible. Indeed, sometimes it is for the convenience of the House.
Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Lady will know of my interest in the DTI response to the Milk Marque report. I do not apologise for returning to the issue as it is so vital to the dairy industry and agriculture in general. The right hon. Lady said that it was necessary for the Government to consider fully the MMC report. The normal process is that the Government are given 10 weeks to reach a decision and to report to the House. The report has been with the DTI for 18 weeks, and I believe that the House and the industry have the right to expect the report to be published before the debate next week. Will the right hon. Lady press that forward?
Mrs. Beckett: As I have said, I will draw the concern that has been expressed in the House to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has given a commitment that he will seek to publish the report before the summer recess. Whether he can publish it before next week, however, is another matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is normal process that such reports are published after 10 weeks. Having been the relevant Secretary of State, I am not aware of any such rule. Indeed, I inherited a substantial number of reports that had been around for a lot longer than that. Just before the general election, my predecessor informed me that a number of extraordinarily difficult and sensitive issues had been lying on his desk for a number of weeks, and that he proposed to leave them to his successor.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does not today's news that the majority of the drugs that were donated to Kosovo refugees were either useless or lethal mean that we need an urgent debate on the subject? It follows the case of 11 pregnant Lithuanian women who were temporarily blinded by a drug that had been donated to their country. The instructions were in English only and the drug was intended for animals. Two hundred children in Haiti and Nigeria died after taking donated paracetamol which had been mixed with a toxic substance in the donor country. Should we not investigate the reasons why so many companies gain tax advantages by donating to charities overseas, and avoid the cost of disposing of useless and unwanted drugs in tips at home? Such companies are cynically dumping their problems on people in Kosovo and other third world areas in order to increase their profits.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest and concern in these matters. The whole House will share his anxiety about the reports that we have heard today. He has rightly identified the fact that the problem is widespread and complex, and does not necessarily involve the United Kingdom. Of course, that does not mean that it is not a matter than hon. Members might want to discuss and pursue, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Recalling the late Lord Whitelaw's

455
legendary charge about some politicians going around whipping up apathy, is it really in the Government's interest that their inactivity on long-term care should begin to seem like indecision?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course we are not inactive. My right hon. Friends are giving the most careful and thorough consideration to the far-reaching proposals from the royal commission. The right hon. Gentleman and the whole House would wish the Government to undertake such consideration before producing proposals and ideas for discussion. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right. The remark about stirring up apathy is only one of many memorable observations which we all recall with affection from Lord Whitelaw.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the Home Office's disgraceful decision to grant draconian new powers to the police to levy spot fines on cyclists, a decision taken without proper consultation and with no debate in the House? Is she aware that Home Office figures show cyclists to be a negligible risk to pedestrians in comparison with the risks posed to pedestrians and cyclists by illegal parking and bad driving? Does she agree that it would be quite unacceptable if the police were to spend valuable time and resources chasing children on bicycles while illegal parking and driving were widely ignored?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern for cyclists, and I appreciate that responsible cyclists have a right to proper treatment by the police and by everyone else. However, my hon. Friend, as a keen defender of cyclists, will condemn those cyclists who are irresponsible and inconsiderate and who are a danger to others, including pedestrians. A public consultation exercise was held before the order was introduced, and a notice cannot be issued to anyone under 16. We hope that the provisions will improve public safety without causing greater disadvantage to cyclists.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I, too, pay tribute to Lord Whitelaw. He was a genial man, and one of the few Cabinet Ministers prepared to apologise publicly for his mistakes, as we heard some time ago during a debate at a Conservative party conference.
Can the Leader of the House assure us that General John de Chastelain's reports will be published, and that hon. Members may have copies before any further debate is held on Northern Ireland? I ask for the reports in the light of an article in today's Evening Standard, which states that Sinead O'Connor, from whom I differ politically and theologically, has refused to appear at the West Belfast festival. She had intended to speak against victimisation and beatings, but her life has been threatened by the IRA. She has pulled out of the festival because she does not want to be a propagandist.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about Lord Whitelaw.
I take heed of the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland his request for
456
publication of General de Chastelain's report. We all hope that the difficult and delicate issues to which he has referred may be resolved later today.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on institutional reform in the European Union, in which we might highlight links between the British Conservative party and the Italian neo-fascists? We could also raise the fact that a Conservative Commissioner has taken a post with a Spanish telecommunications company while still serving as a Commissioner. May we have an opportunity to impress on the institutions of the EU the need for integrity in public life?
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise my hon. Friend's long interest and expertise in European matters. I am aware of the embarrassing discussions held by the Conservatives in their attempts to find—somewhere in the European Parliament—a comfortable home that will satisfy the different wings of their party. They appear to have settled for being half in and half out of the European People's party, but I suspect that they will find that as uncomfortable as sitting on the fence usually is.
Whatever the origins or political party of the retiring Commissioner, the matter raised by my hon. Friend is a matter for the European authorities. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and it may well be felt that there should be rules, such as those that apply here, about how such matters should be handled. If such steps are allowed by the contracts under which European Commissioners serve, as appears to be the case, my hon. Friend will be aware that those contracts were not negotiated by us.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When will the concordats between this place and the National Assembly for Wales be produced? The right hon. Lady referred to the opening of the Scottish Parliament today. The vesting powers have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, but they will be hampered because the concordats have not been produced. Nobody in this place or in the National Assembly for Wales has seen any of them. Without them, the place cannot function. When can we reasonably expect to debate this issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot offer time for a debate on the issue in the near future. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is intended to produce concordats, and I will draw his wish for them to be produced speedily to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Welsh questions will be held on Wednesday, and the hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Angela Smith: Many of us welcomed the Government's announcement yesterday that they would provide more than £6 million to campaign against domestic violence and to tackle violence against women. However, may I press my right hon. Friend for an early debate on the issue of domestic violence? Throughout the country, a number of organisations that already provide services to women are facing financial difficulties, largely as a result of the withdrawal of funds by health authorities. Can we discuss this matter in the House to

457
look at how we can mesh together the new initiative "Living Without Fear" with the real problems that are facing our constituents and those organisations?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend, and the welcome that she has given for the document and for the proposals to support the helpline will be shared across the House. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but my hon. Friend will know that there will be opportunities in various pre-recess debates where she may seek to raise the matter.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady will know that, earlier this week, an important and thought-provoking report was published—namely, the final report of the urban task force, chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside, entitled "Towards an Urban Renaissance." As these issues raise vital matters of concern not only for people who live in cities and towns, but for those who live in the countryside, will the right hon. Lady look favourably upon an early opportunity—even if it is not before the summer recess—for a full-scale debate on this important issue?
Mrs. Beckett: It is one of the issues that I will bear in mind when I look at requests for future debates. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a full-scale debate on the matter in the near future. In fact, we had such a debate fairly recently, although I recognise that it perhaps preceded the publication of the report. The hon. Gentleman might consider talking to his right hon. Friends, who get Opposition time.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend make time for an early debate on our progress in reforming the national lottery so that we can consider the launch today of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—the excellent national fund for talent? Such a debate would allow the House to congratulate a three-way partnership of Harrow council, Harrow arts council and Harrow heritage trust on successfully completing phase 1 of a £1.75 million lottery bid to refurbish Headstone manor, a quite delightful 13th century moated manor house in my constituency.
Mrs. Beckett: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the launch of NESTA, and I am delighted to hear of the successful moves in the Harrow partnership. It sounds like a delightful project, and I get the impression that my hon. Friend is extending a welcome to Members of Parliament to go and see what is being done. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but I am confident that my hon. Friend will continue to use his ingenuity to raise the matter.
Mr. David Maclean: On behalf of all my constituents and all the people of Cumbria, may I take this early opportunity to pay a tribute to my predecessor, Willie Whitelaw? I followed in his footsteps, but I do not think that any man could ever aspire to fill his shoes. Today, not only has his family lost a devoted family man, Cumbria its finest ambassador and the Conservative party a true and loyal friend, but the nation has lost a great statesman.
458
On a business point, will the right hon. Lady please consider holding a debate, at an early opportunity, on how we handle Scottish and Welsh matters?
Mrs. Beckett: No doubt, there will a number of opportunities to consider how we handle Scottish and Welsh matters. There is, of course, a report from the Procedure Committee, to which the Government are considering their response. I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter, but I shall lodge the right hon. Gentleman's request with others on the same issue.
Mr. James Gray: The right hon. Lady will remember that, during Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister responded to questions on the passport office from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister said:
"Today's figures show that the queues are getting shorter."
He said later:
"I am assured that, by 11.30 this morning, the queues had been completely cleared."—[Official Report, 30 June 1999; Vol. 334, c. 341–42.]
Those two statements are demonstrably incorrect. Home Office officials advise that the number queueing has now reached a record high of 565,536 and rising. On television last night, the Home Secretary was shown touring the queues that, only a few hours earlier, his right hon. Friend said had completely disappeared.
In accordance with the code of practice for Ministers, has the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Leader of the House for time to make a personal statement apologising to the House and to the nation for those substantially misleading remarks?
Mrs. Beckett: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is simply making a point; I cannot believe that he is making a serious request. There may well be a simple, practical reason why queues have reappeared today: on hearing that the queues had substantially diminished, people may have been encouraged to come along to the passport office.
Mr. David Heath: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady's deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, for telling me on Monday that he and the right hon. Lady carefully consider all early-day motions tabled during the week before delivering the business statement. Does the right hon. Lady recall having looked at early-day motion 455, on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque, which I tabled on 19 March?
[That this House notes the extreme difficulties experienced by many in the dairy sector; further notes that these difficulties are being exacerbated by the delay in publication and failure to reach a decision on the outcome of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the milk industry; believes that further indecision on the part of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is damaging the industry; regrets the entirely inadequate reply given by the Leader of the House on this subject to the honourable Member for North Cornwall on 18th March, Official Report, column 1264; and

459
accordingly calls upon the Secretary of State to publish the report and to make a statement to the House forthwith.]
Did the right hon. Lady bring that early-day motion to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is quite extraordinary that, four months later, we are still awaiting a response. It is not simply a dry matter of competition; it is a matter that affects all the dairy farmers in my constituency and all those working in milk-processing plants in my constituency, of which there are a great number. Will she give us an assurance that the report will be published before the summer recess, and that we will have a chance to discuss it on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman either of those assurances. As I have already made plain, we have drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the concerns that have been expressed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not saying that it is merely a matter of dry competition. Competition responsibilities are serious ones. The Secretary of State is required to act in a quasi judicial role; that means taking those responsibilities with extreme care and seriousness.
I do, of course, understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that they want the report to be published as soon as possible. However, the hon. Gentleman will realise that my right hon. Friend has statutory responsibilities in those matters.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Before the next Government reshuffle, may we have a debate on the processes of government? Has the right hon. Lady had the chance to read the excellent article in today's Evening Standard entitled, "How Prescott and his team took transport for a spin"? Is she aware—or does she deny—that the advisers to the Deputy Prime Minister brief against the Prime Minister? Is she aware that the advisers to the Deputy Prime Minister refer to the Prime Minister's advisers as teenyboppers? Does she not think that, far from being joined-up Government, that is interdepartmental warfare of the worst and most destructive kind?
Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased to say that I have not seen the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As for the notion that we should base a Commons debate on it, given the title cited by the hon. Gentleman, it sounds as though it is a less than impartial piece of reporting. Having had some recent experience myself of press reporting that was literally a piece of fiction from start to finish, I do not take it very seriously.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Welsh Assembly plans to report on a proposed lifting of the beef on the bone ban before it rises for its recess? As the majority of Members elected to that Assembly promised in their election manifesto to vote for the lifting of the ban, will the right hon. Lady give me some advice? What is the position of my constituents living right on the Welsh border if they go over the border, buy beef on the bone in Wales and bring it back? The question also applies to innocent travellers from the south of England, who might pass
460
through in their caravans. May we have a clear statement on the position of those living in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom if they commit an act that is legal in one part of the United Kingdom, but prohibited in the three remaining parts?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, but it is based on a decision that has yet to be made by the Welsh Assembly, and I do not propose to anticipate that decision.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have an early statement from the Home Secretary to clarify Government proposals to resolve the escalating passport crisis? Is the right hon. Lady aware that my constituent Sarah Crisp currently intends to go on honeymoon with her husband-to-be Jonathan Breaks on 7 August; that she applied for her passport in May; that the cheque has been banked; but that she has received no communication to reassure her that her application will soon be processed? Is she aware that, in responding to the debate the other night, Ministers said only that they would move heaven and earth to ensure that people received their passports in time, but that they did not give a categoric pledge that people would receive their passports in time? May we have a statement to enable such a pledge to be made?
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady take account of the genuine and widespread concern that, although Ministers are saying that the passport in person charge will be waived—[Interruption.] No, I do not need to hesitate when asking my questions, unlike the Under-Secretary of State for Defence when he responds to debates.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking rather a long time. Will he put his question now, briefly?
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for your guidance Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Can the Leader of the House guarantee that, if people have to make an application in person and incur travelling costs in the process, they will be reimbursed for those costs?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear in the House, Ministers are doing everything possible to make sure that the problems experienced in the Passport Agency are resolved, and they are extremely mindful of the difficulties that people are experiencing. Any Minister who gave a guarantee that there would never be a mistake in his Department's handling of any issue would be a less than wise Minister, but Ministers are doing all they can to resolve the difficulties.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House to resolve an apparent contradiction between two answers he gave to questions about whether the Security Service is or is not continuing to monitor subversion? On 21 June at column 783, the right hon. Gentleman cast doubt on my assertion that the Security Service was no longer monitoring subversion, but in a written answer yesterday, he asserted that what was said in his Department's booklet about MI5 was still valid—

461
namely, that the Security Service is currently undertaking no investigations into subversion. In view of the failure of intelligence about the riot in the City, which the Home Secretary acknowledged was thought out in advance in a conspiratorial way, is it not important that the House knows whether MI5 is still doing its job in that vital respect?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not studied closely the two answers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it seems possible to me that there is no contradiction between them. If I heard him correctly, one answer is that there are no current operations, which is not the same as saying that the Department has given up the role entirely. Although I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate to clarify the matter, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there is confusion, he may find that dropping a line to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a fruitful way of proceeding.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the long-standing and continued hostility of the Spanish Government towards Gibraltar, and of the way in which the Government steadfastly refused to accept amendments to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 to give Gibraltarians the right to vote in the recent European elections. She is, perhaps, not aware that her Government are now stalling on the issue of a banking passport to Gibraltar, which will, of course,
462
seriously affect the colony's economy. Will she, therefore, grant the House the early opportunity of a debate on Gibraltar so that we can discuss all those matters and more besides, which are published in the excellent report of the Foreign Affairs Committee?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future. I am aware of the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, and I know that the report is being studied carefully and there will be a Government response in due course. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that Foreign Office questions will be tabled on Tuesday, and he might seek to get the matter on to the Order Paper by that means.

Point of Order
2.11 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred to a Commissioner as being a Conservative. I should like the House to know, for the record, that Commissioner Bangemann is a Liberal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Business of the House (Statutory Instruments)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, if a Statutory Instrument or Statutory Instruments relating to a Northern Ireland matter be laid before the House this day, a Minister of the Crown may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, make without notice a Motion or Motions for the approval of the said Instrument or Instruments at the sitting this day.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.12 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak to the motion. I can understand one reason why it was tabled. However, in business questions, in response to a question about beef on the bone, the Leader of the House suggested that, because no decision had been made about that, she would make no assumptions. I was taught always to be very careful about conditional sentences, and the motion is conditional. Many years ago, a professor told me that, if a cow had a long enough tail, it would reach the moon. He stressed the word, "if".
I have had no instructions from Belfast, but I am mindful of a report on Sky Television on Tuesday evening, when Adam Boulton said that Northern Ireland questions would be asked in the House the next day, and English, Scottish and Welsh Members would participate but all the Northern Ireland Members were in the Castle buildings in Belfast. You and the House will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that five Northern Ireland Members were present yesterday, seeking to handle that business. However, if a statutory instrument on a Northern Ireland matter were to come before the House today, it is doubtful, because of the events in Belfast, that anyone from Northern Ireland would be present in the Chamber. In the light of the continuing discussions, I should have thought that it would be wiser to leave such business until another day.
2.13 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I simply say to him that this is a classic example of an enabling motion. By moving it, the Government do not commit ourselves or the House to further action but, if we do not move it, we will be unable to take action if it is requested. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that, if an agreement were to be reached, the House would want to proceed in that manner, and unless we move the motion, we will not be in a position to do so.
Question put and agreed to.

Armed Forces Personnel
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1998–99, on the Strategic Defence Review: Territorial Army Restructuring (HC 70), and the Government's Response thereto (HC 417). Sixth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1998–99, War Pensions Agency Business Plan 1999–2000 (HC 377).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.14 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): I am very pleased to open this debate about people in defence. At Defence questions last week, I did not have the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to the Opposition Front Bench. I take this opportunity to do so. I hope that he has an enjoyable time as an Opposition spokesman and that he enjoys longevity in opposition, so that he can be completely fulfilled in his role.
I am sure that the House will agree that the men and women of our armed forces, and those who support them, are a tremendous national asset. The people who make up our armed forces make an enormous contribution to Britain's place in the world. I want this afternoon to pay tribute to the dedication, professionalism and commitment of all who serve in our armed forces. We have long known about those qualities. In the past 14 weeks in the Balkans, our forces have demonstrated them to people not only in this country but worldwide. I have every confidence that our forces will continue to display those qualities in any task that we set them in future.
We all know the danger that is involved in the tasks that our forces are currently carrying out in the Balkans. I know that the whole House will want to join me in sending condolences to the loved ones of Lieutenant Evans and Sergeant Balaram, the two Gurkhas who were killed—helping others—in the tragic accident in Kosovo last week.
When we announced the results of our strategic defence review last year, we stated our belief that, as a leading member of the international community and a trading nation, we have a responsibility to be involved on the world stage. That is why we continue to have worldwide interests, worldwide responsibilities and worldwide influence. The British people want our diplomatic and military activities on the world stage to pursue not only what is in our direct interest but what is right. Those are the objectives of this Government.
Recently, of course, the focus has been on Kosovo. The air campaign there was an outstanding success for the alliance as a whole and for the UK. Credit is due to all those involved, but particularly to the RAF pilots who put their lives at risk day and night in the cause of humanity and who flew some 10 per cent. of the total strike sorties flown by NATO. The focus has now turned to operations on the ground in Kosovo. We have some 8,500 troops in Kosovo, with a further 2,200 in Macedonia. The speed at which they were deployed will stand as a lasting tribute to the efficiency and professionalism of all those involved. The fact that our armed forces were the first into Kosovo in significant numbers demonstrates that, if there is a job to be done, they will not shy away from doing it.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Minister has just commented on the remarkable achievement of our forces

465
in moving so quickly into Kosovo. Will he therefore tell the House why he is breaking up Fifth Airborne Brigade—the only brigade headquarters capable of mounting an operation at seven days' notice—and merging it with a lower-readiness formation?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes that we are making aim to modernise our armed forces and to put them in a position where they can deploy in a ready and usable manner. That is why that change has been made. We have had exchanges on the details of that change on many occasions in Committee and in the House.
Our troops in Kosovo are involved in a variety of tasks, but the dangers have not deterred the colleagues of Lieutenant Evans and Sergeant Balaram in any way. Indeed, for many, it has made them even more determined, and I have no doubt that their tasks will be carried out with the same level of commitment and the skill that their Air Force colleagues demonstrated. Our troops are helping, in very difficult conditions, to create an environment where all people, whatever their ethnic background, can live together in safety and peace. That is a task for which the abilities of the UK's armed forces are second to none.
Our forces are engaged in many other places across the globe. At the last count, there were almost 30 separate deployments of British forces. More than 63,000 men and women are undertaking tasks in locations ranging from Latvia to South Africa, and from Sierra Leone to Singapore.
Examples of those tasks include the five military personnel in Romania who are helping the country to draw up its new defence strategy and run training courses, and the eight-person military advisory training team in Sierra Leone. I can announce today that we are sending two military liaison officers to the United Nations mission in East Timor. They will form part of the continued deployment of civilian police officers and military personnel who are being sent to East Timor to assist the ballot on the future of the island in August that is being organised by the UN. Such deployments show the breadth and width of the tasks that are carried out by our armed forces in their numerous postings all over the world.
Mr. Bob Russell: Having read out the list of countries, does the Minister accept that the British Army is suffering severe overstretch?
Mr. Henderson: I am coming to the issue of overstretch a little more quickly than the hon. Gentleman might have expected.
I accept that overstretch is a major problem facing the armed forces. They recognise that it cannot be solved overnight, as I hope does the House. Ultimately, overstretch can be addressed only by a long-term strategy. That strategy must address the level of our commitments and the way in which we meet them.
As always, we are assessing our level of commitment. I cannot predict political events in the Balkans any more than anyone else. I do not know for how long we will have a commitment in the Balkans, but we will be there for as long as is necessary to complete the task. I anticipate, however, that others will be making a telling contribution. NATO is reviewing the level of troops in
466
Bosnia. We clearly want to reduce our force levels when appropriate; we of course review those levels very regularly.
Mr. Brian Cotter: I am pleased that the Minister has referred to Lieutenant Evans, whom he may know was a constituent of mine. The Minister may also know that I referred last week in business questions to the very sad circumstances of Lieutenant Evans's death, and secured a commitment from the Leader of the House that the Minister would in this debate address my serious concerns about the security and safety of personnel, and about the procedures being put in hand to ensure that everything possible is done to protect military personnel and civilians.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify for the hon. Gentleman that the safety of all our troops has been paramount in all our calculations over the past 14 weeks, and will continue to be so. All practical steps possible to secure maximum safety will be taken.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Before responding to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), the Minister talked about the uncertainties over the withdrawal from Kosovo. Is he aware that, in Question Time last week, the Defence Secretary said that he expected "a significant reduction" in troop numbers "after about six months"? That seems to be inconsistent with what the Minister has just said. On what assumptions did the Secretary of State make such a statement?
Mr. Henderson: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, anybody else who might be listening to this debate—that the Defence Secretary said that he would hope to be able to reduce our numbers. Many discussions are taking place with our NATO partners—and with some countries outside NATO on how they might make a contribution. Several have said that they want to make a contribution. As they are able to move their troops to the front line, we will be allowed to pull back some of ours for roulement and recuperation. That is what the Secretary of State said, and that is what I believe will happen.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Henderson: I cannot resist the pleasure of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Is the Minister aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on the back of his comments on overstretch will be studied very carefully? The Secretary of State indicated a six-month deadline—he is talking about looking to remove troops from the commitment—yet, just now, the Minister said that he did not know how long the commitment would last. The issue of overstretch, particularly pressure on troop numbers in Bosnia, is hugely affected by such decisions. I want the Minister to be clear: what are the criteria that will enable the Secretary of State to order the withdrawal of troops from Kosovo other than that already alluded to?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has failed to draw a distinction. I do not know how long there will be

467
a need for military involvement in the Balkans. I cannot predict that any better than anyone else. We have said that we will make the necessary provision, together with others, to meet our responsibilities on the commitment. In doing so, there is the question of how and what resources will be brought to bear.
Discussions with NATO partners are taking place, and it is known publicly that many non-NATO countries want to make a contribution. As such countries make a greater contribution, it will allow us to reduce the level of troops. Initially, we would be replacing troops already in the region with others who are ready to move into the theatre. I believe that, and I am confident that, other nations will be prepared to carry more of a responsibility than has been so up to now. We must all welcome that as a clear sign of the democratic world acknowledging that they must share responsibilities for such a task.
Mr. Eric Martlew: We are due to send extra troops to Bosnia next spring, but would not it be reasonable to divert those experienced forces to Kosovo as other nations take over our role in Bosnia?
Mr. Henderson: One of the reasons why we want six deployable brigades under the strategic defence review is that it will enable us better to meet such commitments. There are questions of commitment generally in Kosovo and of who will meet the commitment in Bosnia. Both issues will affect the number of troops that are required in total in both Kosovo and Bosnia. The supply of those troops is a separate question. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), other NATO nations and others are increasingly prepared to contribute to such a commitment
Mr. Tom King: The Minister knows that at the heart of our ability to sustain commitments is the retention of troops. Crucial to that is the attitude of their families. In the Balkans, there has been a significant increase in unaccompanied tour commitment. We do not have endless resources, but if we are to undertake more commitments, for what level of tour interval on unaccompanied tours is the Government planning?
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Many people who serve in the armed forces will be asking that question. The answer is that we are gearing ourselves to meet the commitments that we set out in the strategic defence review. We hope that several initiatives on recruitment will increase the number of our troops—I shall announce some of them this afternoon—and other measures on retention should help us to meet commitments.
Mr. King: What is the level?
Mr. Henderson: It was stated in the strategic defence review.
I want to move from the issue of commitment to the one of provision of resources.
I want to make an announcement about the Military Provost Guard Service. I can announce today that we are addressing one of the ways in which our armed forces can
468
get more people to the front line. Currently, 1,400 soldiers in the Army—the equivalent of two and a half infantry battalions—are undertaking guarding duties in the United Kingdom. Those duties are not generally relished by many of our young soldiers; they find them tedious and they want to be in the field with their units, putting into practice the skills that they have learned.
On 23 June, I announced that, following a two-year pilot scheme, I had decided, subject to consultation, to expand the Military Provost Guard Service to a strength of 600, replacing MOD police in carrying out armed guarding duties at 27 Army establishments throughout the country.
Military Provost Guard Service personnel are soldiers on local service engagements—that is to say that they are generally limited to serving within their travel-to-work area. However, in other respects, they are subject to the same service regulations and discipline as full engagement regular soldiers. They are part of the Army.
I now intend to develop the provost guard scheme further. We are already in the process of recruiting an additional 200 provost guards to replace soldiers who have completed their initial training but are required to undertake guarding duties at training establishments. That will release personnel for the front line.
Mr. Robert Key rose—
Mr. Henderson: Building on the success of the pilot scheme, I intend to expand the Military Provost Guard Service to replace the 1,400-odd full engagement regular soldiers currently employed on static guarding duties in the United Kingdom. The objective is to free up those soldiers from other tasks. The speed with which we are able to do so will depend on our success in recruiting this new kind of soldier. However, I am optimistic about our ability to do so.
This is an important initiative. I am determined that we should make maximum use of this new kind of soldier. It will help us to improve the quality of life for our regular soldiers. Those numbers represent about one sixth of the current shortfall of soldiers in the Army.
As we expect the provost guard scheme to appeal to a different sector of the work force from the rest of the Army, we shall be widening the pool from which we can recruit. We believe that those most likely to be attracted to the provost guards will be ex-regulars—those who enjoy the Army way of life but, now a little older, have had enough of overseas postings and are looking for greater stability and the opportunity to put down roots in one place.
I want to turn—
Mr. Mike Hancock rose—
Mr. Key rose—
Mr. Henderson: I give way to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
Mr. Hancock: I welcome the Minister's statement, and I am sure that most reasonable and sensible people would suggest that it is a step in the right direction. He mentioned the MOD police. I should be grateful if,

469
before he leaves the subject, he would expose to the House what plans he has for the future of the MOD police and say how he envisages their future role.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What does their federation say?
Mr. Henderson: I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who asks a question from a sedentary position, that I have had lengthy consultations with the federation on these matters. I want the MOD police to have a successful future and I am confident that they will have such a future carrying out the tasks for which they were intended.
I shall now discuss recruitment.
Mr. Key: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Henderson: I think that I have given way very generously. I am sure that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench will want to catch—
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister must give way to an Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Henderson: I am sure that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench will want to catch my attention later in my contribution, but I want to make some progress.
Our recruitment efforts have been increasingly satisfactory in the past 12 months. In the last financial year, recruitment figures were up 11 per cent. for the armed forces as a whole, in comparison with the previous year. That means that we recruited 26,000 people instead of 23,500. The Royal Navy's recruitment was up 4 per cent., the Army's up 10 per cent. and the RAF's up 20 per cent.
Our recruitment of women showed a steady improvement, increasing 3 per cent. between 1997–98 and 1998–99. Twenty per cent. of all officer recruits are now women. I believe that it compares very favourably with any other major organisation in the country, be it private or public sector, to have 20 per cent. of female middle management recruits.
In the black and Asian communities, recruitment doubled from 1 to 2 per cent. of recruits between 1997–98 and 1998–99, and we have made a good start towards achieving our target of 5 per cent. by the year 2002.
Those figures reinforce the Government's view that suitability and ability are not governed by colour, gender or social background.
It is never easy to know what motivates people to join the armed forces. I believe that it is a first-choice career, and obviously there are now more young people who believe that it is a challenging career. Young people recognise that they can learn essential skills, which put them in a position to pursue a civilian career later in life.
The armed forces have always strongly recruited on educational advancement. Black people in America have for many years improved their skills and made a more telling contribution to the American way of life by joining the armed forces. Their motto was,
"A way out and a way up".
470
I believe that, in Britain today, people from all backgrounds can improve their education by committing themselves to serving the nation in our forces. They can join up and get on. It will make them not only better-qualified soldiers but better-qualified citizens. Our learning forces initiative is designed to achieve that. We have committed £10 million extra to that initiative in the current financial year.
As the House will be aware, today, the Territorial Army changes formally to the new organisation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 17 November 1998. The new structure takes effect today and should be fully effective by April 2000. I am glad to say that the transition has been highly successful thus far.
I shall now discuss retention, which is crucial if we are not only to stabilise the overall figures in the armed forces, but to increase them to the levels that we believe are necessary and were stated in the strategic defence review. Obviously, if more people are recruited and retained and there is less overstretch, those who serve are more fulfilled and more contented, and therefore more likely to stay.
However, we are not there yet. We must take many more measures to make staying in the services more attractive. I believe that financial incentive is an important factor in retention.
Mr. John Burnett: I have previously raised in the Chamber the issue of conditions—especially those of Gurkha troops. We owe the Gurkhas a debt of honour that we can never repay. I am sure that the Minister will concede that, and I am sure that he will concede that, if Gurkha pensions were reviewed, it would go some way to help a country that is poor but very proud. Do the Government propose to review the pensions payable to Gurkha soldiers?
Mr. Henderson: I shall come to that issue in a little while, but first I want to deal with the question of financial incentive.
The pay settlement, which was not phased this year, was welcomed as a contribution to retention. I am considering whether different lengths of engagement for ranks in the Army would encourage retention and what might be the appropriate incentives to persuade people to sign up for longer.
We have recommended financial incentives for signallers to stay in the Army, and those recommendations have been put to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. We have introduced incentive schemes to persuade pilots to remain in post longer, which involves paying for their training for civilian licences.
Our pay settlement for doctors and dentists in the three services, at 4.5 per cent., is 1 per cent. above changes that were made in national health service rates, and is designed to help retain those essential staff.
I shall now deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). We very much appreciate and hugely value the contribution that is made by Gurkha soldiers to the tasks of the British Army. The death of Sergeant Balaram in Kosovo has raised the question of the provision of death-in-service payments and the pension arrangements for British Gurkhas.

471
I am examining the pensions and gratuities paid to British Gurkhas, which are regularly reviewed within the context of the tripartite agreement between Nepal, India and the United Kingdom. The agreement has proved to be flexible over the years. It provides the basis for Gurkha pensions. This is an important issue in general terms given the principles on which our armed forces are based and in the retention of our Gurkha soldiers, who we hugely value.
Mr. Brazier: Is the Minister able to confirm that the Department of Social Security and the War Pensions Agency will be involved? The real scandals are in the treatment of Gurkha personnel from the wartime era, some of whom receive almost nothing. Some of those people have medals. They come under the War Pensions Agency, not the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Henderson: I have been involved in assessing the background of Gurkha pensions over a long period. I have announced a new examination today, which will come on top of the assessment that has already taken place. It will involve all parties within government that have a contribution to make. I have not yet decided who will be on the committee, which I shall chair. I shall be making a decision on that very shortly once representations have been made.
Mr. Hancock rose—
Mr. Henderson: I cannot take interventions for ever, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hancock: I am grateful that there will be a review of pensions once Gurkhas have finished their service. Will the Minister review their status within the United Kingdom if, on retirement following service in the Army, they choose to remain here and take up other employment that involves working for the Government, rather than exposing them to the indignity of returning to Nepal to fight an endless struggle to get readmitted to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Henderson: I have said what I shall examine and I will not say any more than that. Members could put many hypothetical situations to me. It would not be fair for me to try to answer them without notice before I have examined all the various implications of these issues. I am not discounting anything as being unimportant. I want thoroughly to consider these matters once I have received appropriate advice.
I want to move on because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
Education is also important for retention. It enhances skills and I believe that, in future, it will be more and more valued by our armed forces. Young soldiers recognise that, when they leave service life and join civilian life, they must have skills. In addition to their military skills, I know that they recognise the importance of skills such as computer literacy and information technology. I was extremely impressed when I visited Albemarle barracks in Northumberland recently. I saw soldiers, who were primarily involved in dealing with
472
Phoenix, sitting before computer terminals, clearly delighted to be learning computer techniques and improving their computer literacy skills. They believe that those skills are important for their time in the services and that they will hold them in good stead in the future. That is an excellent example.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) talked about families, about which I want to say one or two things. One of the disincentives to retention is often a sense of separation from family life. I put a high priority on measures to bring families closer to their loved ones who serve. We have increased the allowance for free telephone calls for personnel deployed abroad to 10 minutes a week. We have also introduced flexibility to permit any of the allowance unused in one week to be carried forward to the next.
I believe that families and friends should be able to communicate easily with their loved ones in the armed forces and, earlier this week, I announced a new service to enable them to do so using the internet. Those in the forces will know what I mean by the Bluey, which has been modernised and speeded up. After I made my announcement on Monday, I can tell the House that the system has been heavily used this week, especially between families in this country and those whom they love who are serving in the Balkans.
I want to see an improvement in telephone services worldwide for our troops. Many right hon. and hon. Members who have visited troops on any location will know that in many instances telephone facilities are not as good as they should be. That is inadequate and I intend to do something about it. I am conducting a review of the provision. I believe that our troops should have access to all the best and latest technology. Improvements have been made in Macedonia and we are extending them to Kosovo.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to the Minister for very generously giving way to me for the first time.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why our service men and women in Bosnia have run out of telephone cards, which means that they cannot communicate with their loved ones in this country? It is good news that the length of time that they can call home is to be increased, but that will not work if there are not more telephones. The queues are getting longer, which means added frustration. What will the hon. Gentleman do about that?
Mr. Henderson: This evening, we will dispatch telephone cards to Bosnia from wherever we need to get them. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance on that.
I move on to the welfare of families. It is not enough to keep in touch with families; their welfare must be considered as well. I know that commanding officers—I meet many of them every day of the week—place a high priority on their responsibilities to look after the welfare of our service families. They know, as the House should know, that a soldier who knows that his family is being well looked after is a focused soldier, and we want our soldiers to be focused.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Henderson: This is the last time that I shall give way.
Mr. Soames: I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for giving way.

473
I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine carefully the disparities in the way in which family policy is run. For example, in my judgment, the Royal Navy has always looked after the families of its personnel more effectively than the Army has done. The Royal Air Force has an entirely different system. The standard throughout the Army varies very much from regiment to regiment and from corps to corps. Will the hon. Gentleman consider instigating a form of benchmark of best practice in each of the three services and examine how best we can bring all the services together, so that what he and everyone else want to do—to provide a first-class service for families—can be put in place?
Mr. Henderson: Building on some of the radical reforms that were previously made in the office, I regularly meet the family associations from the different services. They have raised with me the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman and benchmarked certain issues for me, indicating where they think improvements have been made and how they could be extended. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says.
I chair a task force that deals with issues such as education and health. I am pleased to say that we have had a number of meetings at officials' level and a meeting at ministerial level. Considerable progress is being made in improving the facilities for service families in education and health and in other areas. In consultation with the families, they agree that we should deal with those issues first and then move on to others that are important for them.
For example, when a service family moves from one location to another, how do they ensure that their children have access to a school of their choice? The Department for Education and Employment has taken that on board and modified the regulations accordingly. If a service family moves from one location to another and they are in a waiting list for a hospital facility, how will they be treated?
Those are two of the initial issues with which we are dealing. There are many more that I deal with that I believe are of the highest priority.
I have been pleased to be able to report to the House that we are doing everything that we possibly can for the people who serve this nation in our armed forces, and that we want to do more. The defence of any nation must be a priority for any democratic society. We value our freedoms and we must defend them, and our armed forces do so for us. We should all be indebted to them for their efforts on our behalf. That is why we must ensure that they have the right equipment and the right people to enable them to do the job. If we are to recruit those people, we must make service life attractive to soldiers and the other service men and women who serve, and attractive also to their families and the armed forces' community. That is the Government's objective, and it should be the objective of the House.
2.50 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I thank the Secretary of State for his words of welcome at Question Time last week, and I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his words of welcome today, although I would rather be known as the spokesman than the spokesperson.
474
Having joined the Royal Navy at the age of 16, serving for nine years at the height of the cold war, witnessing at first hand the withdrawal east of Suez, and then serving for 10 years in the Naval Reserve, I feel that life has come full circle as I find myself participating in this most important debate today.
The debate is about the men and women who serve in our armed forces. It addresses the central issue of their numbers, their welfare and their qualities. The Defence Committee's eighth report stated:
"The quality of its people is perhaps the defining characteristic of the UK's armed forces."
In recent months, world events have shown yet again that our armed forces are of the finest quality. In Kosovo, the Gulf, Northern Ireland and all around the world, British soldiers, sailors and airmen serve the country with great bravery and professionalism. In Operation Allied Force, as part of the NATO alliance, our airmen carried out hundreds of hazardous missions against a well armed and capable foe.
Following President Milosevic's withdrawal, British troops led the NATO spearhead into Kosovo. No one doubts the great dangers and difficulties that they face, but they face those dangers as the best trained and most professional soldiers in the world. The dangers facing our troops were underlined only last week when, as the Minister said, two British soldiers—Lieutenant Gareth Evans and Sergeant Balam Ram Rai—lost their lives helping to make safe unexploded munitions near a primary school in the village of Orlate. We join the Minister and pay tribute to them. Our thoughts are with their families.
There are many operational demands on our service men. Although Kosovo currently makes the news, no one should forget the contribution that our forces are making in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and the Gulf. Only last week, our Tornadoes struck three communications sites and two radar sites in southern Iraq, in response to aggressive Iraqi action.
We should not forget the impact of separation on the families at home. The point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). That burden is intensified when their husbands and wives are on active service, when danger is ever present.
Operations are the most fulfilling part of a service man's career. That is what they joined up for; they spend their time in the service training for such eventualities. However, continued commitment to operations can cause havoc for service men with families and the effect can be problematic. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will deal with welfare issues when he winds up this evening.
Mr. Tom King: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt an excellent opening. We have heard about telephone cards and about all the ways in which we try to meet the problems of separation. However, there will be no recruitment and people will not join the armed forces in significant numbers unless their families know where they stand. I am deeply concerned that the Minister did not answer my question. I realise that it is difficult for him to say exactly what will happen, but for what tour interval for unaccompanied tours are the

475
Government planning? If the Government cannot answer that question, what on earth are members of the armed forces or people considering joining supposed to think?
Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps the Minister for the Armed Forces wishes to respond to that intervention.
Mr. Brazier: As the Minister has not responded, may I remind him that the Chief of the Defence Staff reported to the Defence Committee that the tour interval for infantry units is down to 15 months, and for individual infantry men it is much worse, perhaps 12 or 13 months—half the length projected in the White Paper and unsustainable in the long run.
Mr. Ottaway: It is a pretty tale when the Opposition must supply such information in an important debate. I recognise the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. The matter is of great concern to the families. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury will deal with welfare matters in his winding-up speech.
That Government said that one of the most important elements of the strategic defence review was their policy for people. The supporting essay states:
"Addressing the personnel problems that affect the Armed Forces will take time, trust and money. Trust needs to be earned and will only arise from"—
this is the important point—
the delivery of tangible improvements in overstretch and undermanning."
We share that view.
Overstretch was well described in the SDR as a "vicious circle"—the armed forces have fewer men, so those men are deployed more often; they spend longer periods away from their families, so they become more inclined to leave, which leaves the armed forces with fewer men, and so on.
The SDR continued:
"We must break this vicious circle. To do so we must match the commitments we undertake to our planned resources".
We share that view too, but we question in this debate whether resources are matching the growing commitments.
Mr. Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the strategic defence review examined the armed forces as the Conservative Government had left them?
Mr. Ottaway: Obviously, the SDR examined the armed forces that we left, but Labour tabled a motion in the last defence debate before the last election opposing the defence estimates and stating that it
"notes that the shortfall in the strength of the British Army numbers 4,000 personnel; is concerned that the resulting overstretch is undermining the morale and operational effectiveness of the armed forces."
As I shall shortly demonstrate, that seems to have been a golden era compared with the present position.
Mr. Soames: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and apologise for interrupting him. I endorse the remarks
476
of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Of course telephone cards are important, and of course welfare issues are important, but what makes our troops so exceptionally brilliant and effective is the fact that they are highly trained and have superb confidence in their equipment and in their ability to undertake their task. What is so dangerous about the tour interval is that it means that the training is severely curtailed, thereby affecting the service men's confidence in their ability to do the job.
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. As the training cycle tightens, it affects the quality of training and the opportunities for training.
We agreed with the statement in the SDR that commitments should match planned resources, but we question whether resources are matching growing commitments. Are the assumptions in the SDR already out of date? The Government recognise that overstretch remains a major problem, as the Minister confirmed today. Nevertheless, even before major deployments took place in the Balkans, MOD figures revealed that more than 36 per cent. of Army personnel are currently committed to operations, with a further 22.5 per cent. warned to deploy for operations. Of Land Command personnel, 55 per cent. are committed to operations, with a further 34 per cent. warned to deploy for operations.
Mr. Brazier: Impossible.
Mr. Ottaway: As my hon. Friend says, it is virtually impossible.
Ministers tell us that recruitment is up by 18 per cent. this year. They point to a number of initiatives that have been undertaken as part of the SDR, which we welcome. However, the problem of overstretch remains and is getting worse. Only last week, the Secretary of State admitted that the Army is losing soldiers faster than it is recruiting them. The soldiers that it is losing are the trained, skilled ones, who are being replaced by raw recruits.
The review undertook to increase the Army's strength by 3,300 men, but it did not expect full manning to be achieved before 2004. That is five years away. In October 1997, the Army was 4,500 under strength. Today, it is more than 6,000 under strength.
The Chief of the Defence Staff told the Defence Committee inquiry last year that increasing the size of the Army by 3,300 would be a demanding challenge. Will the Minister confirm that if the Army is 6,000 below strength and its complement is being expanded by 3,300, he has to recruit 9,300 more men and women to get it up to full strength, and he has to do so when numbers are falling, on the Secretary of State's admission, outflow is more than 15 per cent., and the United Kingdom labour market is tightening? That is a huge challenge, particularly as most of the increase will be in signals, engineers and logistics troops, of which we are desperately short. We accept the Government's good intentions, but we shall judge their achievements by the number of people recruited.
Those manpower shortages give rise to our concerns over the nation's ability to meet the commitments made. The Chief of the Defence Staff expressed similar views to the Defence Committee only last week. Let us take a

477
brief look at the armed forces' current major commitments. The deployment in Kosovo is moving towards 13,000 men. We have 4,000 men deployed in Bosnia, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm in his winding-up speech reports that that number is about to be reduced. We have 15,000 men deployed in Northern Ireland and a garrison of 23,000 men in Germany. We have a garrison of 3,000 men in Cyprus and the Falklands garrison numbers 1,000 men. With 89 per cent. of Land Command, which is the deployable Army, deployed or warned to deploy, we do not have a lot of room for manoeuvre to confront contingencies that may emerge.
Obviously, the future for Kosovo is unclear, but everything points to the deployment being long term; it would probably be better measured in years rather than months. In an article in the Daily Mail last month, General de la Billière, who knows a thing or two about these matters, said:
"It is a military rule of thumb that for every soldier seeing active service on the ground, you need one undergoing training and one unwinding in some less demanding environment.
In other words, to fulfil our planned commitment to Kosovo, we will need up to 30,000 troops. And if things go wrong—as they have a historic habit of doing in the Balkans—we may need to increase that number suddenly and sharply."
He then reviewed the commitments that I have set out and continued:
"In my judgment, these figures demonstrate that our armed forces are already dangerously and unacceptably overstretched."
Using the de la Billière formula, the overstretch can be measured as more than 20,000 at present.
At Defence questions last week, the Secretary of State said that he hoped to reduce our troop numbers in Bosnia and in Kosovo and that he expected a "significant reduction" after about "six months". I made that point in my intervention. The Chief of the Defence Staff also said last week that half our troops in Kosovo could be home by the autumn. The Minister's remarks have left the situation rather unclear. We want to know the criteria by which those assumptions are being made. That is an important point and it affects the overstretch situation.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman a little if my reply to his intervention was not clear. If one counts the beginning of June as the start date of the troop deployment, after about six months other nations will have had time to begin to assess what contribution they can make—they are doing that now—as well as when they can make it and how they can bring it to bear in Kosovo. At that stage, we would be able to bring back some of our troops and reduce our numbers to allow some to rest and some to train. That is what I said. It is exactly in line with what the Chief of the Defence Staff said and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. There is no difference at all between us.
Mr. Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for that. However, he has twice said that troops will "begin" to come back; that does not imply that they are coming back. Perhaps Ministers can confirm that we have received assurances from other nations that they will make up the shortfall.
No sooner do we receive indications that the overstretch pressures are being relieved than the Foreign Secretary—with the Secretary of State's agreement,
478
I assume—commits 8,000 British troops to be put on permanent standby for peacekeeping operations all over the world.
Ministers must recognise that there are many "what if" scenarios on the horizon. What if the situation in Northern Ireland deteriorates and more troops are needed to ensure order? Developments today may enable the Minister to respond to that point later this evening. What if Saddam again threatens his neighbours? What if Milosevic foments disorder in Montenegro? Those are obvious scenarios, but in this uncertain world, and especially over the five-year time scale for achieving full manning of the Army, who knows what eventualities will emerge? We must be prepared for them.
There are two further factors to take into account. First, at St. Malo, the Prime Minister committed us to a European Union defence capability "within or outside NATO". Will the Minister please tell us the implications of that announcement in the context of our commitments and our ability to fulfil them? Secondly, in respect of what has become commonly known as the Blair-Clinton doctrine, the Prime Minister let it be known in a recent article in Newsweek that no dictator engaging in ethnic cleansing or repression would be tolerated. Fine words; that appears to be a global commitment to stamp out unacceptable practices. That huge commitment brings into question the Government's ability to deliver on the rhetoric.
The Government's response to questions about overcommitment and overstretch is that the SDR provides for flexibility. The Secretary of State said that the SDR
"was designed so that our forces will be able…to deal flexibly with the sort of problems that we face in Kosovo today."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 8.]
However, it cannot in any way be argued that the Government's decision to cut the Territorial Army by 18,000 will create flexibility. As yet, TA troops have not been deployed in any great numbers in Kosovo, but no one could doubt the value of the role that they have played recently in Bosnia and in the Gulf.
As of 15 June, 393 members of the TA were serving in the Balkans. Of those, 355 were deployed in Bosnia, making up 10 per cent. of our troops in that country. The TA is much more than a recreational opportunity for civilians who want a taste of military life; it is a vital source of new recruits. It helps to train volunteer and professional recruits, provides support and back-up for the Regular Army and helps to create a link between the armed forces and local communities.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government are the first to have simultaneously reduced and mobilised the TA?
Mr. Ottaway: I would have to read the reference books, but I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend is right. He has made an important point. One of the TA's vital functions is providing support to the Regular Army and it is cost-effective, absorbing only £350 million per annum, which is approximately 3 per cent. of the defence budget. The Army, which is 6,000 below strength and suffering from a turnover of 15,000 personnel a year, can ill afford to lose such a source of recruits.
The Kosovo crisis has exposed the difficulties caused by the current manpower shortage. There have been reports of regiments having to borrow men from other

479
units to get up to strength. The effects of Government policy have already been felt by the Parachute Regiment, whose 1st Battalion was reported as having to borrow troops from 3 Para because reserves were not available. As a result, 3 Para is not up to battalion strength. The TA's Parachute Regiment, whose soldiers would usually make up any shortfall in regular paras, can no longer do so because of the cuts under the SDR.
Notwithstanding the cuts in the TA, as the Minister said, retention of our regulars is causing serious problems. Overstretch is inextricably linked with retention difficulties. Only last week the Secretary of State told us that
"retention figures continue to give us cause for concern".—[Official Report, 21 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 751.]
He also told the Select Committee last week that men were still leaving the Army faster than they were joining.
The problem is exacerbated by the increase in recent years of premature voluntary releases. Pilot retention in the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm—
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I know that my hon. Friend is dealing with pilots, but does he think that officer retention in the Army is a problem? My sources in the Army—I am rather out of date, but I still know people there—say that young officers, in particular, are not staying. In five or 10 years' time, there will be a dearth of commanding officers and of the high-quality people whom we are used to seeing in command of regiments and higher.
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that premature releases among officers in the Army have doubled in recent years, compared with a 10 per cent. increase in other ranks.
I was dealing with pilot retention in the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm. The Government say that the RAF should be on target to meet its full manning level by 2000. I hope that the Minister can confirm tonight that that is the case. The retention of pilots is a real problem. It costs the taxpayer some £3 million to train each one, so it is of no surprise that they are of value to commercial airlines, which themselves face a shortage of pilots. However, it is fair to say that our need is greater than theirs, and I congratulate the Government on introducing a link-up scheme and on the £10,000 incentive to which the Minister referred in his speech.
Clearly, overstretch is at the core of the armed forces personnel problems. The Defence Committee said that there are two possible solutions to overstretch and undermanning: the first is to increase recruitment and retention and the second is to decrease commitments. The Government say that they are succeeding with recruiting, but they are clearly not matching capabilities to commitments.
In their response, Ministers will no doubt mention the overstretch that existed under the previous Government, but they must accept that they have now been in power for two years and that the SDR has cut the defence budget by £1 billion and slashed the TA by 18,000. They must accept that there is growing concern about the mismatch
480
between commitment and budget. They must not shirk that issue, but must come up with concrete answers about how they intend to deal with the problem.
In April last year, the Government said that tackling overstretch would be one of the key elements of the SDR. In June 1997, the Secretary of State promised that the problem of overstretch would be seriously addressed. Now is the time for their deeds to match their words.
There is one other issue on which answers are urgently needed from the Government. In the last parliamentary Session, the Government introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates into domestic law the rights and liberties in the European convention on human rights. It is expected to come into force in early 2000. Have the Government fully taken into account its impact on the armed forces?
The Act guarantees a range of political rights and freedoms of the individual against interference by the state. Once it comes into force and the convention becomes part of national law, the rights and liberties that it guarantees will provide litigants with a range of positive entitlements to assert in the course of a dispute with any public body. Once incorporation has taken place, the encroachment of the European convention on the armed forces will be immense. For example, article 3 provides that
"No one should be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
What impact will that have on reports of bullying in the services? Article 6 provides that
"everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
That article, taken in conjunction with article 14, raises serious questions about the future of the court martial system. Do the Government have a view on that?
In my judgment, article 8 will cause the most problems. It provides that
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
That article inevitably questions the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. There is a complete ban, which is non-discretionary and proscribes both homosexual orientation and homosexual conduct. The ban could constitute a breach of the applicant's rights under articles 8, 10 and 14 of the European convention on human rights.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: No.
Four members of the armed forces who have lost their service careers because of that policy have already referred their grievance to the European Court of Human Rights. We do not know what that court's reaction is likely to be, but once the Human Rights Act becomes effective next year, the outcome of a complaint to the UK courts is predictable.
When considering an early application, Lord Justice Simon Brown said:
"I for my part strongly suspect that so far as this country's international obligations are concerned, the days of this policy"—
the ban—
"are numbered."

481
Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, said that
"to dismiss a person from his or her employment on the grounds of a private sexual preference, and to interrogate him or her about private sexual behaviour, would not appear to me to show respect for that person's private and family life".
Those last words are exactly those contained in the convention.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: No, I shall not give way.
Because the European convention was not incorporated in UK law at the time, those views expressed by the judges did not prevail. Will the Minister confirm, however, that following the introduction of the Human Rights Act, it is highly likely that the ban on homosexuals will be declared unlawful? How do the Government intend to respond to that? This is a most important issue and the forces must be ready for it.
Mr. Doug Henderson: May I offer some information to the hon. Gentleman? It does not relates specifically to the question of homosexuality, but we are currently examining to what extent the services discipline Acts need to be modified in the light of the incorporation of the convention under the Human Rights Act. We hope shortly to announce our proposals.
Mr. Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, although I should have thought that the Government would think about those matters before introducing an Act, rather than afterwards.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way towards the end of his speech. As he implied, the Ministry of Defence has completely dropped the ball on this matter. Whereas the Department for Education and Employment got it right by acquiring specific exemptions for schools during the passage of the Bill, the Ministry of Defence acquired no exemptions for the armed forces. That just shows how far behind the kerb it is.
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes the point very well.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: No, I shall not give way again. I wish to bring my speech to a close and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
We live in challenging times. As we reach the close of this millennium, we have witnessed a century in which our armed forces have been at the centre of our lives and the nation's security. Our grandparents fought in the great war, when the huge loss of life brought home all the horrors and destruction of modern warfare. Our parents fought in the second world war, which brought the same violence and destruction to our very doorsteps. In the second half of this century, we have been fully involved in conflicts in Borneo, Suez, the Falklands, the Gulf and now the Balkans. The world remains an uncertain place.
Tensions in the middle east will, God willing, be replaced by peace, but new tensions arise all the time. The situation can change at short notice. In this troubled world, the defence of the nation and our interests are
482
paramount so that young people can grow up, live healthy lives and expand the knowledge of the generations. That vision is utterly dependent on our armed forces. At its core are the young men and women who, without hesitation, risk their lives to protect those who live on this planet. We have every right to be proud of Britain's place in the world as a result of their efforts. We pay tribute to them.
3.19 pm
Mr. Bruce George: When these debates begin, I always promise myself that I shall not be controversial, then I listen to Opposition Members and my resolve dissipates immediately. I cannot believe what I have heard. I have been on the Select Committee on Defence for many years, and have used the same arguments about overstretch against the Conservative Government as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has just used. We wrote report after report, on "Options for Change", for the Army, for the Navy, for the Air Force and for the Reserves. When we had done that, we went back to "Options for Change" for the Army—there was a sense of déjà vu.
The Government inherited many of the current problems. The Defence Committee argued strongly against the Conservative Government's cut in the number of infantry battalions from 55 to 29—which they should not have done—and the gross overstretch. We had nights out of bed. It got out of hand. Ministers blithely said time and again, "No, we've got it right. You're exaggerating. The world is a much safer place." Conservative Members should go to the doctor to get a cure for the amnesia that seems to afflict everyone who moves from the Government Benches to the Opposition Benches. They should recognise that they got it wrong: they saw the world as a wonderful place in which we could afford to cut our defence expenditure from 5.1 per cent. to 2.6 per cent.
The "Options for Change" process began when the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was Secretary of State. When the Gulf war began, I thought that the Conservative Government would be forced to stop the defence cuts. "Options for Change" had been put in a drawer, and when the war was over the drawer was opened as though nothing had happened, and the cuts continued.
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The Defence Committee's most recent report shows the problems of overstretch down the years. He is a fair-minded man, and he knows perfectly well that when "Options for Change" was originally written, the only real problem of unaccompanied tours was Northern Ireland. The Government are involved in what is, in effect, a second Northern Ireland in terms of the commitment of unaccompanied forces in a hostile area. I have supported them in that, but the hon. Gentleman surely recognises that the problem is now infinitely greater than it was before.
Mr. George: I welcome that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman was a very able Secretary of State, and he is also fair-minded. He realises that the problems that have beset Government after Government are not unique. Governments get it wrong. When my party was in opposition, I did not always share its view; and since it

483
came into office, the level of defence expenditure has, frankly, fallen too low. If the Prime Minister wants this country to punch above its weight, it will have to be with more than 2.3 per cent. of gross domestic product. I have not remotely changed my views. I criticised the previous Government three or four years ago, and I have not suddenly changed my views just because my party is in office.
We must have adequate defence, and we must be aware of the fact that wars happen when we least expect them. In the old days one could whistle and guys joined up, whereas that no longer happens. The days are gone when aircraft carriers can be built fairly quickly—in about 15 years. Aircraft cannot be made swiftly: it takes 20 years. We must anticipate that the worst will happen. It is too late to start whingeing about a change in the situation when we are unable to change our response to that situation. We have a common approach, but the fair-mindedness which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater advocated should be spread around.
Mr. Key: At one time, the hon. Gentleman and I served on the Defence Committee together, and my signature is also on the report on defence expenditure. He has been absent from some debates lately, and we have missed him. He bangs on about this issue, and says that he disagrees with what the previous Government did. Does it make sense that he should support a Government who are making matters worse?
Mr. George: I have yet to reach the conclusion that matters are worse: they have a long way to fall before they replicate the decline under the previous Government. I am not a mathematician, but I estimate that, if this Government had continued the downward path of defence expenditure, we would be minus about £5 billion a year within five years.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: No, I shall not give way for the moment—perhaps later. I want to get on with my speech.
I welcome the new format of the defence debates. It is far more rational to have a debate on functional issues, rather than the nonsense of debates on single-service issues. It is a great shame, given that our armed forces have fought a war so recently, that only 25 right hon. and hon. Members can stir themselves to attend the debate. It is important for the House to scrutinise and to influence matters.
Last Friday was an important event in parliamentary history: it was the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Select Committee system, which enabled the House to monitor, scrutinise, reinforce civilian control and sometimes have a degree of influence. Twenty years after that new Select Committee system was established, I hope that the Modernisation, Procedure and Liaison Committees will say that it is time to give Select Committees some power so that they can discharge their obligations more effectively.
I am pleased that many Defence Committee reports have been mentioned. The strength of the Committee is that we give hell to everyone. It is not our responsibility
484
to cheer. There have been few occasions on which cheering has been necessary. I hope that the Select Committees are given some teeth.
I want to talk about what the Defence Committee has been doing and will be doing. Manpower is pivotal. The Defence Committee report on the strategic defence review is not a ritualistic eulogy. It states:
"The quality of its people is perhaps the defining characteristic of the UK's Armed Forces. The morale, quality, training and ethos of those people are fundamental to the UK's ability to undertake its military tasks, and the success of the proposals set out in the SDR in maintaining or enhancing these elements will be one of the most fundamental criteria by which it will be judged."
That is important. We often forget that the image of the British soldier was not always the image that that soldier maintains today. The collective image of the armed forces is infinitely greater in public esteem than our own profession. They are at one end of the scale and we are, perhaps deservedly, at the other.
Mr. Duncan Smith: What about journalists?
Mr. George: The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was a sort of journalist when he worked for Jane's.
It took a long time to build the reputation and competence of our armed forces, and it has cost a lot of money to sustain that reputation, which could be undermined. It is important that the Defence Committee, the House of Commons and the Ministry of Defence—I am sure its commitment is as great as ours—and the country remain deeply grateful to the armed forces for their competence, professionalism, dedication, and willingness to endure danger, even to the point of putting their own lives at risk.
The Defence Committee took a great interest in meeting soldiers and their wives, taking beatings around the head that qualified us for battle honours. What we were told by the Army wives whom we met in the officers' mess was often of greater significance than session after session listening to platitudes from Ministers and senior civil servants. On one occasion, we were discussing lessons to be learned from the Falklands. On the table in front of us was a set of Army boots. I thought that it was commendable of the Defence Committee to be prepared to consider how we, as a nation, have failed to procure a satisfactory set of Army boots over the years. As far as I am aware, we have yet to produce a satisfactory set.
The Select Committee has always concerned itself with medical issues—with compensation, and with the need for Government to be reminded about such matters. It is not a sense of duty that prompts me to pay tribute, on behalf of the Committee and other hon. Members who are present, to our forces in Kosovo, Bosnia, the Gulf and Northern Ireland. At the end of the year, we shall visit the garrison in the Falkland islands.
The professionalism of our armed forces is legendary, and deservedly so. We hear that their numbers are to be reduced to give way to others, and the presence of others will be welcome; but we must remember—although it is difficult to say this to those "others"—that there must always be enough serious professional soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo. Although their contributions are necessary in a military and political context, and although we need

485
their mine clearance work and ambulance units, the ability to overawe is the essential prerequisite for a peaceful environment in which all the forces of NATO and other parts of the world will be working.
In its excellent report on the strategic defence review, the Select Committee made a number of commitments, and gave a number of undertakings relevant to personnel matters. It said that it would monitor whether readiness targets were manageable for individual service personnel and formations, and coherent across the three services. That is particularly relevant to the current circumstances in Kosovo and Bosnia.
My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right: our forces were deployed as swiftly as was humanly and physically possible. I do not think other countries could have achieved such a level of competence. However, I am still to be convinced that all the formations that were not deployed could have been deployed had it been necessary to mount a serious military operation. We are embarking on a protracted inquiry into the lessons of the Kosovo conflict.
The Committee also agreed to monitor progress in the tackling of problems in the defence medical services and to examine the work of the defence secondary care agency. An earlier report on the SDR—the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), performed an excellent service—stated:
"the staff shortages in the Defence Medical Services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will ever recover. It is possible that the military ethos of medicine in the regular armed forces has been destroyed".
The endeavour to prevent that fearful apocalyptic assessment from becoming a reality is the responsibility of the Minister of State, who will give evidence to us.
I know that the Government are trying very hard, but, in some respects, the harder they try, the worse the situation becomes. Specialists in Haslar have been leaving. Morale is low; a bad decision to join Haslar might well be compounded by the worse decision to leave. The matter is subject to a continuing inquiry by the Select Committee.
The Committee also said that it would monitor progress towards the establishment of joint initiatives. Many such initiatives have already been launched: for instance, the joint helicopter command, joint force 2000, the joint doctrine centre and the appointment of a chief of defence logistics. The concept of jointery will continue to engage the Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman speaks of jointery. He has also referred to the shortage of medical staff in the armed services. Will he bear in mind the need for his research to be co-ordinated with the work of the national health service, in which there is a great shortage of doctors, especially consultants, who are willing to stay on and to accept the extra dimension that their work takes on once they become involved in work in the armed services?
Mr. George: As most hon. Members will know, it was decided to close Army, Royal Navy and RAF hospitals. We now have trust units, and doctors who deal with drug problems on Saturday nights. I am talking about non-service men. That is of some advantage, but when the Committee said that the military ethos was being
486
destroyed, we were thinking of the fact that many doctors in the services were involved much more in the NHS and the treatment of civilians than in the treatment of soldiers.
When I asked whether injured soldiers who arrived in accident and emergency units benefited from any special facilities, I was told that they must take their place along with the rest. I am not entirely happy about that. It is wonderful for the NHS to have a supply of additional doctors, and it is wonderful for Gosport to have a special facility; but, ultimately, the Select Committee and the Ministry of Defence are concerned about medical facilities and services for the armed forces. There is still much more work to be done and much more money to be spent before some of the near-catastrophes of the last decade or so can be dealt with.
The Committee's report asks for future statements on the defence estimates. As I recall, the last was made in 1996. We want future statements to feature clear statistical analysis of actual training times and operational deployments under the Army's new "readiness cycle" structure, to identify the causes of significant deviations and shortfalls, and to set out MOD proposals to remedy them.
We have said that we will monitor progress to deal with Army manpower shortages, a task that will clearly keep us engrossed for some time. We have also said that we will monitor ethnic minorities, and the number of women in the forces. I recall the indifference—if not hostility—that greeted the Committee's reports on ethnic monitoring as long ago as 1986-87: some regiments, and the MOD, were opposed even to the simple task of monitoring numbers. In the mid-1980s, the MOD was unwilling even to identify ethnic minorities in terms of cap badges. It took adverse reports, a good deal of effort on the part of Ministers and the intervention of the Commission for Racial Equality in humiliating a particular unit for serious endeavours to be undertaken to bring about a degree of equality in personnel, and to protect members of ethnic minorities who sought to join the armed forces.
We have said that we will continue to look at pay restructuring, and I hope that many of our undertakings will be set out in the forthcoming defence White Paper. I am sorry, as we all are, that it was not published in May, but that is understandable. We look forward to its publication in the autumn.
Paragraph 377 of our report states:
"The challenge of recruiting and retaining service personnel of the quality, and in the quantity, that our Armed Forces need to deliver on their missions is one of the most critical and intractable challenges that the SDR faces. The whole package outlined in the Review will stand or fall depending on whether the MoD meets the challenges. The SDR outlines many welcome initiatives to improve recruitment and retention. Currently, though, these remain paper exercises. It will be difficult to assess objectively the impact of the various measures; we have been told that both qualitative and quantitative assessments will be made and we expect these to be made available to Parliament. For the moment, however, we feel that there is a great element of untested optimism that these measures will produce the improvements to recruitment and retention promised."
We ended optimistically by saying:
"It is our sincere wish that they will not founder on the rocks of reality, and we welcome the obvious commitment of Ministers to pursue these initiatives zealously. They must also be backed with the necessary resources."
The question of overstretch, like that of welfare facilities, is very important.

487
On compensation, soldiering is a dangerous career. Those who want a quiet life should enter careers where there is less risk to life. We protect our armed forces as far as we can. It was refreshing, almost exhilarating, to hear the tributes to the two soldiers who died. In the conflict in the Caribbean during the Napoleonic wars, there were 100,000 casualties in a useless diversion to protect our sugar supplies. I doubt whether many there were many speeches expressing abhorrence at such loss, but I caution those hon. Members—I doubt whether many are in the Chamber now—who think that we will escape large casualties in future. In a sense it was not a case of escape this time, because we were careful not to put our soldiers' lives at too much risk, but cosseting and protecting soldiers to such an extent that they go nowhere near danger will make it impossible for the Government to achieve their military and security objectives; that applies even more to the United States.
One story concerned me. I apologise that I did not raise it earlier with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), which I should have done. He apparently said that the row over £27 million in damages for injured soldiers was "extraordinary" and an illustration of the "compensation culture" affecting the MOD.
One should not necessarily find it extraordinary that money paid in damages has risen from £11.9 million a few years ago to £26.7 million. Perhaps some compensation payments do make the blood of the Daily Mail reader boil. I hope that the information that the hon. Gentleman requested will be provided, but it is wonderful that the MOD appears to be more concerned about making payments.
Again, I recall from the Defence Committee the MOD being unwilling to accept that there was any correlation between attending the atomic tests in the Pacific in the early 1950s and illness. There was slowness in dealing with Gulf war syndrome. There were cases of soldiers on United Nations functions not receiving compensation because they were not in an active war. I hope that the MOD will feel it necessary to act. I am delighted that the Minister has announced that there will be a joint inquiry with the Department of Social Security.
A few years ago, the Defence Committee threatened a pre-emptive strike. I am delighted that the MOD is undertaking its own inquiry, which will, of course, be subject to scrutiny by the Defence Committee and the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in due course.
Mr. Key: What I found extraordinary was that the MOD said that it could not tell me why it had had to pay that money except "at disproportionate cost". I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We reviewed the matter on the Defence Committee. We said that it was important that there should be a review of compensation arrangements in the MOD. Indeed, the Government pledged themselves to that some two years ago. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, hopes that they come to a speedy conclusion on the matter because it is an important part of the human resources package for our armed forces.
Mr. George: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I recall one of my constituents, the best shot in the Territorial Army, being on an exercise to raid an Army camp to test
488
its security. To save the MOD some money, he and his colleagues drove in his vehicle. They got dressed, blacked up their faces and achieved their objectives. The soldiers who were on guard were so angry that they chased after them, rammed my constituent's car and destroyed it.
When my constituent wrote to his insurance company, it told him to go and jump in a lake because such a use was not within the terms of his insurance cover. When I wrote to the MOD saying, "Come on. Surely this is your responsibility," it declined. The result was that the best shot in the TA left the organisation. I suspect that, on occasion, the MOD guards public funding too well.
I am sorry that I am going on at greater length than I should. On the Gurkhas, I had no sense of guilt last week when I asked the Secretary of State for Defence ever so politely whether, in the light of the unfortunate death of two Gurkha soldiers, he would look again at the mode of payment and compensation. We all know the arguments, which are advanced loudly: "There is an agreement with India and Nepal; wages are low, but we boost them with incidentals; do not shout too loudly because, if the cost of Gurkhas rises too far, they will be dispensed with; the cost of living in Nepal is so low."
However, it simply does not look right. What the present and previous Governments have done is objectively right, but it simply does not look right. I am delighted that the Minister is reviewing the matter. Perhaps the families of those unfortunate Gurkhas will have the slight consolation—if there can be any consolation from such a disaster—that their deaths might have led to a review and an improved pension arrangement. The idea of £500 one year after death looks obscene.
On the Military Provost Guard Service, I have been interested in—indeed, obsessed by—policing and security in the MOD for a number of years. The Defence Committee asked for assurances that, when the previous Government's inquiry into the service ended, it would be consulted before any decision was taken. The commitment was made not by the present Minister, but his predecessor, who said that the Defence Committee would examine the experiment and produce a report before the implementation of any decision. I hope that the Government fulfil that commitment.
I was amused by the fact the soldiers' service will be limited to their travel-to-work areas. I recall the famous Army folk song, uttered in the era of Queen Anne, which perhaps would not apply today. It would probably go, "The Queen commands. We all obey. Over the hills as far as Wolverhampton." Anyone employed in the service in my area will, for 11 months of the year, be limited physically to Warley, Wolverhampton and the southern part of Walsall. It may not be quite the soldiering that one joined for, but the idea is right. Some people may not want to travel, or to indulge in the life and the nights out of bed that a normal soldier, sailor or air man is obliged to undertake. The scheme for the Military Provost Guard Service to relieve full-time soldiers has to be a step forward.
I enter a caveat. I am not a spokesman for the Defence Police Federation. It is the one police federation that does not need to pay people to speak on its behalf. One thing is certain—MOD policemen will be replaced. I am pleased by what the Minister has said—it will be reinforced in an inquiry that the Defence Committee is about to conduct.

489
There is a critical mass in the MOD police. The Government say that it is 2,500 to 3,000. I would say that it is nearer 3,000 than 2,500. When we replace MOD police with soldiers or private security, God help us if the numbers go down to such a point that the police force becomes almost impossible to operate.
The Defence Committee is committed to many inquiries involving personnel. We are visiting the Falkland Islands. We hope to receive an invitation to visit Kosovo. We go to Northern Ireland every year. We are engaged in the continuing inquiry into Gulf war syndrome. We are engaged in a study of defence medical services. We are monitoring TA restructuring. We are looking at science and the MOD and, in particular, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. It is a personnel issue. In the Defence Committee's view—I say it in advance of the Committee report—if DERA is privatised, it will be an unmitigated disaster.
I know someone who could not get in the Army because he had asthma. He wanted to work within the public ethos, so he joined DERA; there are many such cases. If that organisation is shunted off into some form of semi-privatised status, it might do untold damage to its morale.
I am not certain whether our American colleagues will be prepared to be as free in sharing information with a privatised company as they have been with an agency of the Ministry of Defence. I therefore hope that my very good friend the Minister for Defence Procurement—a man of great and independent thinking, and of formidable stature—is not being bounced by the Treasury on the issue, and that the Government will not go down that route.
Mr. Brazier: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my Select Committee Chairman—for giving way on this point. Does he accept—and share my dismay—that one small indication that the decision on that critical, scientific issue may be going in the wrong direction is that the MOD's principal finance officer is chairman of the MOD sub-committee examining it?
Mr. George: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has no intention of alleging any financial skulduggery or any impropriety—any more than I did by saying that, if the sale goes ahead and is a management buy-out, Barbados would be the appropriate place for the Committee to conduct its follow-up study of the sale. Management buy-outs, followed by a swift sell-off, usually result in a swift move to places nicer than those in which the Ministry of Defence currently operates.
The Defence Committee will continue to visit our armed forces, and to talk to their wives—and, consequently, to be brutalised.
I hope that our Committee will continue in its consensual manner. We, too, are suffering from great overstretch. The command authorities are pushing their forces intolerably. Similarly, last Session, the Committee had 100 meetings, which must be way beyond the number of sittings held by any other Select Committee. Nevertheless, we are doing our job in protecting the interests of this country and of our wonderful armed forces.
490
I am an unashamed admirer of Rudyard Kipling, the most politically incorrect of all authors. In a poem on Thomas Atkins, he said:

"There'll surely come a day,

When they give you all your pay,

And treat you as a Christian ought to do,

But 'til that day comes round,

Heaven keep you safe and sound

and Thomas, Here's my great respect to you".

I hope that we will not need the intervention of the Almighty to ensure that our forces are properly paid, properly protected and properly armed. If that can be done, they will continue to serve our society, our alliance and the world community as effectively in future as, I am proud to say, they have done in the past and are doing now.
3.53 pm
Mr. Tom King: I certainly join in the final comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), and pay tribute to the Committee's reports. I should add that I am sure that his confidence in the approach to the situation at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is not based on any previous acquaintanceship with Lord Gilbert on the Committee.
I have listened to the traditional—but heartfelt—tributes paid to our forces by Front Benchers on both sides of the House. However, those tributes are meaningless unless the people to whom they are paid know that those who made them really have their welfare at heart and are prepared to back up those tributes. The most obvious bit of initial training that any young officer receives is that the welfare of his men is his first responsibility. I certainly sought to employ that philosophy when I was a Minister, and I hope that current Ministers realise that the welfare of our armed forces should be their top priority if they are to achieve effective defence for our country.
I had not intended to speak in this debate—which is part of our new structure for defence debates: one debate on defence personnel, and another on defence equipment—but the issue of armed forces personnel is the greatest single challenge facing Ministers and the Ministry of Defence. I therefore regret the absence from the debate of the Secretary of State. I should not necessarily have insisted that he speak in the debate, but his presence would have been a symbol that he appreciates the serious situation facing him.
The Secretary of State did not create the current situation, but Secretaries of State for Defence have to inherit and resolve other people's problems. I had the responsibility to ensure that our country was able to discharge honourably its undertakings, whatever those might be. Nevertheless, the challenge facing the current Secretary of State is much greater than any we have faced before. I am worried about the situation, which is why I intervened on the hon. Member for Walsall, South.
As the Select Committee said, we can deal with overstretch in one of only two ways: increase recruitment or reduce commitments. The Select Committee's report on the strategic defence review was published almost a year ago, in September 1998. What has happened since then? The Minister was quite frank about what has

491
happened: retention is poor; recruitment is difficult; and commitments have manifestly increased enormously. We now face an acutely worrying situation.
I tell the Minister for the Armed Forces that his speech gave me no reassurance. We know about the type of measures that he described, such as more home telephone cards. Such welfare measures are important—my God, they are—and were probably taken by us for the first time in the Gulf. However, they are only palliatives in trying to deal with the type of problems that we face. I worry acutely about whether the Government are seized of the seriousness of the problem.
I am not given much encouragement—I fear that the Select Committee will not have been either—by the Government's response on overstretch. The Select Committee devoted about 30 paragraphs of its report to the issue, but all it received from the Government in response was seven lines—in paragraph 97—stating:
"we do not believe that there is a single standard or correct method of calculating overstretch and associated family separation."
The Government went on to say that they wanted
"a greater degree of coherence across the Services…The feasibility of setting up appropriate mechanisms is being examined."
That was the totality of the Government's response to the issue of overstretch.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South knows as much about defence as any hon. Member—although I am not sure whether 20 years on the Defence Committee is an achievement or a punishment—and has a fund of knowledge. I recognise the absolute validity of his comments on overstretch. In my time as Secretary of State for Defence, there were criticisms about overstretch. I went to the Ministry of Defence from the Northern Ireland Office. Northern Ireland was the cause of unaccompanied tours. Although we had plenty of forces in Germany, those tours were accompanied, as were tours in Hong Kong and Cyprus, for example, to which people were happy to go and to take their families.
Northern Ireland injected into our forces a strong element of unaccompanied tours. Although some regiments had accompanied tours, many of them—in places such as Fort George, Londonderry and by the border—were unaccompanied. Therefore, when I went to the Ministry of Defence, I was conscious of the pressure that such tours created in the Army. I spoke with some of our service men serving in Northern Ireland—such as sergeant-majors and others with long Army careers—and asked whether they had been in Northern Ireland before, to which many said that they were on their sixth tour. The fact is that the frequency of those tours was a function of the number both of our forces and of our commitments.
In "Options for Change", I sought to tackle that problem, but the Gulf war put everything on hold. We froze everything and made no further reductions. I saw the challenge that we would have to face and my ambition was to ensure that, having made the sensible changes that were necessary following the end of the cold war and the reduction of our forces in Germany—which was the main consequence of "Options for Change"—we established some predicability about tour intervals so that people would know where they stood and we would not make unreasonable demands on them.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and seek to expand the point he made, which also applies to
492
the Falklands. Is there not a huge contrast in that, during our third major conflict in 20 years, the present Government have chosen not to put change on hold? They are going ahead with the cuts and the break-up of the 5th Airborne Brigade before we know when the conflict in Kosovo will be over and what the garrison situation will be there.
Mr. King: In my opinion, such action is foolish. We did not do that; we froze everything during the period of uncertainty because we could not be sure what our commitments would be and how long they would last. What the Government are doing is incredible. Obviously, the strategic defence review has been partly blown out of the water by events. The Government are not to blame for that as none of the recent major events could have been predicted—the Falklands, the Gulf or the long-term situation in the Balkans.
I watched with great disappointment because my ambition was not realised. As we moved through "Front Line First" and the defence cost studies to what seems to have been a period of continuing and permanent change, I felt deeply that the services were entitled to expect a period of stability. The Select Committee called for that on a number of occasions. I must say that I was deeply depressed by what happened. Political realities being what they were, I knew that we would face a review by the incoming Government. I hoped that they would get on with it and complete it as soon as possible so that the forces would have a measure of stability.
The Government gloried in how extensive the consultations were and how long the process lasted. I do not think that too many people within the services thanked them for that; they were longing for a conclusion and to know where they stood.
Our forces are now facing a quite exceptional additional commitment. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, if war comes, we have to address it and our forces have to meet new commitments. The strength of the Army—and I worry about whether Ministers really understand this—is the willingness, enthusiasm and sense of responsibility of those who serve in it. When Ministers say, "Can we do it?" they have an instinctive desire to say, "Of course we can. We'll do it somehow, don't you worry. You can rely on us." Our armed forces are enthusiastic, determined not to appear inadequate and proud of what they can achieve. They face up to their responsibilities and they will do anything to meet any immediate challenge or emergency, but the present challenge is sustainability.
What is happening behind the scenes—not as a conspiracy or an undercover plot—affects every home. Every soldier serving in Kosovo is asked by his wife, "How long do you think you will be there? Will you have to go back? Do you think that you will have to go to Northern Ireland if problems continue there?" The frequency of commitment represents a serious challenge. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the predecessor of the Minister for the Armed Forces. I referred to unaccompanied tours and the need for some tour intervals in terms of family welfare; he spoke about the gap between tours providing an opportunity for training. It is no good paying tribute to how wonderfully trained our forces are—because they have had the opportunity for training—if we are so

493
committing them to operational duties and activities that they never have time to pull back, take a break and get some more training.
Our armed forces comprise two types of person. Some young men and women may not be sure about what they want to do or they may want to see something of the world, so they enlist on a short-service basis. They may start on that basis, but then decide that they like the Army and stay on. Others wish to make the Army their career. They are the skeletal fabric of our armed forces—the majors, the captains, the sergeant-majors and the senior non-commissioned officers. They are the corporals commanding the brick whom the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) knows so well and has seen operating in Northern Ireland and in Bosnia. Those people are the fabric of the organisation into which new recruits come. They provide leadership for the young men and women to whom the main recruitment drive will be directed. However, one sergeant serving his seventh tour of Northern Ireland told me, "I'm in trouble at home. The wife won't put up with it any more, so I'm getting out." That is the challenge.
I do not know whether Ministers accept this, but they have taken on another Northern Ireland. When I became Secretary of State for Defence, Northern Ireland was effectively the only place for unaccompanied tours. At that time, about 10,000 troops were sent on unaccompanied tours in Northern Ireland. Some of the other troops there were accompanied. Now, the number of troops on unaccompanied tours has been doubled. There must be at least 10,000 troops on active service in the Balkans. The position is unsustainable.
If I sound somewhat emotional, it is because I care deeply about our armed forces. One of two things will happen. Our armed forces will get thinner and thinner, and it will become a vicious circle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) among others, including the Select Committee, said, retention will gradually decline so that our forces will no longer have the key people that they need. Then, when the regiments change over, the outgoing regiment will have to borrow from the regiment that has just returned. Some people will do that for a short time, but eventually they will say, "I'm sorry, but I can't do it again. It is either my family or my job and I have to put my family first." As a result, our forces could rapidly crumble away.
I accept that the new situation in the Balkans demands a high standard of soldiering. We have paid tribute to our armed forces, and many television journalists who have recently come back from Kosovo pay the most glowing tributes to the way in which our armed forces conducted themselves. That is because they are highly trained and experienced. If that training starts to fall away and our forces do not cope quite so well, they will start suffering casualties as mistakes are made. The vicious circle will expand, there will be problems with retention and people will lose confidence in those with whom they are serving.
That is the challenge for the Government. The Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right to say that meeting that challenge will cost more money. There is no doubt about that. We have taken on extra commitments so we shall have to revisit the defence budget. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say, "We will play our role in the world". It is quite clear that he will now have to fund that commitment.
494
An exceptional effort will be needed on recruitment and retention, well beyond what the Minister has announced. The messages being given to us resemble those of a normal armed forces debate, but something exceptional is required. The Minister has been unable to answer questions about tour intervals or about how long we will be in Kosovo, and with how many troops.
The Minister has a duty to protect the integrity and capability of our armed forces by insuring against the worst. It is his urgent responsibility to take on the challenges that I have outlined. My sole purpose in speaking is to try to make the Government understand that the Select Committee's report is right. A major challenge lies ahead of the Government, and they must show our armed forces that they are prepared to address it.
4.11 pm
Laura Moffatt: It is easy for Members of Parliament to sound like Mr. Grace of "Are You Being Served?", who comes down from the board room to the shop floor to tell the workers, "You are all doing very well", but has no idea what is going on. However, the Members present in the Chamber clearly care about our armed forces.
I should like to share the experiences that I had when I accompanied the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to Italy and Macedonia at the height of the bombing expeditions. Seeing people in action has left a lasting impression on me. We visited many bases in Italy, then went on to NATO headquarters in Macedonia. Before the British troops arrived, the headquarters building was a shoe factory that had been empty for five years. It was in a disgraceful state—filthy and uninhabitable—but within six weeks, it was clean and orderly, and three hot meals were being served each day. The improvement was admirable, and I send my best wishes to everyone we met.
In addition to seeing bases, we went to the front line in Kosovo, and a general told me that the Prime Minister could not possibly be taken there because it was far too dangerous. I thanked him for sharing that heartening information. We visited camps in which our armed forces were working diligently to provide clean water. The visit was an experience that I shall never forget. I saw professionals getting on with the job that they had been highly trained to do. We train them not only to fight, but to be able to deal easily with the locals, humanely and with understanding. They related well to what was happening in Kosovo, and they are doing much good.
On the ground, our troops were fully occupied, but it was different for those serving on HMS Invincible, where I was lucky enough to spend a night. The sailors said that their lives were like "Groundhog Day". It was symbolically important to place HMS Invincible in the area, and the ship was intercepted in order to be sent there specifically. The crew was pleased to be there, but the sailors felt that they wanted to take part more meaningfully, which was impossible as they were there to be used only if needed.
The major complaint of the sailors was lack of information. I was pleased by the Minister's announcement about ensuring that we upgrade technology to let armed forces personnel contact friends and family more easily. One young officer told me that he received all his information from his wife during his weekly

495
10-minute free call. It is sad to think that someone so close to what was happening should find out about it from back home.
We must modernise our armed forces' equipment. On-line newspapers are essential, and information available to HMS Invincible was later taken by helicopter to HMS Newcastle. Satellite television is also critical. The Army had access to satellite television, but it was not available to those who served on HMS Newcastle. E-mail is a crucial means of contact; indeed, many Members of Parliament use it. One computer terminal is not enough—the armed forces need more, dedicated to allowing our personnel to pass messages home.
I am pleased to hear that 70 per cent. of armed forces posts are now open to women. However, unless we modernise, accommodation will not be available for women on ships. Modernisation is not appropriate for HMS Newcastle. The ship is an old lady, and it is not worth making the change, so consequently it has to be an all-male ship. I welcome the changes on HMS Invincible that will allow 110 women to play a part in engineering and in other areas. We must continue that process.
We must also modernise by allowing people to participate in debate. The armed forces are ready for a proper debate on whether homosexuals should be able to serve. The forces are grown-up people, fully able to consider that question. It would distress me if a decision was forced on the House of Commons. It would be better if an inclusive way forward could be found, so that the armed forces could say that life had moved on in many areas and change was acceptable. They could then debate areas in which there would be no problem, and those in which there would be difficulties. We should discuss the matter with our armed forces personnel. I do not want a human rights decision to be imposed on the Government. I sincerely hope that we will take the step ourselves.
I saw our professional forces working together—Army, Navy and Royal Air Force—but it was tremendously uplifting to see them work well with forces from other countries. We should be extremely proud of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has alluded to the investigation made by the Select Committee on Defence into defence medical services. As a former nurse, I have taken tremendous interest in that, and I know the difficulties.
The Government have tackled the problems of overstretch. Many methods can be used to encourage people into the armed forces. We cannot rely on just one means. Encouragement cannot rely only on pay. We should be proud that the numbers entering and leaving the forces are almost in balance. In fact, the number entering is increasing, and we should congratulate the Government on that. I very much welcome the increase of 2,000 in establishment for the defence medical services. We must encourage people to volunteer for the reserve forces for the defence medical service.
My word of caution results from my experience of recruitment campaigns in the NHS. We face enormous difficulties because of the enormous difficulties that the NHS faces. I only hope that the discussions between top-level NHS personnel and armed forces personnel are
496
going well. We must encourage our trusts to get nurses and doctors to think carefully about joining the armed forces in the medical service.
Mr. Brazier: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time that the Ministry of Defence took the British Medical Association's military committee and the nursing unions seriously on this subject?
Laura Moffatt: I believe that that is beginning to happen, and that pressure is being brought to bear by the Select Committee on those concerned to get around the table. Those bodies must understand the difficulties in terms of recruitment.
Having spent two years on the Defence Select Committee and having visited our armed forces personnel, I can say that it has been a tremendous experience. It has enriched my life—although I doubt whether I have enriched the lives of the armed forces personnel.
I repeat that it is easy from this cosy Chamber to say that our armed forces are a wonderful bunch, but we have a duty to make sure that they are highly trained, and I think that the Government are tackling that well. We must ensure that they are provided with the best equipment, and smart procurement is beginning to do that job. We must ensure that they have a modern outlook, particularly in terms of encouraging those from different backgrounds and women into the armed forces.
We must ensure that our armed forces are commanded by people of stature and principle, as that is important to keep the confidence of the armed forces. Those armed forces must know that they have the whole-hearted support of the House.
4.23 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I welcome the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to his Front-Bench post and I wish him well for the future.
I wish to address one of the points made by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). She referred to communications from ships or shore to the UK. That is all very well, but we must make sure that e-mail is a two-way thing, and that kit for families in the UK is provided at a time and a place that are convenient for them. I represent many service families, and I have learned of the great difficulties that they face and the distress that is caused when telephones are out of action or delays occur, and when people have to wait many hours for their turn to use the telephone. It is no good extending capability if that is done in only one direction. If the Ministry of Defence is serious about that issue, it must address the situation here as well as abroad.
Like many others, I welcome the change in the style of defence debates, which is long overdue. The old single-service debates had long passed their useful purpose. A general debate covering procurement, the general role of our armed forces and personnel matters is a more serious attempt to get to grips with the problems.
The debate is opportune, as it follows yesterday's publication of the National Audit Office's report on major projects. If I were serving in the armed forces today, I would be concerned that a £3.5 billion overspend is identified in the report at the same time as we are seriously undermanned and overstretched. I hope that we can address some of those problems.

497
I was somewhat heartened when the front page of last night's edition of The Portsmouth News—representing the home of the Royal Navy—carried a story by the paper's defence correspondent, Adrian Wills, who was able to get a quote from the Defence Secretary on overspend. The right hon. Gentleman referred to great mistakes, and said:
"I find this personally offensive as Defence Secretary, as our troops don't get their equipment on time and they don't get it in an efficient way."
I could not agree more. There is no better way of sapping the morale and confidence of our forces than to tell them that they must do more with less, and that the promise of new equipment is many years late.
Of the 25 projects identified in the report, eight will miss their in-service date by more than five years. What on earth do Ministers believe that will do to the morale in the services? The average delay for any project assessed was three and a half years, and only two of the 25 will meet their in-service targets. We have heard that those 25 projects have overrun, and overspent to a cost of more than £3 million. I would be interested to know by how much the next 50 projects in the procurement budget have overrun, and how much they have cost. Those costs are important.
It is all about what resources are available—whether it is to keep pilots in the RAF, or to keep ships at sea with a full crew deployed for less time. It must be disheartening and frustrating for sailors in the Portsmouth area to read that the crewing costs for HMS Intrepid—which has been tied up in the docks since 1991—have been in excess of £12 million.
Fully trained and well-qualified sailors have been on HMS Intrepid for that period. At the same time, we have sent 46 ships to sea in the last year undermanned. Where is the logic in that? HMS Intrepid has been in reserve since 1991, and probably will be there until she is finally scrapped around 2004. What on earth do Ministers believe that that expenditure and that waste have done to service morale on board undermanned ships in the Adriatic and the Gulf?
Was it right to have sent HMS Invincible to sea on her last deployment, even though she was delayed coming home? No effort was made to bring the crew size of HMS Invincible up to its recommended complement during that deployment. At no time did HMS Invincible have her full complement on board. Those issues are real, and difficult for crews to understand and for commanders to manage—but they do it.
As hon. Members have rightly recognised, this House and our nation owe a debt of gratitude to those men and women who serve in our armed forces. From time to time, they question the decision-making processes in the House and the Ministry of Defence. They do so openly and—as the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) suggested—in a rather pushy and forceful way, which left the hon. Gentleman in no doubt of the sincerity of their concerns about the issues.
Recently, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister of State and I went to visit our airmen who had been flying missions to and from Former Yugoslavia, including Serbia and Kosovo. It was with great pleasure—and with a great deal of pride for all three of us—that we met those men and women who have dedicated their lives to the service of this country. Many are very young, and they have served their country with great distinction on three occasions in times of war.
498
We met one squadron which had flown more than 900 missions. However, on leaving Bari, they expected not to return to the United Kingdom or to Germany, but to be sent to the Gulf—another deployment on the back of their current one. They told us of the strain, not only on the pilots who had flown 900 missions, but on the several hundred men and women who put the planes in the air, kept the pilots briefed, and kept them fed and safe on the ground. The enormous strain on those units was apparent to all. People did not spare our embarrassment by confronting us with their strong concerns.
The RAF is not unique; the experience is the same for the Royal Navy.
Mr. Key: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's every word. At one point, the small number of pilots, who had carried out more than 900 bombing missions, realised that their night-flying and low-flying skills had slipped from lack of use, so they returned to the UK in the middle of the conflict to get their training up to standard. Does he agree that that was a particular mark of the professionalism of those RAF people? I bet that not another air force in the world would do that.
Mr. Hancock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I support his remarks. We were all gobsmacked when the young wing-commander in charge told us that seven members of his squadron had returned to the UK to bring their night-flying skills up to date. That was a measure of the commitment not only of those young men but of the RAF, because it ensured that there were people with the competence to carry out those missions. However, one might seriously question whether their training was sufficient in the first place, because, although those young pilots had been deployed in a battle scenario, they had to return to the UK to ensure their continued competence to fly those missions.
During the past two years, 19 ships of the Royal Navy were deployed for more than six months; it had not originally been planned to deploy any of them for that length of time. However, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs continues to widen our commitments and to take on more pressured jobs that pose more problems for the Royal Navy. It is neither right nor fair that significant shortfalls in personnel are still a major problem. The Navy alone is short of 1,600 personnel; in the Army, the figure is 4,700, and in the RAF, it is 1,800. Those figures were given in parliamentary answers as recently as early June. Ships at sea—HMS Gloucester, HMS Exeter, HMS Birmingham, HMS Illustrious and HMS Sheffield—have significant shortfalls in particular warfare branches. Those branches are vital both in wartime and, more important for the crews, in maintaining the defensive capabilities of the ships.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, we continue to have a problem of pilots leaving. The Navy is short of about 12 pilots and seven squadrons are undermanned. We are aware of the saga of the plight of RAF pilots, who constantly decide to leave the service early, and of the Government's approach to that problem.
I was heartened by the Minister of State's response to those pilots, some of whom were weeks away from having to make a decision whether to leave the RAF. All of them thoroughly enjoyed their life as pilots; they were grateful

499
that the nation had invested £3 million in training them. However, many of them had already decided to leave, and were in their final two years of service. They told the Minister, the hon. Member for Salisbury and me of some of the problems that they faced at the age of 32 or 33. They had joined the service as unmarried young men, and enjoyed their life, their training and the experience of developing new skills. As they grew older, they had married and started families. At that point, they faced decisions about their long-term future.
One of them calculated that, if he left the RAF when he was 39—having given 20 years of service—he would leave with a £55,000 cash pay-out, plus a fairly substantial pension. He suggested that he might stay in the service if part of that £55,000 could be paid at times when it was most needed—for example, when the family were looking for their first permanent home, or wanted to pay for the children's education, or for the other things needed by a young family. He put that point to the Minister, who said that he would find out whether such payments could be included in a retention package for pilots.
An American pilot, who was on attachment with the Harriers, told us, and had no doubt told those pilots, that, as soon as he left the United States, his pay was tax-free. Perhaps that point should be considered when we send people to the front line on active service. We must consider what can be done about the retention package. That matter applies not only to the front-line personnel such as pilots, but to air and ground crews.
Like the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), I was mightily impressed by the number of women who now hold senior positions and control the effectiveness of squadrons of aircraft. They are responsible for the engineering capabilities of three of the four squadrons we visited. It is a pleasure to see the success that they have made of their careers in the armed forces.
I wholly accept that major breakthroughs have been made in recruitment; I applaud them. It would be silly and selfish if any of us failed to appreciate what Ministers have done in encouraging recruitment to our armed forces. However, the problem is retention. As fast as we recruit personnel, we lose them. We must be more positive and proactive in considering what can be done to retain service men. As the representative of so many service personnel, I am aware that housing and long-term employment are among the biggest problems that they face. They do not want to live in married quarters for ever; they do not want to live for ever in multi-occupation in cities such as Portsmouth, and in the surrounding area. They want better opportunities to buy a permanent base while they are still young enough to put down roots somewhere. We should examine how we can help service men to achieve that goal. We must do much more if we are to keep those people.
We must also address some of the issues that affect the forces and the civilians around them. In past debates, I have spoken of the need to address our obligations to past service men and women—I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider those issues. I want to tackle some of them today. I was disappointed in the most unhelpful—indeed,
500
apparently unfair—dismissal of the points that I made, and that had been made many times, on behalf of the nuclear test veterans. I quote the Under-Secretary's reply:
"The hon. Gentleman said that the case of the nuclear test veterans had not been examined. The case has been extremely well examined. I regret that he does not accept the answers that we, and the best scientific advice, have come up with. The case has been considered by the National Radiological Protection Board, not once but twice. People are entitled to make criticisms, but if they do so from a scientific standpoint, they should do it in proper scientific papers. Those papers should be published in peer reviewed journals so that they can be subjected to the scientific method."—[Official Report, 10 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 873.]
We are talking about a period from the early 1950s until the beginning of the 1960s, when young men aged 19 were asked to sweep down the decks of ships that had sailed through nuclear bomb clouds. In shorts and khaki shirts, they brushed down those decks. We are talking about men who were asked to pick up debris on islands where nuclear devices had been exploded, and who were not given proper protection or clothing. In the main, they were national service men, who had been in ordinary jobs. Many of them were subjected to horrendous illnesses, and we asked them produce that sort of evidence. We as a nation owe those men and their families a great debt, and we must do all we can to help them. Like many of them, I was hurt by the dismissive way in which the issue was treated the last time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept scientific analysis. Once again, he has come up with emotive arguments, but has not dealt with the fundamental issue, which is that two scientific studies, properly published, have indicated no greater incidence of cancers and other conditions among nuclear test veterans compared with the general population. If there is an argument to be made against those studies, a proper scientific study must be carried out, published and subjected to proper scientific criticism. That is the way in which we make decisions; we do not base our decisions on arguments that do not use objective figures or on emotive statements.
Mr. Hancock: That is a fair challenge, but let me challenge the Minister. These people do not have the resources or the scientific background to do what he says that they should do. They are normal men who, when they did their service for this country, were subjected to duties that no one in this room today would volunteer to carry out, and they and their children have suffered because of that. Lives have been lost.
Is the Minister prepared to state that the Ministry of Defence will fund a study on behalf of the veterans—a final conclusive study? Will he take up the matter with the veterans, make them that offer and give them the opportunity that they need? They do not have the necessary resources to do it themselves—many of the men are now in their late 60s and early 70s, and many have not worked for many years because of illness. Do not, in a cavalier and dismissive way, suggest that someone will finance a £1-million study—that is not a viable suggestion. The Minister uses the same excuse that the Conservative Government used. Let us be more constructive and more helpful to the veterans.
The second issue is that of the Gurkha soldiers, and I am delighted that so many hon. Members have already raised it. My association with the Gurkhas in Hampshire

501
goes back 20 years. I was proud on behalf of the county to present the Gurkhas with the freedom of Hampshire in recognition of their long and devoted service to the nation and the role that they have played in the community of Hampshire, especially in the Church Cookham and Aldershot area.
I welcome the promise of the Minister for the Armed Forces to review the position, but the tripartite agreement between India, Nepal and the United Kingdom is flawed, because there is, in effect, a veto on the part of Nepal and India. We all know that we have done a great injustice to the Gurkhas and their families, who have served this country so well. No one can doubt their commitment—one only has to spend five minutes in the museum in Winchester to learn what those men have done for this country during the past 100 years.
Mr. Cotter: I am sure that we welcomed the commitment made by the Minister this afternoon to carry out some sort of review, but does my hon. Friend accept that we are talking about Sergeant Balaram, who died only two weeks ago and whose family is in grave circumstances? Should we not be insisting that something be done now in respect of that individual case—perhaps a discretionary payment or some other such measure?
Mr. Hancock: Of course we should, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will address that issue when he winds up the debate. Both Gurkha soldiers died in the service of this country; both died to save the lives of others. What a pity it is that the families of both are not entitled to the same compensation to safeguard their future. Both of them gave their lives on behalf of this nation and its ideals, so we should at least extend the courtesy of ensuring that both of them can be treated the same way in death and that the compensation due to the families of both of them is the same. We should not discriminate because the family of one of them happens to live on the side of mountain in Nepal, rather than in the United Kingdom.
The issue is not merely that of pensions, but of the rights of Gurkha soldiers when they cease to serve as soldiers. I have made representations to both the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office on behalf of Gurkha ex-soldiers who have not wanted to return to Nepal, because their chances of obtaining work there are extremely slim. They now work as laundry men on Royal Navy ships, but they are being hounded out of Britain by the immigration service and told that, if they want those jobs, they will in future have to apply from Hong Kong, or they will have to apply in Nepal for citizenship. Do we treat soldiers from other countries who have served in the British Army the same way? I think not.
The Gurkhas have long since proved their devotion and commitment. It is about time that this nation stopped saying how grateful we are to them and how proud we are that they serve in our armed forces, and instead showed them how proud we are by treating them the same as other soldiers. Let us give the Gurkhas the equality that all Members of this House demand from each other.
The next issue is the on-going problem of asbestos-affected service men. I should like to bring the Minister's attention to the case of Mr. Leslie Terry,
502
of 4 Dale Park house, Portsmouth. Mr. Terry's case is well recorded and well documented and I wrote to the Minister for the Armed Forces about it. His reply was:
"In the case of Mr. Terry, as his exposure to asbestos dust and fibre in the Royal Navy was before 15 May 1987, he is prevented by law from receiving compensation from the Ministry of Defence. The legal position is that even if an ex-Serviceman only now discovers he has asbestos related disease, he cannot sue for compensation if exposure was before the repeal of Section 10 of The Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Given that controls over the use of asbestos were introduced in 1970, this is and will be the case for the vast majority of ex-Service claimants. (The time between exposure to asbestos dust and fibre and the first signs of disease is typically between 15 and 40 plus years)."
Therefore, the MOD has no jurisdiction or right to help Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry served in the Royal Navy from the age of 19 until the end of the second world war. Throughout that time, he served on board ships and, because he was a stoker, he was exposed to the delagging of boilers. His life is now threatened by illness, and there is ample proof as to how and why the illness came about. It is not good enough for Ministers to say that, if exposure to asbestos occurred before 1987, this man has no claim. Asbestos does not recognise the artificial barriers that we have erected, and, when he joined the Royal Navy, Mr. Terry did not know that he would have no recourse to compensation.
No reasonable person would suggest that service men should be treated differently from the miners who have recently, and rightly, been given blanket compensation for illnesses related to the mining industry, with no discrimination based on when, how or where the illnesses were contracted. The same should now be given to service men, whether they served in the Royal Navy or the Army, and to civilian workers similarly affected. We need to tackle that issue. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Walsall, South said, we need also, with vigour and enthusiasm, to continue to address the issue of the Gulf war veterans.
We must also deal with the latest shameful example of the way in which the Ministry of Defence treats its personnel. I refer to the two crew members who were flying the Chinook helicopter than crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. Those men are dead and buried, but they are also shamed by the report of the latest inquiry, and that is unforgivable. Evidence now suggests that the inquiries were flawed, and the evidence used needs to be re-examined.
I did not, for one minute, accept a word of the Minister's answer to my question about that crash. I cannot believe that nobody in the Ministry of Defence recognises the moral obligation to re-examine that case. What effect do Ministry of Defence personnel think such cases have on the morale of pilots and ground crew? Those two officers—two of the top pilots in the RAF—have had their careers stained. It is bad enough that they were killed in that crash, but it is worse still that the stigma attached to them by the inquiries remains.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the rules for the allocation of blame in such accidents state that dead flying crew personnel should never be blamed unless there is no doubt whatsoever that

503
they were responsible. As the Chinook crash remains a mystery, there is doubt. The rules are therefore being broken and the men are unjustifiably being blamed.
Mr. Hancock: I could not agree more. It is a shame on this nation that senior officers and Defence Ministers are prepared to allow that disgraceful situation to continue by not permitting another inquiry. I do not know what it would take to make the Minister reconsider that issue. If the report in Computer Weekly is not enough, sheer compassion towards the families of those two service men should be enough to make Ministers say, "Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, re-examine the case and take care of the problem."
If the Minister is so convinced that he is right, will he explain to the House tonight—I am sure that he has been briefed on this—how the Chinook's hydraulic system became contaminated? Your inquiries did not explain that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
Mr. Hancock: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister will appreciate that the inquiries into the crash did not establish how the contamination occurred, and answers to parliamentary questions have not established how it happened. I am sure that the Minister must have been told how the Chinook's hydraulic system was contaminated and what part that might have played in causing the crash.
Mr. Key: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has also taken up this cause, on which there is cross-party agreement. All three main parties have considered the matter most carefully, and we understand the sensitive situation faced by Ministers. It is extremely difficult for them, but it cannot be allowed to go away. A fundamental injustice has been done to those two young men and their families. This is not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, simply a matter of arguments about technology and computer software; there is also a question about legal processes in Scotland and in England. The case will continue, and I hope that Ministers will realise that they must consider it in a new light.
Mr. Hancock: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's support. His colleagues on the Select Committee were very supportive when I tried to persuade the Committee to consider the matter. I shall work with them and hon. Members from both sides of the House to try to get justice for Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook. We can do nothing for them except restore to them the honour that they deserve. The RAF should want to pay that debt of honour to them. I hope that Ministers will do all that they can to prevail on people in the Ministry of Defence to allow a third inquiry to take place and questions to be answered. People have a legitimate reason for asking those questions and for expecting them to be answered correctly in due course.
I welcomed the remarks of the Minister for the Armed Forces about the role of the Military Provost Guard Service and his recommended changes. As I said in my
504
intervention, those changes are reasonable, sensible and long overdue. We should welcome the redeployment of 1,600 service personnel in a role that will be much more rewarding and fulfilling for them and the nation's defence.
The issue of the military defence police remains to be resolved, and the hon. Member for Walsall, South was right to flag that up again. I know from my involvement with MOD policemen in my area that they will want to comment on their future.
In the past few months, we have had three or four opportunities to discuss defence-related issues. We know that no one could have predicted the dramatic and dreadful consequences of the collapse in the stability of the former Yugoslav republics.
As a nation, we are fully committed to playing our part. We will not be out of Bosnia—with the best will in the world, a sensitive presence will be required—for a decade or more to come. At least a generation will have had to grow up with some semblance of peace before Bosnia is secure. The democratic processes there are not stable; we need to give much more help.
It is obvious to anyone who has even just glimpsed at the situation in Kosovo that the province will be a volatile issue for years to come. Our on-going commitment must a be real and proper one. The style of soldiering will undoubtedly change, but the requirement for a British presence is apparent to all.
We would be foolish if we did not think that that will have a knock-on effect on the defence capabilities of the British armed forces—whether naval personnel providing air support in the Adriatic or men and women on the ground. Such support will go on, but at a price. That price will be continued overstretch. Equipment will continue to be run down and deficits in training will continue to open. To address such problems, we must secure the commitment that the procurement budget will not degenerate into farce.
When the report was published last year, Ministers said that it was not their responsibility and that it was about the failure of the outgoing Tory Government. This year's report is about this Government's performance. It has examined their performance and, my God, it has not been much better—has it?
Something must be done, and in a way that gives the men and women of our armed forces confidence that they will get the kit and equipment that they need, that they will get it on time and that they will not have to pay a price for it by continuing to have to work, undermanned time and again, in pretty dour conditions, often with substandard equipment.
We owe our forces more than that. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, if we are to say, "Thank you", we must do so in a way that they can believe. The best way is to deliver the best equipment at the best price and on time. We must get that right, and get the equipment to them now, when they need it. If not, morale problems in our armed forces will deteriorate. The one thing of which we are all sure—are we not?—is that overstretch is having a dramatic effect not only on families but on the men and women who are at the sharp end of our armed forces. Before long, they will tell us so by leaving the armed forces in increasing numbers, and we will not be able to stop it.
5 pm
Mr. John Grogan: I shall make three points in a brief contribution to this debate.
First, I shall address the role of women in our armed forces, the figures for which are now quite striking. Of all jobs in the Army, 70 per cent. are now open to women—as opposed to less than 50 per cent. a few years ago. Of jobs in the Royal Navy, 75 per cent. are open to women, as are 96 per cent. of jobs in the Royal Air Force.
If we are to inspire the generation of young women in schools such as Tadcaster grammar and Selby high school in my constituency to join the armed forces—those with an aptitude and skills with which they may make a contribution in the next century—we must recognise the role that women have played in our armed forces over many years, particularly during the second world war.
We are one of the few countries that fought in the second world war not to have a memorial to women who fought. In Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand there is such a war memorial, but in Britain all we have is an empty plinth in Trafalgar square. It is time that we filled that space, because it would inspire a generation of our young women to join the armed forces.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that 700,000 women fought in a variety of roles in the second world war. They were air gunners in Britain and pilots of unarmed planes abroad—Amy Johnson was killed flying such a plane. Women were agents behind enemy lines, too. Also, of course, they were members of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and air raid protection wardens. That must be recognised.
Mr. Martlew: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says, but I am sure that he did not mean to miss out those who worked in the munitions factories. I must declare an interest: my mother was badly injured in a munitions factory. It is time that the Government set up a memorial to the women whose major contribution enabled us to win the war.
Mr. Grogan: I agree.
Fairly recently, the Daily Mail pointed out that women who contributed to the war effort probably outnumbered men. We must recognise the roles played by the mothers and grandmas of today's young women if we are to inspire them.
I, like many hon. Members, welcome the commitment that has been made regarding Gurkhas' pensions. The figures are stark. Sergeant Balaram's widow will get an annual pension of £770. A British staff sergeant of equivalent rank would get £15,000. The words of Sergeant Balaram's widow, as reported in the Daily Mirror, struck a chord with me. She said:
"I am sure the British army will look after us—maybe."
There must be no "maybes". The only possible—the only really acceptable—outcome of the review would be full pension rights for Gurkhas. The 1947 tripartite agreement between Britain, India and Nepal need not be an obstacle to that. Amendments have been made to that agreement; further amendments can be made.
The issue of pensions for the Gurkhas reminded me of a case that came up in my constituency which, although it involved a very different group of people, shows that, when we talk of the armed forces, we should also think
506
of the terms and conditions of the many people who may not be members of the armed forces but who support them in many different ways.
One of the first letters that I received when I was elected Member of Parliament for Selby was from Mrs. Sheila Steenson, a long-term unit cleaner at Imphal barracks in Fulford in York. She is employed on an agency basis by the Navy Institutes Army and Air Force, and she has the responsible job of cleaning very secure accommodation—the officers and sergeants messes. She gave me a surprising letter from the NAAFI pension fund, saying:
"Naafi carries out the cleaning tasks as agent for the Armed Services on repayment by them of all charges. They repay wages, and over the years they have developed a gratuity/terminal benefits system which we apply as agent. Because of this system, the category of Unit Cleaner has never been eligible to join the Naafi pension fund."
A gratuity terminal benefit system seems to me to be more appropriate for a student doing a holiday job in a restaurant than for someone who serves our armed forces for many years.
Very recently, after a long campaign headed by Mrs. Steenson, I was delighted to receive a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), confirming:
"The NAAFI Main Board has now reviewed its position and agreed at its meeting on 26 March to invite the Unit Cleaners to join the pension fund".
It may seem a small matter, but there are 270 such employees in the country, and it is important that we concern ourselves with their terms and conditions.
Finally, I shall discuss compensation. I welcome the fact that the Government are soon to produce a consultation paper on the subject. In a recent ministerial reply, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said that that issue could be more complicated than expected—which is probably true of most political problems. I also note that he promises a paper mid-year. We are pretty nearly in the middle of the year, are we not? It is 1 July. I note what he said in his opening remarks. Such a paper is needed.
We should reflect, as a House, that it is only 10 years since we passed the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, which for the first time allowed members of the armed forces to claim compensation from the Ministry of Defence when they were badly injured, if they could prove negligence. That is often very hard to prove against the mighty Ministry of Defence. Some people have suggested that the onus of proof should be changed and that the Ministry of Defence should have to prove negligence on the part of service men and women who are injured.
The figure of £27 million may seem high, but when the 1987 Act was passed the Government assumed that, at 1987 prices, £15 million would have been paid out after 10 years. The sum is not that much more than was expected, given the nature of inflation. However, it is an area that needs to be considered. Members of the armed forces expect to put their lives on the line, but they expect also due care and attention from the Ministry of Defence and proper compensation when things go wrong.
A feature of the Defence team is that they have tried to reflect in practical ways the deep respect and regard with which the armed forces are held in the Chamber.

507
They have tried to manifest that regard in personnel policies. It is not only a matter of retention, although it is important to keep the ablest of our young men and women in the armed forces once they have joined them and to encourage them to consider it to be a career for life rather than for a few years. In many instances, it is a question of doing the right thing, of implementing natural justice, and of putting right wrongs that should have been put right long ago.
5.6 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) is right to draw attention to the problems of compensation. I join him in congratulating the Minister for the Armed Forces on his announcement that the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security will be jointly reviewing arrangements for compensating members of the armed forces who suffer illness, injury or death as a result of their work.
No doubt the consultation paper will appear before the House rises for the summer recess. That will bring the number of consultation papers issued by the Government to almost 200. It is all very well to go through the process of consultation, but it tends to delay action. Consult by all means, but if a way could be found of speeding up the process, that would be much appreciated. Following the consultation, it will be the armed forces Bill of 2001 that will introduce a new scheme of compensation. That means that the scheme will not be effective until 2003. That is too long to wait for a change in the existing regime.
The hon. Member for Selby referred also to the importance of women in the defence of the realm, in whatever role. I much endorse what he had to say about that. In Select Committee terms, the last bastion or the last male preserve has been breached with the arrival in the Defence Committee of the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). I warmly congratulate them on climbing the learning curve with enormous speed.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley on her contribution to the debate. I was with her on the visits to our forces in Macedonia, the Adriatic and Italy. She will recall that our very first meeting was at Vicenza, which was the headquarters for all the air operations which were being undertaken. She will remember what the United States air force general had to say about the air operation. I will not use the typically lurid American terms which he used to describe it, but he certainly indicated to us—my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces was present—that we should have bombed Belgrade far harder and earlier on instead of having targets all around Serbia. He said that really hard strikes on Belgrade on day one would have had a profound effect on Mr. Milosevic and on the Serb people. I think that he was absolutely right. The general also deplored the fact that it took 72 hours to get approval for individual air strikes. That was too long. Many of the hold-ups were apparently in the White House.
Now that the operation is virtually concluded, although it has already been accepted by the House generally that the job of peacekeeping will run for years to come, it is important that there is a full and independent inquiry into the conduct of the war and the diplomatic action that led
508
up to it. We had that after the Falklands war and the Gulf war. I think that such a inquiry should now take place after the war in the Balkans.
I know that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will be undertaking its own inquiry. The Defence Committee has said that it will undertake one. It may be that the two Select Committees will join forces to take evidence in some instances. An independent inquiry into the conduct of the diplomatic representations and activities, and then the war, is also extremely important. That will run on to the peacekeeping operation as well.
In her excellent speech, the hon. Member for Crawley referred to the difficulty of changing our laws to permit homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. She made the valid point that that will vary from one force to another, and possibly even from one unit to another.
We saw evidence of a similar situation with regard to women when we visited the Royal Navy in the Adriatic sea. On HMS Invincible, with a crew of 1,200, there were many women serving—about 10 per cent. of the crew, I think—with no difficulty at all. It worked superbly. However, on the Newcastle, with a crew of about 200, there were no women on board at all, simply because such a ship does not have the facilities to keep the sexes apart, and all sorts of difficulties could arise. The example of HMS Invincible proves that the rules can be adjusted to take account of the units involved.
I am very sorry, as are other hon. Members, about the poor attendance at this debate. When I entered the House, a debate on any defence matter was a big occasion and the House was always full. That may reflect the composition of the House. In those days, as an ex-soldier, I would never dare to take part in a defence debate, because the House was stuffed full of retired soldiers, sailors and airmen, all covered in medals, and it would be more than I dared do to venture into what I saw as their preserve.
These days, it is important for us to try to preserve a military connection in the House. I hope that selection committees in constituencies, choosing parliamentary candidates from all parties, bear that in mind. We are losing a great deal of expertise, and with the departure of the hereditary peers, we shall lose a wealth of military experience in the other place. That is greatly to be regretted. None the less, I welcome the arrival on our Front Bench of two who should be described as honourable and gallant Gentlemen—a new shadow Secretary of State with experience as an officer in the Scots Guards and an ex-sailor who opened today's debate.
We have heard much praise today for our armed forces. Even as an ex-Grenadier Guardsman, I would pick up the motto of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who was in the Coldstream Guards. Their motto is "Second to None", and it could well be applied to the British armed forces. They have certainly been put to the test recently in Kosovo and in Bosnia, and they have come through with flying colours. It is all very well to praise them, but we now want action to ensure that they are able to continue their work.
The mission of our armed forces was well set out in the strategic defence review. It was made clear by the Government that the United Kingdom is to be
"a force for good in the world".
On several occasions the Prime Minister has spoken of the UK's global commitment to security.

509
We have enormous worldwide interests—for our size, probably more than any other country. Trade is a higher percentage of our gross domestic product than any other country that I know of. We have enormous investment worldwide—more in the United States than has even Japan or Germany. We still have immense influence around the world. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and we belong to all the best clubs—the G8, the Commonwealth and many others.
We still have a number of overseas territories that must be looked after. We have 1,000 service men and women in the Falklands, 3,000 in the sovereign bases in Cyprus and many others deployed elsewhere. There are 33 locations around the world where British service men and women are stationed, some on active service, some not.
If we are to become a world policeman, there is the problem of getting our troops to where they have to perform. The SDR proposed joint rapid reaction forces, which are to be in operation by October 2001. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that date will be met and, if so, what progress the Government have made on delivering the ro-ro ferries and the aircraft support that will be required.
The SDR limited our involvement in overseas military operations to two brigade-sized operations, as we originally had in Bosnia and Kosovo, or one divisional-sized operation, such as the Gulf war. However, our current deployment is about double that because we have 4,000 men in Bosnia and 13,000 in Kosovo. We are already way over that limit, which raises the question of how long those operations will last. When the Defence Committee put that question to the Chief of the Defence Staff, he said that he did not think we could maintain those operations in the Balkans for more than six months. We all know jolly well that they will be much longer term than that.
To meet those commitments, new establishment levels have been set by the Government which are planned to be achieved by 2004, but what are we to do in the meantime? We have heard many contributions on the increasing pressures on our service men and women and their families. What has been said about the problems of unaccompanied tours rings a bell with most of us in respect of our talks with service men, women and families in our constituencies. The number of operational tours has doubled, which should be of real concern to the Government.
On overstretch, I was struck when an hon. Member quoted General de la Billière as saying that our Army is 20,000 men short. That is a sobering figure. The SDR plans for 3,300 more soldiers, many of whom will be specialists, but we are 6,000 soldiers—mainly infantry men—short. I congratulate the Government on what they have said about teaching infantry men skills. Fewer men join the infantry because they will not learn a skill that they can use when they leave the Army. Giving infantry men a skill will attract more recruits.
We are aware that 36 per cent. of Army personnel are committed to operations and a further 22.5 per cent. have been warned that they could be deployed on operations at any time. That shows the degree of overstretch in clear terms. The Minister for the Armed Forces was asked about the Government's target for tour intervals. The previous Government's target, which they had difficulty
510
meeting, was one six-month operational tour every two years. That left plenty of time for retraining and all the other things that had to be done between tours. The figures for current tour intervals are worrying and the Defence Committee will be studying them carefully when it undertakes its inquiry into the Kosovo operation. There is no doubt that there is far less time for retraining. That lowers morale and has an impact on recruitment and retention.
In Kosovo, the hon. Member for Crawley and I were lobbied by a number of forces personnel about pay. It was drawn to our attention that, whereas the pay of an unmarried Army captain who was sent to Kosovo would fall by nearly £5 a day, the Germans were receiving £40 a day extra. Members of the American forces do not pay tax on their pay. Many of the future operations in which British troops take part will be multinational so it is important that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body takes into account the difficulty of soldiers serving alongside soldiers from other nations who are on completely different pay scales for doing the same job. The so-called "X" factor must be revisited and the longer separation service allowance must also be looked at urgently. Will the Minister say something about that when he responds to the debate?
I was horrified to find, when I visited the Irish Guards in Macedonia, that in one platoon there were not one or two but four different cap badges. The Irish Guards were so under strength that their numbers were made up by the Green Howards, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. I believe that when the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment was deployed it was 120 men short and the numbers had to be made up from 3 Para. That is not good enough.
When I visited Haslar hospital the other day, I was reminded of the seriousness of the situation within the defence medical services. I discovered from a recent parliamentary answer on this matter that the figures for medical posts with consultant status compared with those deployable within the defence medical services were staggering. The number of posts for anaesthetists should be 130, but the number deployable is 31; the number of posts for orthopaedic surgeons should be 29, but the number deployable is 13; the number of posts for accident and emergency consultants should be 23, but the number deployable is three; and the number of posts for burns and plastics, which one would think was important in the Army, should be 10, but the number deployable is two.
Although the Government believe that those numbers should be made up from the reservists, the national health service is incapable of doing that; and as the Government have reduced the numbers in the Territorial Army overall by 18,800, it is hardly surprising that it is proving difficult to find reservists to fill any gaps. I accept what the Minister said in his opening remarks about the improvement in recruitment, but although there may be more recruits coming into the armed forces, more are leaving. Since 1997, 12,000 more people have left the armed forces than have joined them. That is extremely serious.
The Army is the most obvious victim of overstretch, but in two years 12,000 people left the Royal Navy and only 8,500 joined. A similar problem exists in the RAF. When civil aviation emerges from its current business

511
trough and there is a greater demand for civil airline pilots, many RAF pilots will push off for higher-paid jobs. That problem will have to be faced.
A big debate is going on about the restructuring of our armed forces in Europe. It started before the NATO summit in Washington and has certainly continued apace since. It concerns the whole question of the development of the common foreign and security policy, the relationship between NATO and Europe, perhaps via the Western European Union, and whether the European security and defence identity should be within or outside NATO. Which is it to be? The Prime Minister at St. Malo seemed to say that it should be both inside and outside, which gives all the wrong signals. Moreover, what he said is different from what the Secretary of State has said, which adds to the confusion.
It is not just me who is confused; our friends in the WEU, with whom I debate these matters in the WEU Assembly, are also confused about the mixed signals being given by the Government. The more cynical among us feel that what the Prime Minister said at St. Malo was meant to act as a smokescreen for the Government's backing down on the single currency and the whole question of economic and monetary union.
It is crazy to start worrying about and debating defence and security institutions in Europe when we should be debating our capability of meeting the commitments that we are making, not only as a single nation but with our allies. America spends $270 billion a year on defence. The Western European Union countries combined—the European members of NATO—spend only $170 billion. When we discuss these matters with our American allies, it is hardly surprising that they complain to us about Europe's failure to meet its proper burden of international security. That has a big knock-on effect on the way in which we perform collectively.
We must seriously consider the shortfalls, and not just in the budget—we have seen with the SDR how the defence budget is planned. There is this ominous £250 million to come in the last year, which we suspect is from the sale of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. As a hard-nosed privatiser, I strongly support what the Chairman of the Defence Committee said about resisting the privatisation of DERA either in part or in whole.
The Government should consider carefully the National Audit Office's report on the delivery of equipment—late and overpriced. A large proportion of our current budget—40 per cent. or so—is spent on procurement. That is an ever-increasing amount. We should also urgently examine the lack of training facilities, especially for the infantry. Since the armour came back from Germany, the infantry have been pushed out of some of their training grounds.
We must build up personnel strengths—both numbers and capability. The Government owe that to our armed forces, who have never failed to meet their obligations and objectives. From the speeches we have heard, I think the House agrees that our armed forces are finding it increasingly difficult to meet those obligations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that quite a number of hon.
512
Members are seeking to catch my eye, and unless contributions are shorter, several of them will be disappointed.
5.27 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I confess that I have no special knowledge or experience of the armed services, but in recent months I have taken part in the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the RAF. My comments are intended to reflect the issues that RAF personnel, at all levels in the structure, raised with me during the time that I spent with them at various stations around the country.
My overwhelming impression was one of admiration and respect for the level of training, professionalism and sense of duty of all those whom I met. It is an interesting time to be involved in the RAF scheme, because the service is experiencing change on a broad front. As its own material says:
"In recent times, RAF personnel have been deployed on a broader range of tasks than at any time over the past 50 years."
The RAF suffered a 30 per cent. front-line cut as a result of "Options for Change", and, as we have heard, it is experiencing overstretch, which the service feels was not adequately addressed in the strategic defence review and has been brought into sharp focus during the simultaneous operations in the Gulf and the Balkans.
By April 1997, the RAF had lost 8,000 personnel through redundancy. It is now down to a uniformed, trained strength of about 52,000 supported by a range of civilians and contractors. Much of the contracting and private finance ventures have brought benefits. I was particularly impressed with the new £15 million investment in flight simulators at RAF Valley, which will improve the quality of training and save money on flying hours for pilots who are trying to overcome weaknesses or skills deficits. Officers to whom I have spoken say that contracting has generally produced benefits, and at the moment it also creates well-paid jobs for persons who have recently left the service.
Some stations boast large numbers of contractors, vastly outnumbering the number of service personnel. It can be difficult to raise a team to take part in sporting events, or even a detachment to parade at local civic events. When efforts are made to involve civilian personnel in the sporting and cultural activities that are such an important feature of life on an RAF station, problems relating to insurance or working hours usually develop. There is also resentment among service personnel who have to work alongside contract staff who are paid overtime, and sometimes enjoy better working conditions.
I am particularly impressed by the standard of training. Selection standards are high, training is tough and assessment is rigorous. I understand that 25 per cent. of those who train to become jet pilots fail to complete the course, so punishing and demanding is the schedule. Of course, many of those men and women are not lost to the service; they go on to fly other kinds of aircraft in war zones and on humanitarian missions throughout the world.

513
I quite fancied the idea of being a jet pilot myself, but after undergoing the augmented motor skills test I had to abandon that fantasy. I managed to score one out of nine, which, they tell me, equals no jet pilot potential. I clearly cannot rely on all the tests!
Mr. Doug Henderson: I scored two.
Mr. McCabe: The training does not come cheap. Personnel and Training Command has a budget of nearly £800 million, but I have the strong impression that the money is wisely spent. I was particularly impressed by the recruit training that I witnessed at RAF Halton: there was a noticeable difference between fresh recruits and others of a similar age after only six weeks of training. However, some recruits to whom I spoke did not seem to have a particular appetite for a long-term service career. That applied both to officers entering training at Cranwell and to those undergoing basic training at Halton, and it underlines a problem to which many hon. Members have referred today.
I do not think that the main difficulty relates to recruitment. As others have pointed out, retention is an increasing problem, which—given the demands that we are making on the service, and the costs of training—we should consider as a matter of urgency.
I was impressed not only by the training of officers and other recruits, but by the quality of other sorts of training. When I visited the department of specialist ground training I witnessed some of the work being undertaken on the advanced system engineering course, which can lead to an MSc accredited by Loughborough university. A high-quality award is now given to aero-engineers who meet the required standards. It makes them very employable when they leave the service.
Men and women to whom I have spoken have made a number of points about retention. On the positive side, I welcome the efforts that have been made to improve communication and contact between service personnel and their families. I welcome the Minister's announcement about the use of the internet. I do not know what we are going to call them—service cyber cafés, or something like that—but we should welcome the notion of speeding up and improving contact between our service men and women and their families.
I welcome some of the changes in catering facilities. That may not seem a crucial point, but young people who are brought up in a climate of choice and consumerism are unlikely to be impressed with the limited choice and service-style meals, no matter how nutritious. Allowing service personnel the same choices over the food that they eat as the average civilian will do nothing to limit their effectiveness, but may help with morale and retention. Contracting out such services delivers substantial savings.
I ask Ministers to pay attention to the concerns that many service personnel are expressing about their security, particularly their pension entitlements and other benefits after a life of service. We need to acknowledge that the Defence Housing Executive needs to make substantial improvements in delivering and refurbishing accommodation, and in improving its customer service performance. I saw some examples of excellent new housing at RAF Cosford, but I have also heard countless horror stories involving people trying to sort out decent housing for their families, and families being needlessly separated because of the housing executive's failings.
514
I refer to an issue that may be a bit controversial for some hon. Members. A number of non-commissioned officers to whom I have spoken expressed their dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of existing channels in representing their concerns. They are clear that they do not want to unionise the service, and they have no plans to go on strike or to work to rule, but they are interested in having an association or federation that would represent them and ensure that their genuine grievances and concerns were heard.
We are asking those men and women to put their lives on the line. I do not want to risk losing highly trained, competent and dedicated people. I am not convinced that, as we approach the end of the century, it would necessarily diminish our armed services if we were to create opportunities for them to have their views properly listened to and properly represented.
5.38 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: In the late 1950s, boys born in 1941 were told that they would not be called up to do national service. So it was that I never became a service man. However, I did do five years in the combined cadet force, including two "corps camps", as we called them. One was at the age of 14 at Rhyll, where it rained every day until the duck-boards floated away. The other was at the age of 18 at Catterick, where I helped to build a Bailey bridge, which was much more gratifying.
Last year, I went back to cadet camp near Catterick for the first time in almost 40 years as part of my campaign to do my best for cadet forces in my constituency. I have one of the best and most numerous corps in the midlands. Sea, army and air cadets all parade at the Territorial Army centre in Haslucks Green road in Shirley, Solihull.
The army cadets are part of Warwickshire and West Midlands (South) corps, with Colonel Bob Carruthers in charge; he it was who invited me to camp last year. The sea cadets are corps No. 481, Shirley and district, training ship Gamecock, chairman Alan Cupples. The air cadets are 492 (Solihull) squadron, air training corps, chair Ann Pearmain.
Last year, and in the early part of this year—in parliamentary questions, and in the light of uncertainties about economies expected in the Territorial Army under the Government's strategic defence review—I asked Defence Ministers for reassurances about the future of those cadets. The Government's general message was that there would indeed be economies in the TA, but that the cadets would be all right.
I am afraid that that reassurance rang a little hollow in Solihull when the news that we had feared finally broke: the Territorial Army centre in Haslucks Green road was to close. The fact is that that secure site housed transport, classrooms, a miniature range, a secure armoury and an adult presence. In short, it was just the ideal environment for the sea cadets, army cadets and air cadets to parade.
Unless really convincing alternative facilities are to be found, I fear that we shall lose something really valuable in Solihull. I admire the work of cadets and their instructors. I believe that the whole exercise is socially and educationally worthwhile; that it is good for confidence and for what the services call "attitude"; and that it builds team work and provides discipline, loyalty and something of which to be proud. Moreover, those who are responsible for recruitment into the armed services

515
proper will say—in fairness to them, they have always said it—that former cadets are the very best recruits, as they tend not to drop out or seek to leave, because they have a good idea of what they are committing themselves to and seriously want to do it.
I have a word of apology to the Minister for the Armed Forces, the occupant of the Chair and the House, as a constituency commitment might prevent me from staying to the end of the debate to hear the Minister's reply. However, I shall be content if the Minister will write to me, particularly if his letter gives me some good and reassuring news about the excellent cadet forces in my constituency of Solihull.
5.42 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me—I was starting to worry whether every hon. Member in the Chamber would be able to speak. I am a bit of an old lag at these debates, and noted that one or two hon. Members said that today's debate is poorly attended. Based on my experience, I think that it is better attended than many previous armed forces debates. On one occasion, when I was the then Opposition spokesman, I spoke for an hour, and subsequently received a letter from our Chief Whip asking why I had talked for so long. I told him that no one was on our Back Benches, so that I had to speak for an hour. That situation does not apply to this debate.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—who has left the Chamber—was rather unfair to the Secretary of State for Defence by commenting on his absence from the debate. I have made inquiries, and discovered that he is attending the opening of the Scottish Parliament. If one considers the contribution that the Scots have made over the years to our forces, one might expect him to be there. He is also a Scottish Member. I therefore hope that the criticism might be retracted.
Many Opposition Members have spoken today about overstretch. Perhaps we should not go into the history of the overstretch issue, because when I was an Opposition Member I used to speak about it, too. Quite recently, however, current Opposition Members—especially the current Leader of the Opposition—made one demand after another for preparation of a land task force to invade Kosovo. They certainly made no mention of how such a task force would overstretch our forces. Regardless, the Government were right that we did not need a land task force, and we achieved our objectives by bombing. Such a task force would have caused tremendous overstretch.
After demanding more forces for Kosovo only a few months ago, it is not right for Opposition Members now to be carping about overstretch. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) shakes his head, but a land task force would have required many more soldiers.
Mr. Key: I should, for the record, make it clear that the Opposition stayed absolutely alongside the Government on the issue. The Government told us that they did not want an invasion force. We said, "All right—you have the information; we don't—we trust you."
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry, but that is not my recollection. I remember the Leader of the Opposition
516
demanding of the Prime Minister that we took a decision by June to send in a task force otherwise the winter would be upon us, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
I should like to say a lot of good things about what the Government have done, but I am conscious of time so I shall concentrate on overstretch.
To some extent I am a delegate here today as I have made a commitment to the families of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment to express some of their views and concerns. During Defence questions recently, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether the regiment would be sent to Bosnia for the second consecutive Christmas. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend gave me the right answer. Following that reply, some soldiers' wives contacted me and we arranged a meeting at the Catterick garrison. Many of their concerns have already been mentioned today. They appreciated the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces had taken the time to see them, but as they are rather sceptical about politicians, they were not too impressed by some of his answers. I am sure that they were no more impressed with mine.
One problem relates to accommodation. I have the general impression that privatising the accommodation has not worked. The senior officers are glad that it was done as it is now no longer their problem, but there is still a great deal of substandard accommodation, some of it in Catterick.
Although the telephone allowance has increased from three minutes to 10 minutes—and that is welcome—there are still problems. After all, how many hon. Members phone home for only 10 minutes a week, and many of us go home at weekends? We have to consider the advances in mobile phones and the fact that they can be used in most parts of Europe. The Minister mentioned the use of the internet and I presume that he was also referring to e-mail, which is another welcome development. The King's Own Royal Border Regiment used it in Macedonia, but it was cut off without any explanation and that created problems for the families.
The worst problem is overstretch. The families wanted me to raise the matter earlier, but when problems arose in Kosovo, they told me that they wanted to be seen to be totally behind their husbands and fathers who were in Macedonia at the time. They are committed to the regiment and we often take their loyalty for granted. However, the regiment has been abroad for much of the past two years. It is in great demand and whenever there is a problem, it seems to be involved. Instead of being sent on one tour in 24 months, they are more likely to be sent on two tours in 18 months. That affects the morale of the troops and their families and increases the work load of those left behind. There is no doubt that when soldiers are sent abroad, those who are left have to double up and their families are also put under pressure.
The statistics for my local regiment are interesting. Between April and December 1998 it recruited 42 soldiers, but lost 48. Although the regiment has a good recruitment record, retention is still poor. The best retention record in the Army is a unit that recruited 127 soldiers and lost 70. In the worst example, 34 were recruited and 74 lost.
Statistics also show the effect of separation on families. From September 1997 to March 1999, the battalion has experienced eight divorces, and 17 more are pending.

517
Reasons given include the general pressure of service life, but in nine cases, current operational deployment has been specifically cited as a cause. Accommodation and education are problems for families, as is health care. Finding national health service dental treatment is difficult for everyone, but it is especially so for service families who are not allowed forces' dentistry.
Anyone who needs hospital treatment and who moves to a new area will go to the bottom of the new waiting list, and I am glad that the Minister will say something further on that. The military hospital at Catterick is being closed. There will be new facilities at Northallerton, but closure is a blow to forces' families. Buses are infrequent, and someone from Catterick who has a family member in hospital at Northallerton will find it hard to see him or her.
Women want careers of their own. There are two types of service family—the traditional forces families who follow the flag, and families in which the woman has a career and in which, to some extent, the husband's job is just a job. The armed forces must adjust to changing society. One simple point could be addressed. If a husband moves, the wife is not allowed jobseeker's allowance if she is deemed to have given up her job voluntarily. That does not seem right, and I hope that the Minister will think about it. We must address social change in a changing world. We have not yet fully accepted the change in women's roles. Change has been accepted within the Army, but not externally, and we must rethink our approach.
I have asked the Opposition about their attitude to homosexuals in the armed forces, but have had no reply. Are they opposed to allowing homosexuals to join the forces? I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to join. The current bar is discriminatory, and we should do away with it as soon as possible. If a vote is called on the matter in the House of Commons, will Conservative Members be allowed a free vote?
Families tell me that the Government must deal with the serious problem of overstretch. We must decide whether we should increase our armed forces. If we do not, and if there is another crisis somewhere in the world, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will have to conclude that, even if we would like to help, we do not have the forces to do so. We cannot continue as we are. The Chief of the Defence Staff cannot continue to say that we can cope in the short term, but that the Army will be overstretched in the medium term. That will affect the morale of the forces, and people will leave them.
5.54 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I plan to make the shortest speech of the debate, but I have a few points to make, particularly while the Minister is in his place. I welcomed his announcement about the promised Guards service. I did not entirely welcome his next statement—that the Ministry of Defence police has a future. It does not deserve a future. It is unaccountable and out of control, as the Minister will see if he studies the Stankovic case.
For 20 months, the police investigated that case. The man has been cleared, because there is no evidence against him—and still he is under a cloud of suspicion. This is the man who should be alongside his commandant General Jackson in Kosovo—he is the man who is needed. It is the greatest single scandal affecting any serving soldier, sailor or air man in the term of office of this Government, and I wish the Government would address it.
518
I spend a lot of time with soldiers at Army seminars, regimental dinners and the like. I know that the Ministry of Defence police is held in contempt by the armed services—and nor is the force admired by other police forces. I welcome the forthcoming inquiry by the Defence Committee. I hope that the committee will call the chief constable, Walter Boreham, and Major Stankovic.
I have in past years spent a lot of time beside serving soldiers on unaccompanied tours of duty. I know their fears, I know their hopes and I know the pressures that they are under. I know that it was routine for a battalion in Bosnia at the end of a six-month tour to count among its casualties not only its dead and wounded but the 10 per cent. or more of its marriages.
The MOD does not keep—or, at least, does not announce—the figures for divorces in the armed services. An example was brought to my attention yesterday concerning the Light Dragoons, who bore the greater part of the burden of light reconnaissance in Bosnia and underwent seven tours of duty. There were 85 divorces—in a formation of much less than battalion strength. That is a good index or measure of the crisis facing our armed forces.
Routinely in this House we pay tribute to our service men and women. We do that rightly—it is a compliment that is well deserved. However, the best tribute that we could pay them is to make sure that we treat them properly.
5.58 pm
Ms Julia Drown: Given the nature of conflicts in the world, the quality of our armed forces is crucial, and probably the most important subject for the military to concentrate on. It is wise to spend a greater proportion of the Ministry of Defence's money on personnel and less money on huge equipment and weapons which, under the previous Government, always seemed to cost far more than was first estimated. It is better to spend money on armed forces personnel than on weapons of mass destruction, which we should not contemplate using in the first place.
I pay tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces, both full-time and reserves, who join the armed forces never knowing what will be expected of them. In Kosovo, our armed forces' actions in supporting the refugees in camps was remarkable, and something of which we can all be proud.
The Government, in turn, want to support our armed forces and their families. The families of armed forces personnel often pay a large price in terms of disrupted life styles, loss of contact between family members and, in times of conflict, having to endure great anxiety. For that reason, I congratulate the Government on taking steps to make the lives of armed forces personnel easier by giving improved leave arrangements, more contact time, and help with health care and school places, as well as more choice in terms of where people are posted.
One of the issues that caused anger in my constituency was the closure by the previous Government of the RAF Princess Alexandra hospital in Wroughton in south Swindon. It was well used and much admired by military and civilian patients alike. It is still much missed by my constituents. That closure was another example of the bad decisions made by the previous Government, which left a terrible legacy in my constituency.

519
By contrast, this Government are taking the views of everyone in the country seriously, and they deserve praise for making the armed forces better reflect the composition of the United Kingdom. The percentage of posts open to women has been increased from 47 per cent. to 70 per cent., but I would like it to be increased further. The target of getting 5 per cent. of all new recruits from all ethnic minorities by the year 2002 is admirable.
In relation to the recruitment and deployment of young people in the armed forces, it is of great regret that there are about 300,000 child soldiers throughout the world. Recruits in Uganda are sometimes as young as 13; the UK recruits at 16. That is of concern to the general public, as evidenced by constituents who raise the issue with me, who want an end to the use of child soldiers in armed conflict and in peacekeeping forces. They are supported by UNICEF, Save the Children, Amnesty International and others, including 110 hon. Members who signed an early-day motion that I tabled on the subject. I thank all those hon. Members for their support.
The Ministry of Defence has announced that UK service personnel under the age of 17 will not be deployed, but that means that 17-year-olds are deployed in military actions. In many aspects of our law, someone of 17 is recognised as a child—although I am aware that 17-year-olds would rather be referred to as young people. Whether we describe 17-year-olds as young people or as children, they rightly deserve protection under the Children Acts, because they can be vulnerable. Those aged 17 cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a pub in our country, but they can be deployed in operations and die for our country, even though they cannot vote for the Government who send them on those missions.
This is not an academic argument. Two brave 17-year-olds lost their lives for our country in the Gulf war. In paying tribute to them, I hope that we all agree that that is too much to ask of such young people. At present, UK 17-year-olds are members of the international peacekeeping force in Kosovo; there are 4,500 16 and 17-year-olds in the British Army. If we compare our record with that of our European partners, it is not good. Belgium is the only other country that generally recruits at 16. Neither France nor Germany will deploy young people until they reach the age of 18.
I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence is keeping its deployment policy under review. I strongly urge the Ministry to review the policy soon, with a view to changing it. Not only is the matter important for our own armed forces and for our reputation in the world, it is important when we negotiate with international colleagues to achieve the worldwide elimination of the use of child soldiers and of the worst forms of child labour.
There has been progress in that matter. Only two weeks ago, on 16 June, a new International Labour Organisation convention was adopted unanimously by 174 member states. The convention intends to eliminate the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. It provides the first, specific legal recognition that the use of child soldiers is a form of child labour. It states that the age limit for child soldiering should be 18. I urge the Government to ratify the convention as soon as possible. The worst examples are to be found among the 13 and 15-year-olds who are recruited throughout the world,
520
and in the forced and compulsory recruitment of children. We are not involved in any of those activities. However, if we are to play a strong hand in negotiating the achievement of the convention, we need to apply the arrangements in our own armed forces.
One of the reasons given by the Ministry of Defence for recruiting at 16 rather than 18 is that, if potential applicants are not recruited until they are 18, they will take up educational and other opportunities that lead them into other careers. That could be interpreted as, "Let's get them early—before they know any better", but that is not what we want. The Government are rightly committed to making membership of the armed forces a more attractive career. I have every confidence that they will succeed in that aim. That is the appropriate way to recruit people. We should all be concerned that, when people are too young, they may not have the maturity to take such an important decision with due thought and consideration. By ensuring that people are mature enough to make the decision to join the armed forces, we would be sure that we recruited those who are most suited to a military career.
Three facts are relevant to the attitude of the Ministry of Defence in relation to recruitment at 16 and deployment at 17.
First, there is a European Council directive of June 1994 on the protection of young people at work. It provides that young people under the age of 18 should be protected
"from any specific risks to their safety…which are a consequence of their lack of experience".
Work that is likely to contain specific risks includes the
"manufacture and handling of devices…or other objects containing explosives."
That clearly has an impact on under-18s in our armed forces.
Secondly, last October, the United Nations announced that all peacekeepers in UN missions should be at least 18 years old, and preferably over 21. Again, we should bear that in mind when considering the appropriate age at which we recruit to our armed forces.
Thirdly, let me take the House back to 1914, when no one under the age of 18 could be recruited into the armed forces. Now, 85 years later, there are 1,700 16-year-olds and 2,800 17-year-olds in the British Army. That cannot be described as progress. Instead, in that respect we are providing less protection to the young people of this country.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the House for listening to my comments, and I congratulate the Government on the additional support that they are giving to members of the armed forces and their families. I hope that the Minister will work with colleagues throughout Government to stop the deployment and recruitment of child soldiers, both in the United Kingdom and throughout the world.
6.6 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: Time constraints prevent me from pursuing the comments made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), although I must say that I profoundly disagree with them. However, I commend the courageous words of my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley

521
(Laura Moffatt), on the importance of consulting the armed forces before any hard and fast decisions are taken on the issue of homosexuality.
If the words of Ministers in this and other debates are to be believed, our strategic policy is an unparalleled success: Saddam Hussein was punished last year; Ulster is responding to the Prime Minister's statesmanship; and Milosevic's thugs have been driven out of Kosovo by British-led forces—half of whom, we were assured last Wednesday, are likely to be home by Christmas. Meanwhile, our forces are undergoing a healthy modernisation process in the strategic defence review, which is a model much imitated around the world.
It is interesting that not a single speech by a Back Bencher on either side of the House has conformed to that picture. In opposition, the Prime Minister deplored publicly—and rightly, so many Conservative Back Benchers thought—the overstretch in our armed forces. In 1997, at the time of the general election, we had the smallest Regular Army since the Crimean war, and the most thinly spread since 1945, measured in terms of operational commitments. As Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman promised, in a now notorious newspaper article, that things were going to change. They certainly have.
Since taking power, the Labour Government have launched major operations involving members of all three services in large numbers in the Gulf and in Kosovo, yet they have continued to cut the defence budget substantially. Morale in the armed forces has been further damaged by the Government deciding, immediately on taking office, to phase last year's modest 3.7 per cent. pay rise, in spite of the manning problems at that time. This year, it is difficult to exaggerate the impact on Army morale of the shocking potential exposure to terrorist threat of the families of a group of ex-soldiers, courtesy of Lord Saville's inquiry.
Last week, the Secretary of State admitted that the Army is still shrinking, and we have heard the figures in more detail today. A small upturn in recruitment has been outweighed by the haemorrhage—in the case of the Army, that is the correct word—of talented young men and women, especially men, from the ranks of junior officers and experienced non-commissioned officers. We were told that unaccompanied tour intervals for infantry units are running at 15 months, compared with a target of 24 months; but, because of the need to back fill, overstretch on men is far worse than the paper figures on units, so we are in fact achieving less than half that target. The figures for the Cavalry and the Royal Engineers are even worse.
The strategic defence review planned two trade-offs for the Army. One was the amalgamation of the elite 5th Airborne Brigade with our only other air manoeuvre brigade, 24 Air Mobile. That was to release funds to pay for a sixth armoured brigade. The second trade-off was a halving of the Territorial Army combat units to pay for 3,000 extra regular soldiers.
As a result of the lamentable manning figures and the Kosovo operation, both increases have been postponed indefinitely. The Regular Army's projected date for full manning has slipped again from 2004 to 2005, and no one in the Army to whom I have spoken believes that it will be achieved by that date. We were told last Wednesday that the formation of the new sixth armoured infantry
522
brigade has been deferred by between 15 and 18 months. In practice, without a large upturn in manning and a draw-down from the Balkans, it cannot happen at all. However, the corresponding cuts are happening as we speak.
Members on both sides of the House have commended the extraordinary success of the lightning intervention by 5th Airborne Brigade. No other brigade in the British Army could have achieved that. There are parallels. In the Gulf in 1990, the 81st Airborne Brigade of the US armed forces was in position within a week. The Israeli forces who achieved the extraordinarily successful raid on Entebbe are another example. In each case, the action was nothing to do with parachuting, but concerned an air manoeuvre that could have been carried out only by paratroops and organised only by an airborne headquarters. Yet that elite centre of excellence, which took 10 years to build up, is to be broken up as soon as the brigade headquarters can be replaced in Kosovo.
The other cut is also taking place. Territorial Army units are being broken up in disbandment parades throughout the country, although the 3,000 regulars have disappeared off the radar screen.
I shall briefly consider those issues in more detail. The Under-Secretary has taken the trouble to reply in detail to procurement questions, but each time I have tried to raise with his colleagues either of the armed forces issues to which I have just referred, they have replied with woolly generalisations. First, on the airborne point, 24 Air Mobile Brigade caused embarrassment to this country when it took six or seven months to get to Bosnia in 1992. I do not want to attack any part of the British Army, but nobody believes that 24 Air Mobile's readiness to deploy remotely compares to that of 5th Airborne Brigade.
We are cutting down to one airborne brigade to pay for a sixth armoured brigade. That change takes us in the opposite direction of most other armies, which think that they need more fast and light troops and less heavy metal. Nevertheless, if we are to make that transformation, why not base that brigade around the 5th Airborne Brigade headquarters, which has just proved itself so effective? I should like to know the specific reason for the decision. I am not asking the Minister to respond in this debate, but I would like a proper written answer from him or his colleagues.
The second detailed issue relates to the Territorial Army. Each time I have raised the need to suspend the cuts in the TA, at least while we are unable to recruit extra regular soldiers, I have been given the same reply. As recently as last Wednesday, the Secretary of State said that the reforms—he keeps using that word—in the Territorial Army have made it easier, rather than more difficult, to use territorials. We introduced reforms in 1996 when, with support on both sides of the House, we passed legislation that made it much easier to use territorials. The Defence Secretary has not explained how halving the number of territorials in combat units will make it easier to use them.
Let us consider the infantry. It used to be possible to put for a fortnight a territorial infantry battalion in the place of a regular infantry battalion. I once took part in such a deployment. That could give a regular battalion a break. However, under the new configuration, there is no proper battalion headquarters, so such battalions cannot be used in an emergency to take the place for a short time of a regular battalion.

523
The lack of such headquarters and the decision to cut most all-arms training for TA units will inevitably mean a decline in the quality of training of officers. In future, officers in those battalions will lack the experience of collective training—experience that has so far stood in good stead the many TA officers who have been through Bosnia. The future TA will not only be much smaller in its combat elements, but in some parts, particularly the infantry, much less usable.
I turn to the commitments that our forces are likely to face. Yes, we should be proud of the fact that British forces led the way into Kosovo—although it was after the humanitarian disaster that our intervention was designed to avert. None the less, Milosevic pulled out with virtually no damage to his armed forces. We have found virtually no knocked-out armoured vehicles, despite all the extravagant claims of NATO, British Ministers and senior officers. Our forces in the Balkans are poised between a Yugoslav army, which is largely intact, and the forces of the KLA, who have already begun to shoot at Serbs, peacekeepers and each other.
The situation looks more and more like that in Palestine—an unhappy one in which my father served and on which, after three years of trying to uphold a League of Nations mandate, a Labour Prime Minister took the courageous view that it was time to pull the plug.
The Gulf has hardly been mentioned in this debate, but Saddam Hussein has not gone away. Just a year ago, the Secretary of State said in answer to one of his hon. Friends that action would cease when Saddam Hussein responded to the United Nations resolutions. He has not, and the inspectors—and with them most of our intelligence on his weapons programmes—have left Iraq. To the Arab world, Saddam Hussein is getting stronger not weaker.
In Northern Ireland, we all wish the Prime Minister and the parties to the negotiations well, but with the release of 200 murderers, the challenge to our armed forces will be greater not smaller if trouble starts. Meanwhile, the Army is shrinking.
It is no good Ministers saying that they are planning to do something about overstretch and to mention some welcome, but very small announcements. Our commitments are already larger than our capability—and the threats have the potential to be larger still. The Army is still shrinking, cuts are still being made; it cannot go on like this.
6.18 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The novelist and statesman John Buchan referred in his autobiography, which was published shortly after his death in 1940, to his youngest brother Alastair, who fell at the head of his company of Royal Scots Fusiliers on the first morning of the battle of Arras in the first world war. He said of him:
"I remember that when I occasionally ran across him during the last stages of the battle of the Somme I thought him the only cheerful thing in a grey world…I wonder if the future historian will realise how much of the strength of the British army was due to the boys of twenty who brought the kindly ardour of youth into the business of war and died before they could lose their freshness."
One of the other young men who died—a little later in his career than young Alastair Buchan—was Flight Lieutenant Samuel Kinkead, who is buried in my
524
constituency. He was killed in 1928 at the age of 31, having previously, in the space of two short years, between the ages of 20 and 22, won the Distinguished Service Cross twice with the Royal Naval Air Service, then the Distinguished Flying Cross twice with the Royal Air Force and finally, fighting the Bolsheviks in 1919 in Russia, the Distinguished Service Order when he and another pilot, in a Sopwith Camel, drove from the field of battle 4,000 Bolshevik cavalry men.
Such stories inspire us. They still inspire people in this cynical day and age—so much so that when the Reverend Gary Philbrick, Mr. Brian Lamb of the Calshot activities centre in my constituency, where Flight Lieutenant Kinkead was based when he was killed trying to break the world air speed record in 1928, Councillor Alan Rice of Hampshire county council and I decided to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Flight Lieutenant Kinkead's death, and we invited the family along and told them not to be disappointed if only 40 or 50 people turned up. We should not have worried. Between 300 and 400 people came along to celebrate and commemorate the life of this hero—a man who had died 70 years before. Even as I tell that story, I feel a bit of a thrill of excitement that such a person could have lived and died in such an outstandingly brave fashion.
Both those two young men died unmarried. But what would have happened to them if they had been more fortunate—if they had lived to complete their military career and had postponed any question of getting married until after the completion of their term of service? Today, that situation confronts many people who fought in the war and who gave great service to this country after the war.
I refer—very briefly, because of lack of time—to a letter published in The Daily Telegraph on 5 April 1999. It was written by a gentleman by the name of I. G. Aubrey-Rees, who wrote:
"As a terminally ill recipient of an Armed Forces pension, after serving for 34 years, I believe I am very well cared for by the RAF, but when I die in the next few weeks, my widow and family will not be so fortunate."
That was brought to my attention by Major Tom Spring-Smyth, president of New Forest, East Conservative Association, my local association, who writes that,
"since I married after retiring from the army, my pension will die with me and Jennifer"—
his wife—
"will get nothing, yet I was fully paid up".
The Officers Pension Society has been campaigning on the issue of post-retirement marriages for many years. It has got nowhere under Conservative Governments and it is getting nowhere under the Labour Government. Major-General Bonnet, general secretary of the Officers Pension Society, has written to me and explained that post-retirement marriages occur much more frequently in the armed forces because officers are discouraged from marrying before the age of 25. The age used to be 30. They must retire at 55—many are forced to leave earlier—and opportunities for marriage in-service are invariably limited by military service abroad.
On 6 April 1978, it was first accepted that the widow of a service man who married or remarried after retirement should receive a forces family pension, which is the formal title of a service widow's pension. However, that change of the rules was not applied retrospectively to

525
those who had retired before 1978, and who had subsequently married after retirement. The absurdity of the situation is that those whose plight prompted the change in the armed forces pension scheme are the very widows who are now left permanently disadvantaged. Many of them are the widows of men who served a full military career and fought for the nation during the second world war.
The Government—the previous Government as well as the present one—argue against change because they say that alteration in the rules of the armed forces pension scheme would be bound to read across to the whole public service. There will certainly be pressure from other public service groups, but that can easily and legitimately be resisted. The Government recently argued that the armed forces were unique and excluded them, and only them, from the national minimum wage legislation. If the armed forces can be dealt with separately on the minimum wage, they can certainly be dealt with separately on pensions.
For many years, the Officers Pension Society has been seeking a full pension for service widows of post-retirement marriages. In late 1997, the society co-ordinated an application on behalf of 22 representative applicants to the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. The Government believe that that application will fail, while the society hopes that it will succeed. Whichever is right, it is a shame that the widows of officers who served this country gallantly and paid into pension schemes should have to resort to the ECHR to try to secure the recompense, reward and right that they should have in respect of their husbands' service, the pension contributions they made and the sacrifices that they also often had to make by delaying their marriages until after their military careers were completed.
6.26 pm
Mr. Robert Key: The pity of it is that our debate will not be widely reported in the press or in the media, nor on television. With luck, the BBC will pick up something of it for a little soundbite here and there. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it is a matter of regret that, for an issue that is so important in our national life, there is apparently little interest. It is true, however, that we have filled the time available. Indeed, we could fill it twice over given the level of expertise and commitment of many of those who have spoken in the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for his contribution and for his dedication to his constituency and to the cause of pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made another notable speech setting out his passionate belief in the difficulties of overstretch. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a particularly telling speech and I am grateful to him. I do not entirely agree with some of his remarks and I think that I have rather more sympathy for the Ministry of Defence police than he has. Nevertheless, he made an important contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made a telling speech on cadets. I agree entirely with him. I served in the cadet force for five years. I rose to the dizzy heights of company sergeant major and had a—
Mr. Doug Henderson: Hence the nasty streak.
Mr. Key: As the Minister says, that is the nasty streak.
526
I learned a huge amount in that period in terms of self-discipline, becoming a team player and having the good fortune to serve in an Army camp at Celle in Germany. From there, we visited Belsen, which was just up the road. That visit was very early on after the war. That was an incomparable experience for a young man.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) made an important plea for an independent inquiry. This is not meant to be—I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree—in any sense derogatory. It is simply that we need to get to the bottom of how things happened over the past few months in the Balkans.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), as ever, shared his great wisdom with us in demanding a period of stability. We are grateful to him. The contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) were similarly extremely welcome.
The Opposition have supported the Government in pursuit of their overriding duty of defending this country and our national interest. We shall continue to do so. There is consensus on unequivocal support for our military forces and their families as well as for the administrative, scientific and industrial civil servants who support them. This support extends to the private sector contractors who provide goods and services and to the 400,000-plus citizens who work in defence-related industries.
Yesterday, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall share a little secret with you—I crept off to the Library at 8 o'clock in the morning to prepare for the debate. I worked there for some hours re-reading the speeches of each of the three Labour Defence spokesmen in the year before the 1997 general election. It was not a Herculean task. It did not take very long, but it yielded many words for eating by present Ministers. It also made me realise just how different Labour's policy is in government from its policy in opposition. Labour Members said one thing and they are doing another. They constantly called for consensus between the parties on the fundamentals of defence policy. If we had agreed with their defence policy in opposition and stuck to it, there would no longer be consensus.
Of course, that has not stopped the Liberal Democrats from drifting around and formally linking themselves with the Government on defence and foreign policy, although, typically, having made a speech or two, they have gone before we have reached the end of the debate.
On 14 October 1996, the then shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said:
"I also support the White Paper's arguments in paragraphs 127-28 against the European Union having responsibility for Britain's defence policy. Again in our policy document we state quite clearly—I shall quote it to the House so that there can be no misconceptions—
'Labour does not support the establishment of a European army or proposals to give the European Union a military competence…We believe that efforts to develop a common defence policy should concentrate on strengthening the Western European Union as the European contribution to NATO.'"—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 491.]
That was during the debate on the defence estimates. We have not had any defence estimates since 1996. The Government have twice postponed publication of new

527
defence estimates. We understand that there has been a little local difficulty, but the House has not had an opportunity to scrutinise defence estimates since 1996.
That does not make it easy to find consensus on the budget. We have a moving target. However, we had the strategic defence review. Parts of it were extremely good. It built on much of the work that we had done, and we welcome that, but it was not strategic, as the Defence Committee pointed out. The foreign policy base lines remain secret to this day, so we cannot have consensus on them. There were gaping holes in the SDR. Home defence was virtually ignored, as the Defence Committee pointed out. There was no serious attempt to address the percentage of national budget spent on defence and security, so we cannot have consensus on that.
As we enter the third year of the Labour Government, they will be held to account for their defence budget. They must find a new soundbite. No one is listening any more as they blame the previous Government for post-cold war contractions in the defence budget and the size of the forces. People remember that, at the time, Labour Members were unilateral nuclear disarmers and Labour activists demanded deeper cuts than the Conservative Government were prepared to make.
That was then; this is now. If the previous Government were criticised by new Labour for defence cuts, why have the Labour Government gone on cutting the budget and increasing the commitments year after year?
In the run-up to the general election in 1997, the present Prime Minister wrote an article for The Daily Telegraph on 3 February. He stated:
"My pledge to our armed forces is that we will offer a period of stability."
He condemned Conservative defence cuts. He wrote:
"The people who have had to bear the burden of these cuts are our servicemen and women, overstretched and under strength as never before. The strain on our Armed Forces is huge."
He continued:
"It would be dishonest to promise to reverse the cuts in defence spending which the Government has made…We will keep to the spending plans already laid down for the next two years…Our services should not be subject to the same lack of coherent strategy and piling on of new demands".
Two years, and still the Government are cutting and piling on new demands. Only last Friday, the Foreign Secretary said that we would be committing another 8,000 troops on standby for UN operations, on top of those in Kosovo, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, the Falklands, and the RAF in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Italy. Did he spare a thought for the families, or for the retention of our current service men and women, who are prepared to die for their country, but not to sacrifice their family life indefinitely?
What did the pre-election consensus add up to? On 14 October 1996, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said:
"Since taking on the shadow defence portfolio, I have striven to establish consensus, wherever possible, on issues that affect Britain's defence and our security.. The Opposition have done that because we believe that it should be possible, in many spheres, to strike a bipartisan approach on many of the fundamental issues…We in the Labour party are willing to offer a consensual approach on the critical matters that affect the security of our country."
528
So far, so good. He went on:
"Although we seek consensus, we also have the right to be critical of many aspects of the Government's approach such as the absence of strategic planning; the dominance of short-term and ad hoc decision making…Such matters annoy us and make us critical of the Government."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 490–493.]
That is fine; I know what he means.
On 24 October, the shadow Defence Secretary went further, saying:
"I have tried to argue that there are areas on which there is consensus and areas on which there is potential consensus. There are, however, some things that we believe the Government have got completely and utterly wrong. Their obsession with privatisation really is bizarre…
What is worrying is that the Government's privatisation mania knows no bounds. They really are sell-off mad. The Defence Secretary's dogma has overcome his common sense."
I take his point, but the boot is on the other foot now. The 12,000 people employed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency know exactly what Labour meant only two and a half years ago, but the DERA dither is no joke.
The consultation paper issued recently is wholly inadequate. It provides no basis for any counter-proposals. We understand that the Secretary of State will now not announce a decision on the future of DERA before the summer recess, as he previously told the House that he would. Instead, he has apparently invited the private sector interests for tea and sympathy at the MOD main building in Whitehall. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that that is the current situation.
On 24 October 1996, the shadow Defence Secretary also said:
"Although we are prepared to try to reach a consensus with the Government as far as we can, that does not mean that we slavishly accept all the details of Government policy. Far from it. We believe that in many areas the Government's approach is harmful and destabilising to our armed forces and our security."—[Official Report, 24 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 216–219.]
I could not have put it better myself.
Most important of all are the people who serve in our armed forces—the professional service men and women and the people who follow the flag. There is complete consensus about that, but may I have a grown-up word about overstretch? There always has been, and always will be, overstretch, but official figures rarely give the whole picture for families. Tour intervals are very brief indeed. I was told only last weekend of a family in a specialist branch whose tour interval was only five months.
Consensus is difficult to achieve, but let us be grown up about it. Under this Government, overstretch is different in two ways. If the Secretary of State wants consensus, he will have to recognise that; if he wants to improve retention rates, he will have to do something about it. First, the European security and defence identity, which was agreed by Michael Portillo in 1996 and enshrined in the Petersberg declaration, was based on strengthening the Western European Union's role and common defence of NATO countries as well as
"humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking."
It was not about the new NATO doctrine of international intervention, as announced by the Prime Minister at

529
Chicago on 22 April, nor was it about overstretched British troops providing, in the words of a Government press release:
"Crack UK troops available for UN peacekeeping.
Crack UK peacekeeping troops, able to go anywhere in the world at a moment's notice are to be made available to the United Nations under a new arrangement announced today."
Would it not have been nice if the Government had told the House of Commons about that? Would it not have been nice if there had been one word in that press release about forces families, without whose support the whole thing would be impossible? If the Government are going down that road, we need a new national debate on the percentage of the national budget required to achieve that new international role and we need a reappraisal of the size of the armed forces.
The Blair doctrine is incompatible with the current size of our armed services. That is what new overstretch is all about: we have had smart procurement; now it is time for smart families. The Government are failing to implement family-friendly policies, and the strain on forces' families is building rapidly. The time has now come for the Government to invest in families. I know that that is their express intention in the SDR. We support them and want consensus on this matter, but the ball is in their court.
Before the election, Labour promised the earth to our service men and women and their families. At the top of the list was a commitment in last July's defence review to achieve tour intervals of 24 months. The hard reality is that, for some specialist units, a tour interval that is some 15 months on paper is, in practice, as little as five months.
The Foreign Secretary then made his major defence policy announcement last week, to which I have just referred. That will add dramatically to the problems of overstretch, including further reductions in the tour interval. At the recent Army Families Federation conference in Germany, an attitude survey was carried out among forces families. Wives and families are bearing the brunt of overstretch and finding it difficult to come to terms with the pressures put on all three services. I understand that the Chief of the General Staff's briefing team is to talk to units and their families. That is a welcome development but, ultimately, talking will not be enough.
Naturally, the men and women posted to theatre have good morale—it is what they are trained for. That does not mean to say that real issues associated with overstretch are not having a serious impact among married couples when it comes to retention in the forces. The situation is particularly bad among specialist units, such as the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Signals. Back-filling is leading to substantial fragmentation of units. I have even heard of a family in my constituency who were informed that they were about to be posted to Ireland; the soldier was suddenly sent to Kosovo instead, but the Army insisted that his wife packed up the family house on Salisbury plain and moved to Ireland, because her home had been reassigned to an incoming unit.
This month, in some of the Salisbury plain garrisons, 80 per cent. of the heads of household will be absent on service in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo or Cyprus. I pay tribute to the men and women of the Army welfare services and to the volunteers of the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association and the Army Families
530
Federation, but they cannot cope indefinitely with the problem. Hugely important decisions regarding education, housing and finance are being taken in the absence of husbands and fathers by wives who endure the double strain of knowing that their husbands are in danger of their lives, while routine domestic issues assume a frightening significance for those left behind.
Our soldiers are seeing terrible things in Kosovo, and last week an Army wife asked me how wives will cope when their men come home. The wives see on television the horrendous sights in Kosovo. The soldiers are professionals and know how to cope; the wives are not—and do not. What arrangements are Ministers putting in place to help the Army welfare services and other units to cope with family traumas in such circumstances?
Now that the initial task of entry into Kosovo is complete, our soldiers will have to settle down to many months, if not years, of alert discipline and tension—and perhaps boredom for long periods. It is therefore essential to support their quality of life. I have been told this week of wives at home in Germany having to send basic kit, including socks and shower bags, to Kosovo because of shortages in supply. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his commitment on telephone cards. Such matters seem trivial to us in this grand debate in the House of Commons, but such detail is immensely important to service men and women in the field.
I am glad to report that Army families have told me that they are generally happy with the Defence Housing Executive. It has been a great success, and I commend the work that it does.
I could go on, but I shall not because I want the Minister to have a fair crack. One message that has come through loud and clear in this debate is that we should be able to agree that there is a problem of overstretch and, above all, that it is time to invest in families.
6.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I am pleased about the broad welcome for the new style of these debates. That has been borne out by the nature of the speeches, as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) pointed out. Those who spoke have a lot of expertise and experience, and that was apparent again tonight. I fear that I shall be unable to cover all the points that were raised, so we will write to hon. Members on those.
I can think of no better time to hold this debate, as just over a week ago we welcomed the First Air Squadron back from duty over Kosovo. The country is rightly proud of those dedicated professionals. As their squadron leader rightly reminded the media, although they were pleased to be back, his thoughts were with their Army colleagues on the ground. They are doing a difficult job in a professional manner. Those who have expressed concern about our commitment of troops should propose an alternative to the action that we have taken to stop genocide, murder, rape and slaughter in the Balkans.
Once again, our forces have shown why they are world leaders. We must also play our part. We must ensure that our forces have the equipment they need—we debated that subject a couple of weeks ago, and I shall come on to the National Audit Office report in a minute. We should also look after their conditions. As the hon. Member for Salisbury and others have rightly emphasised,

531
that includes the conditions of our forces and their families, because they are the most affected by pressures of overstretch.
We welcome the opportunity to tell the House about the many measures that we are taking to recruit and retain men and women in the armed forces. We also welcome this opportunity once again to pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the people who serve in and support our armed forces. I am not just paying lip service to our armed forces: my comments are based on our day-to-day experiences of dealing with them and the work that they undertake.
We are working hard to meet our targets to achieve full manning, as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said in his opening remarks. The operation in Kosovo will inevitably have an impact on our ability to meet those targets at the moment, particularly for the Army. We remain committed to bringing the services back up to full manning on schedule. We recognise that overstretch is a problem—we have aggressive measures in place to address it, and we are introducing others.
We know that we need to do more to encourage people to join the forces, but we are having considerable success—that should be widely welcomed in the House—and recent figures have shown a further increase. We must convince people to serve for longer. We are considering innovative ways in which to accomplish that. My hon. Friend gave two good examples: the link-up initiative and the introduction of learning credits.
I am pleased that the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) highlighted the need for pilot retention, and the link-up project is working on that. The problem of pilot retention is faced by all air forces around the world. It is ultimately a matter between the armed forces and the airlines. This welcome initiative is good for the armed forces and for individual pilots. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South for highlighting the professionalism of the pilots who go back to the United Kingdom to upgrade their training and to ensure that they keep their flying techniques current.
I know from first hand the value that the armed forces, at service and individual level, place on education and training. My hon. Friend talked about his experience with the Royal Artillery in Newcastle. The other week, I spent an enjoyable morning with the RAF at Cosford during this year's adult learners week. Cosford is the RAF's largest training establishment with 2,000 trainees. I was impressed by the learning opportunities provided at the station and by the participants enormously positive attitude towards learning. They often undertook those courses in extremely difficult circumstances, even in theatre.
I also commend many of the educational colleges, which, contrary to practice a few years ago, are now much more flexible in their approach to people who are out on service. That shows positive co-operation and real action, and both sides are to be commended. We believe that most service people want to develop their careers and we plan to give them the means and opportunity to do just that, both for their own advancement and as a valuable tool for the retention of armed forces personnel.
532
Understandably, a number of hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—spoke of the numbers deployed in theatre in Kosovo, the increasing pressures and the impact on tour intervals. At present, we have some 10,600 ground forces in Kosovo. As has been said, we expect other nations to send more troops over the next few months, and to be able to reduce our own contribution in six months. We are discussing the position with other countries—not just NATO countries—and trying to establish what their contribution will be in respect of a number of roles.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked about tour intervals. He rightly said that the SDR assumed average tour intervals of 24 months once all its measures had been implemented. Considerations include the size of the Army and—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury—differences in different units, according to their specialisations.
Owing to both the interruption caused by Kosovo and the period that must elapse before the implementation of the SDR, tour intervals will remain shorter than we would wish. We recognise that that is a problem and that we must deal with it. We also recognise that certain conditions of service detract from the quality of life of our service personnel and their families. It would be possible, with a bit of thought, to introduce cost-effective measures to deal with that problem.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the hon. Member for Salisbury have raised the question of phone cards and phone queues. We have not got those things entirely right, but I think that the best test of an organisation is how quickly that organisation reacts to a problem, and I think that there has been a rapid reaction in regard to telephone services. Nevertheless, we aim to have much better packages of such services when troops are deployed in theatre, and we are working towards that. I am thinking not just of telephones, but of, for instance, television. We need to provide services at a fairly early stage and to provide the necessary equipment—including, of course, receiving equipment.
That does not apply only to the Army, although, because of Kosovo, attention has focused on the Army. We are now installing equipment on our ships to improve reception, with the aim of moving closer to real-time television. Following the end of the cold war, there are longer periods of patrol in the Navy. That means a different life style. Moreover, there are different expectations in the outside world.
Mention has been made of the dramatic changes that have taken place, even in this country, in access to e-mail systems. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) who pointed out that it was not just a case of improving facilities in theatre, or improving equipment; the facilities enabling messages to be transmitted must also be improved. There have been big changes in regard to the availability of e-mail in people's homes, but we, too, can improve facilities and security. That is important because it helps to maintain communication. We have good experience from other services on which to draw, and we are drawing on it.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater described our proposals as a palliative. They may seem small to some, but they are important to those who are working extremely hard in theatre, and who want some recreation and some improvement in contact. We need to look at

533
how we can improve services and—most important—we need to respond rapidly when criticisms are made, and when the position needs to be examined.
Mention has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, with her experience in the medical service, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) of the Defence Medical Services. In Defence questions only recently, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces announced that we were moving to the next stage, looking at partnerships with academic institutions on the Defence Medical Services. That is enormously important for not only military effectiveness, but morale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South was, I think, the only Member to draw attention to the important change in relation to the creation of the chief of defence logistics and the Defence Logistics Organisation. That is important in terms of both servicing rapid reaction and achieving value for money. The new chief of defence logistics, General Sir Sam Cowan, and his staff are setting a cracking pace in reforming that organisation, in achieving joint activity and in getting the best out of the different services.
The hon. Members for Portsmouth, South and for Romsey both drew attention to the National Audit Office report. It rightly identifies many of the problems that have arisen in procurement. That is precisely why, under the strategic defence review, we have created the smart procurement initiative and integrated project teams. Some of the projects that are identified in the report are already the subject of improvements and considerable gains, for both us and industry. Therefore, we have already taken those on board. We are already working on the matter. Indeed, that is acknowledged by the National Audit Office.
Mr. Brazier: The Minister's comments would carry more credibility if he could explain why it is necessary to raise the comparatively small sum of money by compromising DERA's neutrality, integrity and excellence.
Mr. Spellar: Those are entirely different issues: the work that we are undertaking on smart procurement and the critical mass at DERA. The hon. Gentleman often makes good points, but he rides his hobby horses almost into the ground. He refuses to acknowledge that, although in many other areas there are significant issues, they are
534
by no means the whole picture. Integrated project teams and smart procurement are already working. We will demonstrate that over coming months.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South made a good point about those who wish to set up homes. He will be aware that in the Royal Navy, for example, an advance loan scheme already exists to assist in that process.
The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) talked about the cadets. Indeed, we have put additional resources into the cadets, which has been welcomed. We should not only remember that they are excellent youngsters, many of whom go into the services and have good careers, but acknowledge the work of those who act as their officers and trainers.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) raised the question of under-18s in the armed forces. I shall clarify the position. The International Labour Organisation proposes to ban the forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict. United Kingdom recruitment is entirely different from the abusive, forced involvement of children as members of militias or paramilitary forces. We are talking about properly organised, properly supervised, voluntary recruitment into our armed forces, and the excellent future that it gives to many youngsters.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South raised a number of other issues, including nuclear test veterans, the Chinook and asbestos. He keeps asking for new inquiries. That is mainly due to the fact that he does not like the answers that the inquiries have already given. Other Members also raised the question of the Chinook. In both of the former cases—asbestos is different and is being reviewed—there has been careful study.
If people have better scientific evidence that negates the basis of those inquiries, they should come forward with it, but both radiological protection studies have stood their ground. We are funding an additional survey on one area—multiple myeloma—because there has been an increase in the problem among both groups: the veterans and the standard group.
The debate has allowed us to—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

FINANCE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. George Mudie be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr. Keith Bradley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Hill, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Teaching of Philosophy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
7 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity of raising in this forum the subject—perhaps the plight—of philosophy. I told some hon. Members the subject of the debate, and some of them exhibited a certain pleasure, whereas others demonstrated some perplexity. Those who viewed the subject askance expressed two rather negative views about the subject of philosophy and its role in education.
The first view was that philosophy is a trivial subject that is not worth bothering with. The second view was rather different—that philosophy is the most profound and complex subject in the universe, but that its atmosphere is so rarefied that only geniuses, such as Einstein, need bother with it. Some people hold those views at the same time—although they are contradictory, as something cannot be both trivial and profound. Either view can be used to support the idea that the subject should be marginal to the educational process.
How do people arrive at such strange views? On the trivial side of the argument, it might be said that most people have thoughts that are broadly philosophical in character—so why bother studying them? Children, for example, often ask questions that are broadly—but fundamentally—philosophical, such as: "How can I tell what is right and what is wrong? Why should I obey the law? What is the point of studying history? Are people naturally selfish? Is everything made up of something else?"; or even, "Does God cry?" Those are among the thousands of philosophical questions that children and teenagers ask.
Our education system should make provision not only for those questions to be answered, but for children and young people to learn that such questioning is of value and should be encouraged. Part of the value of such questioning is that, in our lives, whether adult or child, we have to find answers to at least some of those questions.
Education should assist that process. However, it does little to develop young people's capacity to take philosophical matters seriously. Moreover, much of the time, education treats such inquiries as not worthy of pursuit—as if to say, "Ha! That is a philosophical question", with the shrug of the shoulders. It is the Pontius Pilate system:
"What is truth?…and would not stay for an answer."
It is a mistake to trivialise philosophy for many reasons, but I shall list only three. First, its subject matter is fundamentally important. Whatever else we want the education system to do, we want our children to grow up with a strong sense of right and wrong, and the strength of character both to live by their judgment and to develop as moral beings. It seems strange to expect to accomplish that goal by ignoring the subject that has most to offer in moral education.
Secondly, by refusing to take seriously young people's philosophical questions, we neglect a very valuable educational tool. Young people have some provisional answers to some of their philosophical questions.
536
However, if they could be brought to realise that their answers were, for example, inconsistent or insufficiently argued, their grasp of matters of the first importance could be developed.
Much practical education provided to people starts not with an inquirer and a provisional answer, but with some authority who "knows" an answer and whose only interest in the process is in getting the other person to absorb it. That is the so-called "blotting paper" theory of education.
Philosophy has the power to deal with the questions about which young people—but not only young people—are really thinking. It treats their confusion not as something to be instantly eliminated, but with respect. People grow from a confused state. Indeed, Aristotle said that the sense of wonder is the source of all knowledge. The teacher of philosophy—who does not have the answers to those fundament questions, but perhaps has more adequate answers—is more like a facilitator of the pupil's thought process than the purveyor of truths. He is, in effect, a Socratic midwife to the pupil's process of learning.
There is some evidence that if one takes seriously the way in which young people think, some of those who are alienated from the education system because it does not address where they are at or what they are thinking might be more willing to stick around.
Thirdly, philosophy opposes what might be called the Gradgrind theory of education—that it is about "facts, facts, facts". Not all questions that human beings address have the character of a question in a pub quiz. Questions that have philosophical complexity are worth asking and addressing even though no single human being has a final answer to them. The answers that one generates to such questions are partial, provisional and hesitant and as a result they are often derided, but they have an interesting feature: other people may have a perspective that, once encountered, might make one's hesitant, provisional answer a great deal better. That makes a conversation with those who have other perspectives purposive. When we address philosophical questions, we recognise that our answers could well have been improved if only we had engaged in more conversations with people with different perspectives. A philosophical education can teach us intellectual humility and that the best available answer to a question is not necessarily a final answer. It can also produce equality and co-operation between the teacher as Socratic midwife and the pupil as inquirer, which Gradgrind would never have countenanced.
I have dealt at some length with what should be said in response to the claim that philosophy is trivial. I shall deal more summarily with the idea that it is not relevant to those of us who are more limited in our understanding because it requires the brain of Einstein to cope with it. Of course, every subject has pinnacles that are inaccessible to the beginner and in the case of philosophy one would not expect school students to tackle the "Critique of Pure Reason". However, philosophy can be taught at school level and I suggest that strong benefits could be obtained if the subject were less marginalised.
Antipathy to philosophy is strongly embedded in English culture as opposed to the culture of the Celtic fringe. I once worked in a bar where one of the regular customers found out that I was a student of philosophy. "Finking," he said, "is the curse of our age". Although I do not share that judgment, I recognise it as an unargued but potentially philosophical thesis.

537
Previous Governments have put into practice their view that thinking is to be discouraged. In 1983, the then Secretary of State for Education decided that those with a degree in philosophy would not be eligible to teach. I think that he subscribed to the Einstein view of philosophy rather than to the view that it was trivial. Although over the years the ferocity of that judgment has been attenuated, the immediate effect of that decision was that seven university departments of philosophy closed and most teachers in schools today have taken no course in philosophy, not even in the theory of education.
I hope that we can start to repair the damage that that decision caused. I have a personal axe to grind as my own interest in philosophy was sparked by two mathematics teachers, both of whom had degrees in philosophy and taught mathematics with considerable flair and a profound understanding. Because of the previous Government's hostility to philosophy, today's students have no Mr. Donovan or Mr. Coffey to show them why certain mathematical ideas are important. I should like the Government to make a commitment to re-establishing the older, wiser view that an education in philosophy is not something from which the young need to be shielded.
Damaging consequences result from the neglect of philosophy in our schools, a neglect that other cultures would find strange. I have time to mention only one problem—the difficulties that young people have with moral concepts. My short disquisition must therefore represent the many other arguments that I could marshal to show the intrinsic importance of philosophical debate.
Most children grow up trained in a moral system—as a father, I undertake such training myself—in which the first commandment is, "Thou shalt obey". Early in our lives, therefore, there are persons who are the accusatives of that obedientiary ethic—the people whom children obey, such as parents and teachers. In adolescence, an obedientiary ethic proves ineffective, and those whom the child had obeyed are increasingly—perhaps sadly—seen as fallible and limited.
How does our education system facilitate the transition from an obedientiary ethic to a set of moral beliefs founded on a more wide-ranging or synoptic basis? Our schools make little effort to address the problem. Some believers in religion maintain that only an obedientiary ethic can work, saying that God should replace parents as the accusative of the obedientiary prescription. However, even many religious thinkers feel that that argument is not compelling. In our society, a considerable number of young people do not have the belief in a God that could support an obedientiary ethic for adult life.
Young people are left in a moral void, even though all of us agree that what we most want from an education system is that graduates should have high moral standing. The result is confusion, with young people thinking of morality as a maze—I wanted to get in an aside about a well-known radio programme—as a matter of taste, as vacuous or as a mechanism by which the bourgeoisie suppress the proletariat. But those positions are held without any kind of critical analysis, an analysis that could happen only if teachers and pupils were equipped to handle it.
I was a university teacher of philosophy before I entered the House. In my experience, most students arrive holding a strong view that moral beliefs are subjective, simply a matter of taste. They hold the view that any
538
argument about such a topic would lead nowhere and would be a waste of time. The relatively few who did not subscribe to that belief held instead to a relatively primitive obedientiary ethic derived from childhood religion.
Morality has something to do with an obligation to respect others, but our education system is producing people who can provide no reason why others should be treated with respect. Virtually no attention has been given to the nature of morality. On the most important subject of all, our education system is silent. The miracle of our system is not that many people go off the rails, but that those who can give no good reason for behaving in a way that respects the rights of others nevertheless frequently do so.
The tendency of our system to produce ethical subjectivists is regrettable. Those who have studied philosophy usually reject ethical subjectivism as an incoherent position, partly because it offers little scope for distinguishing between what is in the realm of the ethical and moral, and what lies outside it. Would a taste be ethical, if, like Humpty Dumpty, my view of the moral realm was what I said it was?
To counteract subjectivism, those with no interest in philosophy often demand a reintroduction of ethics to the curriculum. However, these demands often amount—particularly from the Conservative party—to a demand to reintroduce an obedientiary ethic. They are often made by those who are "in charge" who ask those who are not "in charge" to conform to their imposed standards of behaviour. However, those "in charge" are sometimes wrong, and young people can cite examples to demonstrate the fact. The efforts to impose an obedientiary ethic are unlikely to succeed—unless, of course, we cease to be a democracy. The difficulty in replacing an emphasis on ethics by an emphasis on citizenship is that those who are good as citizens might be bad as people if the laws that they obey are inhumane—the example of apartheid can be mentioned in that vein.
In the meantime, we should be equipping young people to think seriously about moral matters. One feature of a moral person is that he or she has actually spent some time thinking about these things. "What will the repercussions on others be of my behaviour if I do this?" However, our education system does not provide the facilities for that extended process of reasoning or for that thought process.
I have submitted, using inadequately a single example of ethics, that the subject matter of philosophy is intrinsically important. I have submitted also that the teaching methods it engenders are beneficial: that in teaching it, we are required to respect the deeply held views of pupils and students; that it provides pupils and students with scope for developing independent thought; and that in addressing its questions, we become aware of what I can only call the majesty of the human intellect.
I ask the Government to signal clearly that they do not subscribe to the damaging view of philosophy held by the previous Government, who did not value the contribution that philosophy might make to our system of education and our system of teacher training. I ask the Government to confirm that they value that contribution, and that they will involve philosophers in the development of the curriculum in the areas of thinking skills and citizenship

539
and when they are reflecting on how best to equip school teachers to respond to the welcome, if searching, philosophical questions raised by their pupils.
Descartes once said that philosophy was, in part, like having a conversation with the greatest thinkers of the past. We would be reluctant to shut away the greatest of paintings in a vault somewhere so that they could be viewed no longer. However, the works of the great philosophy masters—which have a transcendent beauty in their own right—are effectively shut in the vaults, for the skills needed to appreciate those works are being suppressed.
By marginalising the subject in our education system, we undermine the capacity of our young people to have that conversation with the great intellects of the past and to appreciate the beauty of their works. In doing so, we deprive them of the potential to appreciate some of the greatest intellectual achievements of humankind.
7.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing this debate, and on the powerful, effective and entertaining case that he has just made.
I declare my interest in the subject. My mother's degree was in philosophy—she was tutored by Wittgenstein at university. She has been a constant pressure on me to raise the value and worth of philosophy in our education system—not only now, but for a long time. When I was involved in educational policy some 15 years ago, I remember her sending me newspaper cuttings detailing how philosophy had been brought into classes in primary schools in the Bronx in New York—precisely the kind of alienated area that my hon. Friend mentioned—because it developed the skills of thinking and articulacy which could counter the alienation that otherwise existed.
I am not quite sure whether I was the product of a Socratic midwife. However, I assure my hon Friend that I am wholly committed to the general approach that he set out so clearly today.
The Government attach great importance to teaching pupils to think flexibly and to make reasoned judgments. We consider those skills to be a vital part of young people's education and preparation for life, and for lifelong learning. To emphasise the quality of thinking skills is a critical means of raising standards in schools; it is a key element in our overall drive to raise educational standards.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the contribution that philosophy can make in developing pupils' thinking processes and skills. Those philosophical skills are already covered by a wide range of subjects throughout the curriculum. We develop children's thinking by making it more explicit; for example, by encouraging pupils to hypothesise, to experiment, to discuss and to reflect—all of which are key thinking skills. Modern information and communication technology frightens some people because of the obedience issues raised by my hon. Friend. However, it can be shown to provoke precisely the kind of thinking skills that must be a key part of our overall curriculum and of the educational process.
540
Several of our current policies aim to develop further the teaching of thinking skills—in many cases, in ways that will offer access to philosophical inquiry. We have specifically asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider ways of integrating thinking skills into the revised national curriculum—especially at key stage 3—as part of the current review. The literacy and numeracy frameworks both include references to thinking processes, such as investigation and problem solving. This afternoon, I visited the "Tomorrow's World" exhibition at Earls Court, where I saw some exciting maths work that showed games of problem solving as a means of exciting children's interest in those important matters.
Moreover, our recent proposals for a framework for personal, social and health education and for education for citizenship, which are currently out for consultation, will encourage the development of the skills of inquiry, reflection and debate. Citizenship is not about the obedient citizen, as my hon. Friend might fear; it is about the active citizen, who is enabled to participate in, control and determine—in all the ways that we know—a fantastically rapidly changing society. Through that process, children will have opportunities to engage with some of the important moral, social and political issues of today's society—perhaps even with the eternal issues mentioned by my hon. Friend—and to practise the skills of citizenship through discussion and debate, and through active involvement in the life of their schools and communities.
"Articulacy"—a word that perhaps does not exist in the "Oxford English Dictionary"—is an exceptionally important part of our education. It is important to ensure that children are able to articulate their thoughts in a number of ways and, in so doing, to respect the articulate views of others. That is how we have to operate in our society; citizenship will play an important role in doing that. As an aside, I pay tribute to the work done by so many schools in developing school councils, which are an important part in the life of many schools. They fulfil precisely the kind of role recommended by my hon. Friend. I very much support the campaigns by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other organisations to promote the activity of school councils.
The Government are currently considering the development of a strategy on the way ahead for thinking skills across existing and new policies. In October 1998, the Department for Education and Employment commissioned Carol McGuinness of the school of psychology at Queen's university, Belfast, to review the effectiveness of different approaches to the teaching of thinking skills in primary and secondary schools. The research report—a copy of which I have here—was published on 4 May this year, and my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards attended the launch. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library for the convenience of Members and others.
The report is entitled "From thinking skills to thinking classrooms: a review and evaluation of approaches for developing pupils' thinking". It contains a great deal of interesting material. It reviews examples of structured thinking skills: some focus on a philosophical approach, such as Martin Lipman's "Philosophy for Children"; and others take subject-specific approaches, such as the "cognitive acceleration through science" education programme, which takes thinking skills forward in a

541
science context but aims to accelerate thinking more generally and to infuse thinking skills throughout the curriculum.
It is the latter approach that the Government look to the QCA to take forward, but many schools already use that approach successfully as part of the curriculum. I am attracted to the idea of developing thinking classrooms in which philosophical approaches to learning play a part. We are considering how best to take that forward in the light of the report's detailed findings. My hon. Friend's success in securing today's debate and his powerful expression of these important issues will accelerate and help that process.
I am fortunate in having in my constituency, a few metres from my home, Tuckswood first school, which actively uses philosophy and thinking skills in the classroom, with five and six-year-olds. The head of the school, Sue Eagle, has been a pioneer in the field and has participated in many of our national discussions on the subject. The purpose of thinking skills is to help children to learn how to think for themselves, ask questions and develop their ability to listen, analyse and discuss. Those skills improve pupils' powers of reasoning and inquiry, which are relevant at all key stages of maths, science and other subjects. I welcome the school's initiative in introducing the scheme, which is representative of smaller scale teaching experiments that show that mathematical problem solving and scientific reasoning can be enhanced through cognitive learning.
A couple of months ago, I went to observe philosophy lessons in the school, so that I could see for myself how the subject could be taught to children so young. The experience reflected the points raised by my hon. Friend in his speech tonight. Discussions about what the children liked or did not like brought out a range of important and interesting perceptions. Another philosophy class looked at and discussed fossils, which led to creation issues and
542
the other problematic philosophical issues inherent in that area of inquiry. At that age, children are perfectly able to question and think about such issues, and it is important that they do so.
I can give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. The Government regard thinking as a key part of the national curriculum, and philosophy is critical in that respect. At A-level, philosophy is available as a separate subject and, of more than 1,500 A-level philosophy candidates last year, three quarters passed. Under the Government's A-level reforms, which are to be introduced from next September, philosophy will continue to be available as a separate subject both at full A-level and as one of the new AS-level qualifications. In addition, the QCA is considering proposals for a new AS-level in critical thinking. That is in response to a specific recommendation by Sir Ron, now Lord Dearing in his 1996 report on 16 to 19 qualifications, for a new qualification designed to develop critical understanding of the various forms of knowledge.
The main thrust of the Government's A-level reforms is to encourage young people to take a wider range of subjects than the traditional two or three A-level package. We hope that, in that way, more young people will have the opportunity to include an AS-level in philosophy or critical thinking alongside their main programme of study. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that I and the Government as a whole are strongly committed to the contribution that philosophy and thinking can make to our education system, and that we do not accept the ideology of past Governments. We hope to develop the subject further in the curriculum of the future. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to make these statements in today's debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of the climate change levy to his Department and (b) the savings from the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur when it is introduced. [88864]

  Mr. Battle
  The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions on the Department of Trade and Industry will depend on the rates of the climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  In addition, the Government are still considering a number of detailed issues on the tax treatment of different energy products which could have a significant impact in some instances. It is, therefore, not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on this Department.

  Rover
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the criteria under which Government investment in Rover will be expected to meet best value. [88502]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) scheme from which the majority of the aid will be funded (£129 million) rigorously assesses the economic probity of aid and the ability of the potential investment to deliver value for money. In the Rover case the factors taken into account included:
  Winning a significant investment of over £1 billion for the UK;
  safeguarding of many tens of thousands of jobs both at Rover and in the region as a whole;
  Maintenance of Rover/Land Rover and their full R&D capability as an operational entity in the UK;
  enhancement of the UK's position in the global automotive market;
  and raising the skills and productivity levels within Rover and its suppliers.

  Internal Market Council
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Luxembourg on 21 June. [89805]

  Mr. Byers
  My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Luxembourg on 21 June.
  234
  The Commission introduced an open debate on the future direction of the single market. There was general agreement on the need to define strategic objectives against which the development of the single market could be monitored and on the priority areas for action (including public procurement, electronic commerce and mutual recognition). The Scoreboard was confirmed as a tool for monitoring progress; the latest version showed that the deficit in the transposition of directives was being reduced.

  The Commission reported on the progress of SLIM IV (Simpler Legislation in the Internal Market), the review of the SLIM initiative and the prospects for SLIM V. The Netherlands introduced a joint paper from the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK and there was agreement from other member states that there was a need for improvements to help realise the potential of SLIM.

  The Council reached political agreement on the Orphan Drugs Regulation (which provides incentives for the development of drugs for the treatment of rare diseases) and Customs 2000, and agreed Conclusions on Tourism and Employment. With the exception of a Spanish Gibraltar-related reservation on the designation of competent authorities, there was unanimous political agreement on the substance of the Takeovers Directive, which included the text that the Government had sought dealing with the issue of litigation. There was no agreement on the new chocolate directive, despite a qualified majority in favour of the Presidency's compromise, because of Commission objections to the proposed comitology provisions.

  The Commission introduced Communications on the Environment and the Internal Market and on Mutual Recognition. There was a brief debate on international exhaustion of trademark rights following a Commission presentation. The Council took note of progress reports on Standardisation; the Copyright and related rights in the Information Society Directive; the Electronic Commerce Directive; and the Commission's oral report on Counterfeiting and Piracy. The Council took note of a progress report on the reform of Customs Transit Systems and adopted a Resolution. The Commission announced the imminent publication of an amended proposal on Community Design.

  Ministers discussed the Artists' Resale Right Directive. The Council agreed to give more time to discussions in order to find a solution to the remaining difficulties some member states have with the proposed directive.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the aerospace industry concerning research into new technologies; and if he will make a statement. [89537]

  Mr. Battle
  I am aware of the importance of technology to the aerospace industry and saw many examples of high-technology products on the stands of UK companies during my recent visit to the Paris Air Show. Under the Department's Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration (CARAD) Programme, DTI officials maintain a close dialogue with the industry in various fora about research into aeronautics technologies.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages to the British tourism industry of reducing the rate of VAT on(a) hotel rooms, (b) restaurants and (c) other tourist attractions. [88792]

  Janet Anderson
  I have no plans to assess areas of tax policy that are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand the industry has submitted views on this matter, which are being considered.

  Historic Public Buildings
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research his Department has commissioned on the condition of historic public buildings in urban parks. [88902]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Neither my Department nor the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have commissioned any such research. English Heritage's buildings at risk register contains information on all the grade I and II* listed buildings known to them to be 'at risk' through neglect and decay or vulnerable to becoming so.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to(a) discuss the protection of non-listed historic public buildings in urban parks with local authorities and (b) publish guidance on the conservation of non-listed historic public buildings in urban parks. [88903]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Neither my Department, nor the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has any such plans at present. Unlisted buildings in urban parks are in some cases likely to be covered by conservation area controls, guidance on which is included in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

  Royal Parks Agency
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he intends to undertake a review of the Royal Parks Agency. [89802]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Royal Parks Agency (RPA) was established on 1 April 1993 as an Executive Agency of my Department with responsibility for managing and policing the Royal Parks in London and some other related areas.

  I have today announced the start of our review of the Agency, which was postponed during the completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review. This will include an evaluation of its performance since launch and a review of the options for the best management of its functions. We aim to complete the review by the end of November 1999. A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Thameslink 2000
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give an estimated completion date for the Thameslink 2000 scheme; and what the implications are for the Crossrail project. [88738]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The current estimate for the start of Thameslink 2000 services is May 2006. There is nothing planned within the scope of the scheme which would prevent the introduction of the Crossrail project.

  London Underground
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the current estimate is of the legal costs incurred to date by London Transport in the case of Mr. P. Marlow v London Underground Ltd. and the associated counter-claim. [88598]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground Ltd. has incurred legal fees amounting to £15,000 to date in defending proceedings commenced by Mr. Marlow and in pursuing a counterclaim against him.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to alleviate problems caused by the closure of the Circle Line. [88445]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and I met the managing director of London Underground (LU) last week. He satisfied us that LU are operating additional services on the Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan Lines, along part of the route where Circle Line services usually run, and a normal District Line service along most of the rest of the Circle Line. All stations remain open. Additional buses are also running on routes 16, 23 and 52. Underground tickets and passes are valid on these buses. We have asked him to inform us immediately if this should change.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential for genetically modified terminator genes in plants to escape into the environment; and if he will make a statement. [88638]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Although 'terminator gene' technology has been patented in the United States of America, it has not been introduced into any crops. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment is to set up a sub-group to advise on best practice in developing genetically modified plants. The sub group's work will include consideration of the environmental impact of 'terminator genes' and similar approaches. The sub group's findings will be published.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he supported the call by the Greek Government at the meeting of the EU Environment Council on 24 June for a temporary ban
  237
  on new varieties of genetically modified crops and seeds pending the completion of the review of EU Directive 90/220; and if he will make a statement. [88875]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: The UK Government did not support the call for suspension of releases pending the completion of the amendment to Directive 90–220 during the Luxembourg Environment Council. The UK and a number of other Member States were sceptical of the legal justification for such a moratorium and considered that rapid and effective revision of the current Directive should be the top priority in the negotiations.

  The common position agreed in Luxembourg strengthens the existing Directive in a wide range of areas such as risk assessment and monitoring. Moreover, the safeguard clause will continue to apply, allowing Member States to take immediate action to suspend a release should evidence of harm emerge.

  During the Environment Council, the Council Legal Service confirmed that a moratorium suspending application of the existing Directive would not be possible. This position was supported by the Commission. The Council Legal Service outlined some limited scope offered by Article 95 (5) of the Amsterdam Treaty which enabled Member States to derogate from harmonised legislation where specific environmental problems emerge. However, the UK took the view that agreement on strict new provisions for the amendment of Directive 90–220 should take priority over a moratorium of doubtful legality.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the European Commission to ratify the decision of the Technical Committee to allow member states which have not already done so to impose restrictions on the importation of white asbestos and products that contain the material; and if he will make a statement. [89053]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: The Government are determined to apply further necessary restrictions to the importation, marketing and use of white asbestos. I have received advice from the Health and Safety Commission about those new restrictions in the form of draft regulations. I will act on that advice as soon as the European Commission has ratified the vote of their technical committee to adapt to technical progress Council Directive 76/769/EEC. I am hopeful that this ratification will not be subject to any unnecessary delay. The UK continues to encourage the European Commission to act swiftly on this vitally important measure.

  Car Parking Fines
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the average amount of revenue to be raised by local authorities for 1999–2000 from car parking fines. [89644]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information on local authority parking revenue from penalty charge notices and excess charge notices is not held centrally.

  Council Tax
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has met the 12 local authorities he called in to discuss their increases in budget requirement and council tax; and if he will make a statement. [89803]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 13 April the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced his decision not to cap any authorities. However, he decided to call in twelve authorities with the largest increases in budget requirement and council tax to put them on warning for next year.

  I have now met the representatives of these twelve authorities. The meetings have been constructive. We discussed why the authorities had made such large increases and I explained that when we look at the budgets for 2000–01 we will be able to take this year's increase into account. Most of the authorities have told us that they do not expect to make such large increases next year.

  However, it is not only these authorities that will need to consider next year's increase carefully. All authorities should remember that, under the new reserve powers, the Government will be able to look back at increases over two years.

  Vehicle Number Plates
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has any proposals for new regulations relating to vehicle number plates. [89804]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department expects to publish draft regulations relating to the display of vehicle number plates in the near future. We will consult widely on the proposals before any new regulations are made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sitting Hours
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what services of the House are required to be available when the House is sitting on Tuesdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.; and how much could be saved if the House rose at 7 p.m. [88669]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Most main facilities for Members are available whenever the House is sitting. It is not possible to quantify, in any meaningful way, savings for the hours indicated by the hon. Lady.

  Braithwaite Report
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, when the House of Commons Commission is due to make a decision on the Braithwaite report; and how the report will be placed in the public domain. [88667]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has received the Braithwaite report which it is now considering.

  Portcullis House
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment the Commission has received of the Portcullis House project; and if he will make a statement. [89516]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  In February the House of Commons Commission appointed Messrs Northcroft, Chartered Quantity Surveyors and Construction Consultants, to undertake a mid-term review of the Portcullis House project, including an analysis of changes in the cost; to consider whether the current cost estimate and timetable are realistic and whether there is a case for modifying any aspects of the project to reduce costs and improve value for money; and to provide any comparisons with other comparable buildings.

  The report has now been received. Its key conclusion is that, when account is taken of the quality, the long lifespan of the building and other relevant factors, the building provides value for money for the House. Other main findings are that:
  the project will be delivered within the budget and programme;
  the project under construction closely reflects the scheme approved by the House in May 1993; and
  he team is totally committed to delivering the approved scheme.

  While the report acknowledges that the cost of the project is high, it records that account has to be taken of the particular reasons and the quality of the building.

  The report contains a number of detailed recommendations that Northcroft believe will help assure delivery within the programme and budget. These will now be considered and implemented as appropriate.

  The Executive Summary of the report is available in the Vote Office. The full text of the Report has been deposited in the Library.

  Good progress has continued to be made since the fieldwork for the report was undertaken in January and February, reinforcing the views of the consultants about the programme and budget. There is now every prospect of the work being completed three or four weeks in advance of the current programme and of the final cost being some £15 million below budget. The project team will explore opportunities for further improvements while they continue to strive to achieve a high quality building.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has for the composition of the electoral college for cross-bench peers in the Interim House of Lords; and if she will make a statement. [89194]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government will establish an independent Appointments Commission to nominate cross-bench peers to the transitional House of Lords. We set out our proposals for membership of the Commission in our White Paper, "Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords". The Commission will be an advisory non-departmental public body consisting of representatives of the three main political parties and a majority of independent figures, one of whom will be the Chairman. The party political representatives will be 240
  nominated by party leaders, and the independent members will be appointed in accordance with the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Consulate, Skopje
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the handling of visa applications at the British Consulate in Skopje; and if he will make a statement. [86841]

  Mr. Hoon
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has given a commitment that the Embassy will begin issuing visas as soon as it is practicable for it to do so. We are looking at options for larger premises, to enable us to provide a full visa service. As regards the processing in Skopje of applications from Kosovar refugees, I refer the hon. Member to the statement in the House on 5 May 1999 by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary,Official Report, columns 443–44, in which he outlined the arrangements being made under UNHCR auspices.

  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean will be replying separately to the hon. Member's letter of 8 June about a specific case in which he has an interest.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87319]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Between 15 April and 22 June, 107 parliamentary questions have been tabled to the Department for written answer on a named day; 66 per cent. received a substantive reply on that day.

  Stability Pact
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 1999,Official Report, column 255, relating to the publication of the Stability Pact for South East Europe, on which treaty article it is based; if it requires further European Union legislation for its operation; and what is the basis of the term pact being introduced into the affairs of the European Union and Community. [88682]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The EU agreed a Common Position on 17 May, the legal basis of which is article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, setting out the general objectives for the Stability Pact initiative. The Stability Pact for South East Europe, approved by the participants' Foreign Ministers on 10 June, is not itself a legal instrument of the European Union, although the European Union will play the leading role within the initiative. In the light of this, there may be a requirement for a Joint Action to meet future operational costs. There is no generic basis for the use within the EU of the term pact.

  Gough Island
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the Government's current arrangements for monitoring fishing in the marine area around Gough Island which forms part of the Wildlife Reserve; and what arrangements he makes for the conservation according to World Heritage Values. [87488]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: A fisheries patrol vessel, based on the island of Tristan Da Cunha, was provided to Tristan Da Cunha by the British Government in 1996. It is based on the island of Tristan Da Cunha and does not have the range to patrol Gough Island coastal waters. The only vessels that monitor fishing in the area around Gough Island are those of the Tristan lobster fishing concessionaire, Premier Fishing. All Premier Fishing vessels carry a Tristanian Government observer when fishing in the waters of the Tristan Da Cunha group. Each observer is also a designated conservation officer under the terms of the Tristan Da Cunha Conservation Ordinance 1976.

  Gough Island was declared a World Heritage Site in 1995. The area covered by this designation includes the island itself and the marine area out to three nautical miles. Gough Island has a strict Wildlife Management Plan in place. An Environmental Inspector is annually appointed and sent to the Island to ensure that the Plan is being adhered to, and to make recommendations for improvements to it.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates during the past 12 months a fisheries patrol vessel has been operating within three nautical miles of Gough Island for the purpose of monitoring fisheries; and what reports it has furnished to HMG. [87489]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: No fisheries patrol vessel has operated within three nautical miles of Gough Island for the purpose of monitoring fisheries in the past twelve months.

  Wideawake Airfield, Ascension Island
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will require the United States Government to pay commercial rates for any use of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island for civil charter flights. [88635]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: We currently have no plans to charge the United States for the use of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against decisions of the War Pensions Agency have been(a) submitted and (b) successful in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [88223]
  242
  Mr. Bayley
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Year

  Assessment

  Entitlement

  Number of appeals lodged

  1995–96

  4,920

  3,064

  1996–97

  5,282

  3,883

  1997–98

  4,694

  3,336

  1998–99

  1,440

  1,189

  Successful appeals cleared by pensions appeal tribunals1

  1995–96

  722

  1,388

  1996–97

  947

  1,997

  1997–98

  1,251

  1,373

  1998–99

  983

  1,179

  1 The second part of the table relates solely to successful claims cleared by the Pensions Appeals Tribunals. Due to the time taken to process appeals, they are not necessarily decided in the same year as that in which they are lodged. Figures of appeals lodged and decided in a particular year do not therefore necessarily relate to the same appeal.

  Note:

  War Pensions appeals fall into 2 broad categories:

  Entitlement—Those where the issue is whether the claimed disablement or death is related to service in HM Forces.

  Assessment—Those where the issue is the degree of disablement which is due to service. The higher the degree of disablement, the higher the rate of war disablement pensions awarded.

  Incapacity Benefit (ME)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will arrange for figures to be provided in future for the numbers of people who suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis as a separate category when collecting statistics on benefits. [88594]

  Mr. Bayley
  Although individual diagnosis codes are available, they are not shown in the quarterly publication. There are in the region of a thousand different codes, therefore only "group headings" are shown. There are no plans to include individual codes within the quarterly publication.

  The latest figures held show that at 30 November 1998 there were 16,000 claimants of Incapacity Benefit where the diagnosis was shown as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis falls into the group Diseases of the Nervous System (G00-G99) category.
  Notes:

  1. The figure is taken from a 5 per cent. scan of the benefit computer system, and excludes a small number of cases held clerically.

  2. Diagnosis codes are taken from the International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to Housing Benefit relating to(a) Local Authority rents, (b) Housing Association rents and (c) private sector rents for the last year for which statistics are available. [88819]
  243
  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  Housing Benefit expenditure in Great Britain: 1997–98

  £ million, Cash

  Local Authority tenants

  5,493

  Registered Social Landlord tenants (Previously Housing Association tenants)

  2,211

  Private Rented Sector tenants

  3,480

  Total Housing Benefit

  11,184

  Note:

  'Rents' have been interpreted as referring to 'tenants'

  Source:

  1997–98 Housing Benefit Subsidy claim forms from Local Authorities, together with information from the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System one per cent. samples for May 1997 and May 1998. The figures vary slightly from those in the Departmental Report because more recent Local Authorities' data have been incorporated in these figures.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases the CSA is currently dealing with and how many were wrongly assessed in the last year for which figures are available; [89052]

  (2) how much (a) compensation has been paid to clients and (b) arrears have been removed from clients' cases by the CSA, for excessive delay in processing cases (i) since its establishment and (ii) in the last year for which figures are available. [89051]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Michael Clapham, dated 30 June 1999:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.

  At the end of 1998/99 year the Agency was dealing with 923,960 live and assessed cases.

  One of the targets that the Secretary of State set the Agency for 1998/99 was that the cash value of all assessments checked throughout the full year was to be correct in at least 75% of cases. The Agency exceeded this target, with the cash value of 77% of the assessments checked being correct to the last penny.

  In April 1995 a scheme was introduced to encourage future compliance by non-resident parents in certain cases by deferring arrears which had accrued due to processing delays by the Agency. Provided the non-resident parent complies with the maintenance assessment for 52 weeks, he is only held liable for the latest six months of the arrears. Where the parent with care suffers financial loss as a result of this arrangement the balance is paid by the Agency as compensation.

  In April 1997 the Agency began to clear the backlog of approximately 495,000 cases that had been awaiting assessment for over 52 weeks, and are eligible for the scheme. That backlog has now been reduced to about 47,000 at 31 March 1999—324,859 were cleared during 1998/99.

  From the commencement of the scheme until the end of the March 1999 a total of £2,180K has been paid as compensation to parents with care, with £1,297K being paid in the 1998/99 year.

  Non-resident parents have had a total of £18.32M of their arrears deferred under this scheme, with £6.6M being deferred in the 1998/99 year.

  The figures provided for the 1998/99 year are indicative amounts and have yet to be audited and agreed by the National Audit Office. They may, therefore, be subject to change.
  244
  The Agency's Annual Report and Accounts 1998/99 is due to be published next month and I will arrange to send you a copy shortly after issue.

  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Recipients
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefits for which he is able to provide regional and national breakdowns of number of recipients. [89076]

  Angela Eagle
  The benefits for which a regional and national breakdown of the numbers of recipients can be provided are as follows. These are included in the annual Social Security Statistics publication.

  Incapacity Benefit (IB)

  Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  Maternity Allowance (MA)

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB)

  Reduced Earnings Allowance/Retirement Allowance (REA/RA)

  Attendance Allowance (AA)

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  Income Support (IS)

  Family Credit (FC)

  Disability Working Allowance (DWA)

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) (JSA (IB))

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution Based) (JSA(CB))

  Housing Benefit (HB)

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB)

  Child Support Allowance (CSA).

  A regional breakdown cannot be provided for the following benefits, but can be supplied at a national level.

  Retirement Pension (RP)

  Widows Benefit (WB).

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Research Grants
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was awarded(a) in total and (b) to each higher education establishment in the form of research grants in each year since 1995. [88830]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Higher Education Statistics Agency annual volume "Resources of Higher Education Institutions" contains the data requested. The relevant volumes are already available in the Library.

  New Deal
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have been sanctioned under the New Deal to date (i) in each of the New Deal geographical units of delivery, (ii) for the gateway and (iii) for each of the four options. [89021]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The following table shows the stage in New Deal when sanctions have been applied to participants, split by Employment Service region and gender, up to the end of May 1999.
  245

  Male

  Female

  Reason for sanction

  Reason for sanction

  ES region

  Gateway

  Option

  Other

  Gateway

  Option

  Other

  Total

  OS

  242

  567

  162

  40

  77

  42

  1,130

  NOR

  464

  685

  203

  73

  89

  38

  1,552

  NW

  328

  704

  617

  66

  127

  141

  1,983

  YHU

  522

  596

  441

  92

  122

  108

  1,881

  OW

  201

  209

  103

  46

  35

  21

  615

  WMI

  369

  400

  323

  70

  84

  94

  1,340

  EME

  361

  292

  232

  56

  64

  51

  1,056

  SW

  155

  190

  126

  24

  38

  27

  560

  LSE

  465

  564

  628

  84

  125

  203

  2,069

  GB

  3,107

  4,207

  2,835

  551

  761

  725

  12,186

  A breakdown of the reasons for sanctions are: Gateway, those sanctioned for failure to attend an adviser interview; Options, those sanctioned for refusal, failure to attend or misconduct on any of the New Deal Options; Other, those New Deal participants sanctioned or disallowed for any other reason.

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 16 April 1999,Official Report, column 381, if he will list the money spent per primary age pupil (a) from local education authorities, (b) from central Government and (c) in total (i) in 1996–97, (ii) in 1997–98 and (iii) in 1998–99 for each local education authority ranked in descending order of total spend in 1998–99. [89113]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In my reply to my hon. Friend's earlier question to which he refers, I explained that information for 1998–99 in the form in which it was requested was not yet available, and the situation is unchanged. I will write to my hon. Friend when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Grammar Schools
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local referenda are being held to establish public opinion on the future of grammar schools; and if he will publish a list showing the dates of the referenda and the areas involved. [88946]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: No referenda are being held at the moment. It is a matter for local parents to decide whether or not they want any such ballots in the future.

  School Premises (Community Use)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to encourage greater use of school premises by the community out of school hours. [89341]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department will be publishing guidance later this year on developing school—community links—including the use of premises. The 'Schools Plus Team' is following up the Social Exclusion Unit's report 'Bringing Britain Together' and is considering how schools can make their facilities available to more people.

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if schools rejected for Beacon Status are given reasons for the rejection. [89283]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The procedure for selecting Beacon schools is completely open and details are published on the DfEE website. Any school rejected for Beacon Status is given an explanation.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect on school admissions of the practice of posting OFSTED reports on the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [89284]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No assessment has yet been made. We are commissioning research into parents' experience of recent changes in legislation on school admissions and the information that parents use when deciding the type and place of education for their child. We expect to have results from this research in approximately 18 months to two years.

  Shire Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the percentage of total spending devoted to education for each shire authority; and how much extra each would have to spend in order to spend as much on education as the present highest one for the latest year for which figures are available. [89286]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information for the financial year 1999–2000 is in the process of preparation and is expected to be completed shortly. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on administrative support to the Territorial Army following the recent reforms. [89847]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence on the restructuring of the TA in November 1998
  247
  detailed work has been carried out to establish the level of administrative support required by the reformed TA. As it is our intention to make the TA more relevant, more usable and more fully integrated into the regular armed forces, we have concluded that the level of administrative support needs to be tailored to the readiness of the unit involved. Accordingly, the overall level of administrative support staff is being reduced broadly in line with the reduction in TA personnel and some units will receive an increased level of support. Altogether this will mean that there will be a net loss of some 600 civilian jobs nationally. MOD Trades Unions have been fully consulted about the implications for civilian staff and have raised a number of concerns, which are being addressed. My officials will now be working closely with the Trades Unions to ensure that the process of implementing the new TA structure is handled as sensitively as possible.

  Depleted Uranium Weapons
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total stock of depleted uranium weaponry held by the UK. [88889]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am withholding the detailed information under exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations. Depleted uranium-based ammunition is used because it offers better performance than other alternatives and, therefore, gives our Armed Forces greater operational capability.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium weapons are held by British forces based in Albania, Macedonia and Kosovo. [88963]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am withholding this information under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate how much depleted uranium was dropped on(a) Kosovo and (b) Serbia in the course of recent NATO action. [89067]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The UK did not use depleted uranium (DU) ammunition during the air campaign over Kosovo and Serbia. The United States is the only member of the Alliance to have said that it used DU ammunition. I am not in a position to estimate the amount used.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  CPS/Police Collaboration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress he has made on improving collaboration between the Crown Prosecution Service and area police forces in order to reduce delays before cases are brought to court. [87909]

  The Attorney-General
  Measures designed to bring cases to court within a few days of charge, including provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the location of CPS staff at police stations, have been tested at six pilot sites. Initial indications are that the pilots have worked well and, subject to a satisfactory evaluation, the measures will be implemented in the rest of England and 248
  Wales in November 1999. Moreover, most CPS Areas and police forces now operate fast-tracking arrangements for a range of casework. Fast-tracking has greatly reduced the time from charge to first appearance, from four or five weeks to a matter of days.

  Racial Hatred Prosecutions
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Attorney-General pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 433, on prosecutions for racial hatred, how many referrals were made to him by the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration as to whether to prosecute for incitement to racial hatred in each year since 1995. [87910]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since 1995 the Director of Public Prosecutions has referred 36 cases which involved allegations of offences under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 to my office. In 31 cases consent to prosecution was given, in three cases consent was not granted; and the Director withdrew the application for consent in the remaining two cases.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the implementation of the restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service areas. [87911]

  The Attorney-General
  The new structure of 42 Crown Prosecution Service Areas was implemented in April 1999 when the newly appointed 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors took up their posts. On 28 June 1999, I provided the final Government response to the recommendations contained in Sir lain Glidewell's report on the CPS. Sixty-four of the 75 recommendations have now been accepted, accepted in part or in principle, or implemented. Only two recommendations have been rejected. Work continues on the implementation of what is a substantial initiative within the criminal justice system.

  Charities
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in relation to charities. [87912]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General's responsibilities in relation to charities are historic and wide-ranging. The Attorney-General's function is to represent the Crown as parens patriae and so to act as protector, both of charity in general and of particular charities. It falls to the Attorney-General to institute legal proceedings to protect a charity and to represent the charitable interest. The Attorney-General is a necessary party to any litigation in which the objects of a charity need to be separately represented, for example, where the interest of the Trustees do not coincide with the objects of the charity.

  In addition, the Attorney-General has the power to authorise ex gratia payments from charitable funds on moral grounds where such payments might otherwise amount to breaches of trust and he has power, by derogation from the Sovereign, to give directions under the Sign Manual as to the re-distribution of uncertain charitable gifts under wills.

  Lenient Sentences (Appeals)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases he has sought leave to appeal against sentences on grounds of alleged leniency. [87906]

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1 May 1997 in England and Wales 197 individual references have been lodged with the Court of Appeal. 81.6 per cent. of the references heard have resulted in an increased sentence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Aloyzas Balsys
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the(a) US and (b) Lithuanian authorities in connection with allegations of war crimes by Mr. Aloyzas Balsys; and if he will make a statement. [88329]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am arranging for the relevant records to be examined, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88476]

  Kate Hoey
  The information requested for the period since 1 July 1998 is given in the table. Attendance from the Home Office was usually by one or two officials of around grade 7 level, with members of the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union and officials of other Government Departments as necessary.

  Working group

  Number of meetings

  Visa Working Group

  10

  Working Party on Economic Question (Data Protection)

  7

  Regulators Group (Building and Construction Materials)1

  4

  Standing Committee on Construction (Construction Products Directive)1

  3

  Article 10 (Precursor Chemicals) Committee

  3

  Working Group on Posting of Third-Country National Workers2

  3

  Asylum Working Group2

  1

  Expulsions Working Group2

  1

  Migration Working Group2

  1

  Eurodac Working Group2

  1

  Contact Committee On Money Laundering

  1

  DGXV officials group on transfer of information at the European Parliamentary elections 1999

  1

  1Since the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May

  2Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions DETR lead Department

  In addition, several Working Groups convened under the auspices of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union met on a number of occasions during the period in question.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates special advisers from his Department have travelled to the United States of America on official business since 1 May 1997; which of his special advisers took part in these visits; and if he will list the meetings which these special advisers held with members and officials of the US Government during the visits, specifying the dates and locations of each meeting and the names of the US minister and officials at each meeting. [88435]

  Mr. Straw
  There has only been one such occasion. On 4 February 1998, Lord Warner accompanied me on a visit to Washington. He did not hold any meetings of his own but did attend meetings I had with the National Institute of Justice, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General Janet Reno in Washington. Lord Warner also accompanied me to meetings I had in Baltimore with the Director of International Programmes, Office of Mayor Schmoke, representatives of the Circuit Court of Baltimore and the Baltimore City Police Department.

  Racism
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that police data on racial harassment and racially motivated crime are documented on the same basis by all police forces. [88911]

  Mr. Boateng
  Until recently, all forces recorded racial incidents under the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racial incident:"Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation; or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".

  The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry recommended that these incidents are referred to as "racist incidents" and that a simpler and clearer definition should be used:
  "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person".

  This was adopted by all police forces on 28 April 1999.

  A breakdown of the number of racist incidents recorded by the police in each police area in 1997–98 is given in the Home Office publication "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 1998", a copy of which is in the Library. The new definition will be incorporated into the Notes for Guidance 1999–2000 to forces on collecting this data.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced new offences for racial crime which came into force on 30 September 1998. These correspond to the existing main offences which deal with violence against the person (except those which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment), criminal damage and offences of harassment. They relate to cases in which there was either racial motivation or any aggravating evidence of racial hostility in connection with the offence and provide the courts with higher maximum penalties to reflect the racial aspect to the crime. These are separate criminal offences in law and will be identified as such at all stages of the criminal justice system.
  251
  The Association of Chief Police Officers issued a good practice guide on the police response to racial incidents in April 1998. The guide sets out clear policy and procedures for dealing with racist incidents. The guide has been reviewed and a new manual will be issued by December 1999.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently produced a report on the Reporting and Recording of Racist Incidents which identified the minimum data content that the police should collect on racist incidents, sets out a method for tracking them throughout the criminal justice system, and makes recommendations for future data collection and monitoring systems. This has been adopted by police forces in principle, subject to the Information Technology implications being looked at in further detail.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has take to ensure that the data gathered by local race relations councils under the Commission for Racial Equality on racial harassment are comparable and gathered in the same way. [88912]

  Mr. Boateng
  Local race equality councils are not required to record racist incidents and practice may vary.

  The Government have accepted recommendations 15–17 of the Lawrence Inquiry which deal with the reporting of racist incidents by the police, local authorities and other relevant organisations. The Government are taking forward these recommendations through the Racist Incidents Standing Committee (RISC), on which the Commission for Racial Equality is represented.

  RISC will develop a code of practice for use by all relevant agencies, including standard reporting and recording arrangements, by April 2000. It will be used to record race equality comments.

  Elections for Trial
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact that plea before venue has had on elections for trial. [88927]

  Mr. Boateng
  As expected, section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 ('plea before venue') had led to a decrease in the number of persons committed to the Crown Court for trial. This decrease has been apparent both in those cases which are directed there by the magistrates, and in those where the defendant elects to be tried in the Crown Court. The proportion of cases reaching the Crown Court by way of election, which fell steadily from 53 per cent. to 28 per cent. in the 10 years 1987–97, remained at 28 per cent. in 1998, the first full year in which plea before venue was in operation.

  Police Discipline Appeals Tribunals
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 101, on the proceedings relating to the dismissal of police officers, if he will publish The Independent Tribunal's reasons and their recommendation. [88940]

  Kate Hoey
  We will consider disclosing recommendations made by police discipline appeals tribunals, on request and after the parties have been 252
  informed. However, to disclose a tribunal's reasons would mean making public details of the case of an individual who has appealed against an internal police personnel discipline decision. Because of the unfairness which could arise from disclosing such details, it is not the practice of the Home Office to publish tribunals' reasons. Copies of tribunal reports to the Home Secretary are sent to appellants and respondents, and it is open to them to consider whether they wish to disclose further details.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1999,Official Report, column 420, when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 27 April regarding a constituent. [88814]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 29 June.

  Prison Planning Application (Peterborough)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department first considered the possibility of building a prison in Peterborough constituency; and which Minister evaluated the proposal. [89191]

  Mr. Straw
  The suitability of the site of the former Rockwell/APV works in Peterborough was brought to the attention of the Prison Service in October 1996 and was first visited by Prison Service officials in early November 1996. The then Minister of State responsible for prisons and probation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) approved the submission of a formal planning proposal in June 1997. Information relating to whether and when Ministers of the previous administration considered any matter is quite properly not available to Ministers of the present government.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what local consultation took place at the time the building of a prison in the Peterborough constituency was first considered; and what consultation there was with the local Member at the time. [89192]

  Mr. Straw
  Prison Service officials' first meeting with Peterborough City Council's planning officers took place on 18 April 1997: a second meeting was held on 8 May 1997. I briefed my hon. Friend in June 1997, following the decision by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the then Minister of State responsible for prisons and probation, that the Prison Service should submit a formal planning application.

  Foreign Contracts (Bribes)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for the use of bribes to secure foreign contracts have been brought in England and Wales in the last five years. [87913]

  Mr. Boateng
  Offences of bribery to secure foreign contracts are either prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1906 and 1916, or under the common law offence of bribery. The table shows the total number of defendants proceeded against in England and Wales for
  253
  offences under this legislation. The Home Office Court Proceedings Database, from which these figures are drawn, does not identify the specific nature of the offence such as bribery to secure foreign contracts.

  Number of defendants proceeded against for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1906 and 1916 or the Common Law Offence of Bribery, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Prevention of Corruption Acts 1906 and 1916

  Common Law

  1993

  19

  —

  1994

  19

  —

  1995

  22

  —

  1996

  25

  —

  1997

  11

  —

  E-commerce
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to link the licensing of trusted third parties with key escrow in e-commerce communications; [R] [89334]

  (2) what is his policy towards key escrow in e-commerce communications; [R] [89333]

  (3) what new powers he proposes to give police and the security services to gain access to encrypted computer files; [R] [89336]

  (4) what plans he has to control encryption in e-commerce communications. [R] [89335]

  Mr. Straw
  There will be no mandatory link between key escrow and being an approved provider of cryptography services under the proposed e-commerce legislation. Approved providers will be free to offer those cryptographic services required by their clients. These may, for good business reasons, include the storage of their clients' encryption keys. Encryption technologies are vital for instilling trust in e-commerce transactions and the Government do not propose to control their legitimate use. The same technologies, can, however, also be put to criminal use. In response to this threat, the Government intend to provide the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies with new powers to require any person, upon service of a properly authorised written notice, to produce specified material in an intelligible form or to disclose relevant material (for example a decryption key) necessary to render it intelligible. The legislation will contain strong safeguards and the powers will only apply to material which is, or has been, lawfully obtained.

  Internet (Police Access)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to encourage greater use of the internet by police authorities for publicising details of(a) wanted criminals and (b) missing persons. [R] [89337]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police service is aware of the potential benefits of the internet to its work. I understand that the Metropolitan and Hertfordshire forces have, in fact, set up an internet site with details of missing children on a pilot basis. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is currently considering how the internet may 254
  best be used. A national information management strategy has been prepared and will shortly be proposed for adoption across the service. A number of forces already have websites. A summary of police force websites can be found at www.wypbcm.demon.co.uk.

CABINET OFFICE

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the policy issues which have been discussed by the Joint Consultative Committee which are the responsibility of the devolved administrations in (i) Scotland and (ii) Wales. [87344]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Details of the proceedings of the Joint Consultative Committee are exempt from disclosure under the internal discussion and advice exemption of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the estimated cost is of servicing the Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee. [88836]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  No separate costs for the servicing of the Joint Consultative Committee are identified.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on what date his Department was first informed that Parts IV A and IV B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 were no longer in force. [88793]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  On 23 June 1999.

WALES

  Oncologists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many clinical and medical oncologists are employed per head of population in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [87868]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on NHS medical and dental staff is collected annually as at 30 September. The latest available information relates to September 1997 and is given in the following table.

  Staff in post at 30 September (excluding locums) per 1,000,000 population

  Consultants

  All grades

  Number

  Wte 1

  Number

  Wte 1

  Medical oncology

  0.3

  0.3

  0.7

  0.4

  Clinical oncology

  5.8

  4.7

  12.6

  10.5

  1Whole-time equivalent.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Social Service Departments
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate for each local authority social service department in Wales the cost of funding the discharge from hospital of patients of pensionable age who are currently medically fit to be discharged but are in need of respite care; and if he will make a statement. [88172]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The cost of discharging patients to other forms of care would depend on the nature of the care required and for how long it was required. Such details of the care packages of individual patients are not collected centrally.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his responsibilities following the establishment of the Assembly Cabinet. [86340]

  Mr. Michael
  Following the transfer of power at midnight on Wednesday, 30 June, my functions as Secretary of State for Wales will be:Functions relating to my membership of the UK Government
  Responsibility to ensure that the interests of Wales are fully considered in the workings of the UK Government
  Responsibility to steer primary legislation relating to Wales through Parliament
  Functions relating to the fact that this House will vote the Main Estimate to the Secretary of State for Wales, who will make a grant to the Assembly after deducting the cost of running his own office
  Responsibility to consult the Assembly on the Government's legislative programme
  Responsibility to ensure that the arrangements for co-operation between the Assembly and the UK Government are working effectively.

  All other functions of the Secretary of State for Wales transfer to the Assembly. It may be helpful for the House to know the way the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998 are being put into practice. The Assembly has delegated responsibilities to me as First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. Onward delegation to my Assembly Cabinet has enabled us to create a positive and dynamic relationship between my Assembly Cabinet and other Subject Committees which mirror the portfolios of Assembly Secretaries. I am placing in the Library a copy of the Assembly papers relating to the responsibilities of the Assembly Secretaries and the intended way to deal with cross-cutting issues.

TREASURY

  Financial Stability Forum
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is representing Her Majesty's Government on the Financial Stability Forum working groups on short-term capital flows, highly leveraged institutions and offshore financial centres. [87684]
  256
  Ms Hewitt
  The UK representatives on these groups are Paul Tucker (Deputy Director, Bank of England), on the short-term capital flows group; Howard Davies (Chairman, Financial Services Authority), who is chairing the highly leveraged institutions group; and Joseph Halligan (Head of International Financial Services team, HM Treasury) on the offshore financial centres group.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the UK representatives to the Financial Stability Forum working groups on short-term capital flows, highly leveraged institutions and offshore financial centres consult with international development non-Governmental organisations in the UK. [87685]

  Ms Hewitt
  We would welcome views from international development non-governmental organisations and any other groups or individuals interested in the work of the Financial Stability Forum working groups. These should be sent to the UK representatives on the groups: Howard Davies (Chairman, Financial Services Authority), who is chairing the highly leveraged institutions group; Paul Tucker (Deputy Director, Bank of England), on the short-term capital flows group; and Joseph Halligan (Head of International Financial Services team, HM Treasury) on the offshore financial centres group.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce(a) economic and (b) fiscal instruments to reduce HFC emissions in the refrigeration market sector. [87688]

  Ms Hewitt
  Under the Kyoto Protocol the UK is committed to a legally binding target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2008–12. The Government will be consulting later this year on the policy options for achieving our emissions targets, including options for reducing HFC emissions.

  During 1996 and 1997, the Government negotiated five voluntary agreements with the various industry sectors including the refrigeration industry, to limit both use and emissions of HFCs. Under current policies HFC emissions are expected to fall by a substantial amount. The latest projections show that HFCs will contribute only around 1 per cent. of total UK greenhouse gas emissions, calculated in terms of the global warming contribution, by 2010.

  World Bank (Social Principles)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on incorporating the social principles drafted by the World bank into the decision-making of(a) the IMF, (b) the World bank and (c) the United Kingdom. [87884]

  Ms Hewitt
  The World bank is currently working with the IMF to translate the draft social principles discussed at the Development Committee in April into good practices in social policy when designing adjustment programmes.

  The good practices in social policy will help promote long-term growth and greater prosperity; and the need for equality of opportunity to ensure that everyone has access to the benefits of, and is able to contribute towards, this growth and prosperity.
  257
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Mansion House speech earlier this month, the Government have put in place policies for a modern successful economy to ensure employment opportunity and greater prosperity for all in the years ahead, and which is therefore fully compatible with the principles and good practice in social policy.

  Financial Crises
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the United Kingdom's policy on the conditions to be attached to future financial contributions towards remedying the financial crises and preventing future ones in(a) Brazil and (b) elsewhere. [87883]

  Ms Hewitt
  Financial tensions in Brazil have eased significantly, following the IMF-led international financial support package agreed last year. The conditions attached to the UK's contributions to this support package are those of the programme as a whole and the UK Government will continue to play an active role in monitoring Brazil's performance under the programme. Continued adherence under the IMF programme, together with an appropriate contribution from private sector creditors, underpins the BIS co-ordinated credit line, to which the UK has also contributed.

  The UK Government have played their part, most recently at the G7 Summit on 18 June, to ensure that future packages to which the UK contributes are as effective as possible. Commitments which were made at the Summit to help achieve this included promoting the involvement of the private sector in crisis resolution; ensuring that the poor and vulnerable are better protected from the burden of adjustment in times of crisis; and greater transparency in the way in which the International Financial Institutions operate.

  Foreign Currency Borrowings (Taxation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the (i) advantages and (ii) disadvantages of the imposition by the UK of taxation upon borrowings in foreign currencies by UK domestic companies; what discussions he has had on such proposals in respect of other countries vulnerable to currency stocks in relevant international economic forums; if he will estimate the taxation income for the United Kingdom of a 1 per cent. tax rate; and if he will make a statement. [88327]

  Ms Hewitt
  During the wide consultations which have been carried out to forge a consensus on necessary reforms to the international financial system, consideration has been given to a range of proposals for taxation of foreign currency transactions. Such proposals raise a number of practical difficulties which we have considered but do not believe could be overcome. Similarly, it would be extremely difficult to determine robust estimates of the revenue yield, which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) the Inland Revenue, (b) Customs and Excise and (c) HM Treasury have incurred expenditure on (i) extra staff, (ii) acquisition of accommodation, (iii) development of IT systems and (iv) the acquisition
  258
  of supplies in preparation for possible United Kingdom entry to the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [88748]

  Ms Hewitt
  Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and HM Treasury's Euro Preparations Unit have worked to ensure that UK business and public authorities were ready for the introduction of the euro in 11 other European Union countries on 1 January 1999. There is a continuing need to provide UK business with the information that they need to help them remain competitive in this new European business environment. In line with the Government's stated position that the public sector will take a lead in planning, departments have also been considering the implications of possible UK entry to the European Single Currency. This work has been part of the normal business of departments and to date changeover work has not involved expenditure on extra staff, accommodation or the development of IT systems.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of public funds to be spent on preparing for the possibility of UK entry into the single currency before a referendum. [88907]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost of euro preparations would depend on the detailed approach that the UK took to the changeover. Where computer systems are being upgraded, all departments will build in euro compatibility where that represents value for money. In the case of the DSS, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, the scale and complexity of their computer systems makes advance preparations critical. Prior to a referendum they may therefore need to spend up to some tens of millions of pounds, spread over a number of years to make their IT systems euro-compatible, so that we can maintain the flexibility for Britain to make the changeover as quickly and cost effectively as possible if that is what Government, Parliament and the people decide.

  Provisions were therefore included in the Finance Bill and the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill which will provide specific statutory authority for this spending. Expenditure will be voted by Parliament in the normal way.

  Employment (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 June 1999,Official Report, column 464, how many people are currently employed in the Shrewsbury and Atcham local authority district. [89048]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 1 July 1999:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of people employed in the Shrewsbury and Atcham local authority district.
  There are two sources of employment information at local authority district level.
  The latest available estimate is from the 1997/98 Labour Force Survey (LFS) Local Authority Database (LADB), covering the period March 97—February 98. This shows that 47,000 people

  259
  living in Shrewsbury and Atcham were in employment. The LFS is a sample survey covering around 96,000 households annually, or some 184,000 adults.
  Your recent question on employment was answered on 24 June 1999, Official Report, column 464. It used the Annual Employment Survey (AES), from which the number of Employee Jobs at September 1997 was given in the reply. The AES sample is drawn from the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR). In 1997 it comprised 105,000 enterprises, covering half a million workplaces and 15.5 million employees (out of a total population of roughly 23 million employee jobs).
  Although the AES has a larger sample size, the LFS gives more complete coverage. The LFS includes employees, self-employed, unpaid family workers and those on government employment training programmes.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the revenue generated by stamp duty arose from duty charged on the purchase of commercial land and property in the last year for which figures are available. [88828]

  Ms Hewitt
  The requested information is given in the table.

  1998–991 (Provisional)

  Net receipts £ billion

  Proportion of net receipts Percentage1

  Stamp duty (including stamp duty reserve tax) on transaction in shares and other securities

  2.5

  55

  Stamp duty on:

  Residential transactions

  1.2

  25

  Commercial property and land transactions

  0.9

  20

  Total

  4.6

  100

  1Proportions rounded to nearest 5 per cent.

  Bank of England Loans
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) number and (b) total value in sterling of (i) secured and (ii) unsecured loans made by the Bank of England during the last two years; and if he will make a statement on the Bank's status as lender of last resort. [88919]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Bank makes loans in the normal course of its operations and these are described in its 1999 Annual Report. In its capacity as lender of last resort, the Bank of England has made no new loans, either secured or unsecured, over the last two years.

  The Bank's role in the field of financial stability is described in a Memorandum of Understanding between HM Treasury, the Bank and the Financial Services Authority, which was published in October 1997.

  Economic Convergence
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation he has made of the structural divergence of the British economy with the economies of the rest of the EU. [88843]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury's assessment of the Chancellor's five economic tests was published in October 1997.
  260
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation he has made of the cyclical convergence of the British economy with those of North America. [88842]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's evaluation of the cyclical convergence of the British economy with those of North America is contained in the Treasury's assessment of the five economic tests, published at the time of the Chancellor's statement on EMU in October 1997.

  Gold Reserves
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much gold was held in the UK Exchange Equalisation Account on(a) 6 May and (b) 6 June; and in each case what was its value. [88826]

  Ms Hewitt
  A breakdown of the size and composition of the United Kingdom's reserve holdings is published in Table 2 of the Quarterly Report on UK Official Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of the Exchange Equalisation Account following the proposed sale of gold and relative to its value at 6 May. [88825]

  Ms Hewitt
  As the proceeds from the programme of auctions of gold will be invested in foreign currency assets and retained in the reserves, the asset base of the Exchange Equalisation Account will remain roughly the same.

  A breakdown of the size and composition of the United Kingdom's reserve holdings is published in Table 2 of the Quarterly Report on UK Official Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold.

  Landfill Tax
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total landfill tax raised from disposals within Scotland in each financial year since the introduction of the tax; what proportion of the tax in each year has been retained by the Treasury as general taxation; and what proportion is allocated to environmental trusts. [89074]

  Ms Hewitt
  Figures relating to landfill tax are not available for separate countries or regions within the UK. This is due to the method of collection of the tax, where each landfill operator is registered according to the location of their head office.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue his Department has received from the levy of landfill tax in Wales in each of the last five years. [89061]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Figures relating to landfill tax are not available for separate countries or regions within the UK. This is due to the method of collection of the tax, where each landfill operator is registered according to the location of their head office.

  Insurance Intermediaries
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for regulation of intermediaries dealing in general insurance. [89460]

  Ms Hewitt
  As the former Economic Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) announced on 27 July 1998,Official Report, columns 23–24, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, now before the House, will provide for the repeal of the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977. Subject to the approval of Parliament, this will end the statutory status of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council (IBRC). The Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets' recent report on the draft Bill supported this approach.

  I am grateful to the current IBRC members for their work in continuing to serve on the Council in the interests of the insurance broking community during the present transitional period. To assist them in that task, I have today, under existing powers, nominated three new members to fill vacancies on the Council, to serve until the Council's statutory status ends:

  Ronald Armstrong OBE

  Bryan Lincoln

  Dr. Oonagh McDonald CBE.

  I am pleased that, since my right hon. Friend's announcement, the insurance industry, including general insurance intermediaries, has risen to the challenge she outlined. A broad-based range of support has developed for the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC), a new voluntary body to promote high standards of professional conduct among general insurance intermediaries.

  The GISC is committed to strengthening industry standards and developing general insurance intermediaries' services to the public in all parts of the market. It plans to complement the statutory responsibilities of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) while stripping away unnecessary regulatory requirements on general insurance intermediaries. The GISC has gathered support with impressive speed. If it can fulfil its promise, it will provide valuable services to both general insurance intermediaries and their customers.

  There may in future be a case for statutory regulation of general insurance intermediaries. If so, the Financial Services and Markets Bill contains a provision which would enable the Treasury to specify regulated activity, and to give regulatory responsibility to the FSA. For the moment, I have no plans to specify advice on general insurance as a regulated activity.

  Treasury Meetings
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the minutes of the monthly tripartite meetings between the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England. [R] [89332]

  Ms Hewitt
  The meetings include discussions of individual cases, as well as more general systemic threats. Since much of the information discussed is covered by statutory bars on disclosure, it would not be appropriate to publish the minutes.

  Securities Activity (Internet)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response his Department has made to the International Organisation of Securities Commission's report on the Reduction of Systemic Risk and Securities Activity on the Internet published in September 1998. [R] [89328]

  Ms Hewitt
  The IOSCO report "Securities Activity on the Internet" examined the regulatory and enforcement issues posed by securities activities conducted over the Internet. The Government have found the IOSCO report helpful in considering the issues raised by new technologies in the context of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

  Financial Services Authority (Scottish Lawyers)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with Scottish lawyers' organisations regarding the transfer of the regulation of Scottish lawyers offering financial advice to the FSA. [R] [89327]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Treasury has held a number of meetings with the Law Society of Scotland in the course of consulting on and drafting the Bill and associated secondary legislation.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of pensions mis-selling have been referred to the police by the FSA. [R] [89330]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of the climate change levy to his Department and (b) the savings from the reduction in National Insurance Contributions that will occur when it is introduced. [88860]

  Ms Hewitt
  The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions on the Chancellor's departments will depend on the rates of climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  In addition, the Government are still considering a number of detailed issues on the tax treatment of different energy products which could have a significant impact in some instances. It is therefore not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on the Chancellor's departments.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the Better Regulation Task Force regarding the new regulatory powers proposed in the Financial Services and Markets Bill. [R] [89326]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Treasury has received helpful comments from the Better Regulation Task Force in the course of consulting on and drafting the Bill.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage he estimates company car mileage will reduce as a consequence of the measures introduced in his last Budget. [88717]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: The measures introduced in the last Budget reduce the incentive for drivers to use a company car for business mileage and to do excess business mileage simply to qualify for discounts on their tax charge. They are therefore likely to lead to a small reduction in company car mileage. The Inland Revenue also estimates that as a result of the comprehensive reforms to be introduced in 2002, between 100 and 300 million fewer business miles will be driven in company cars, a reduction of between 0.3 per cent.–0.8 per cent.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Animal Feed
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department plans to take to ensure that animal feed including genetically modified ingredients is adequately labelled. [87927]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are extensive EC rules on the labelling of animal feed. The Government are seeking improved listing of ingredients and pressing the Commission to forward to the Council its proposed regulation covering novel animal feeds. This is necessary to ensure fair and consistent labelling of GM feeds throughout the EU. Pending the introduction of such EC measures, we are also exploring whether national labelling arrangements are feasible.

  US Imports
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farmers about the level of imports of US agricultural products. [87928]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am glad to say that the level of agricultural imports coming from the US has not been a significant focus of concern for UK farmers in the recent past.

  Safe Farming
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote safe working practices in farming. [87930]

  Mr. Rooker
  I fully endorse the Health and Safety Commission's strategy which includes agriculture as a priority area and my Department supports the Health and Safety Executive in its work in farming, and has initiated a project in Cornwall and Devon.

  Sheep Exports
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the welfare of sheep which are exported from the UK. [87931
  264
  Mr. Morley
  Whilst the sheep are on our territory we strictly apply the EU rules that relate to their fitness to travel, suitability of the means of transport and other aspects of their welfare.

  We also urge the receiving member states to do the same on their territory: officials maintain contacts with their opposite numbers in support of this.

  Cheese
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote the making of sheep and goats' cheese in the north-east of England. [87932]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government are committed to supporting a speciality food industry in which specialist cheesemakers play a significant role.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects beef to be exported to the continent. [87933]

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the date-based export scheme for beef to be operational throughout the UK. [87917]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The European Commission inspected our operational arrangements for the date-based export scheme in the week 12 to 16 April. The report of this inspection was presented to their Standing Veterinary Committee on 15 June and includes a recommendation that the Commission should set the date from which exports of beef under the scheme may begin.

  Dioxins (Belgium)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions he took in response to the discovery of dioxins in Belgian poultry and dairy produce. [87934]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 8 June 1999,Official Report, columns 480–81.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the welfare of battery hens. [87935]

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the agreement at the June Agriculture Council concerning phasing out battery hens by 2012. [87939]

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is introducing to phase out the farming of battery hens. [87923]

  Mr. Morley
  We shall implement the EU Directive which was agreed in Luxembourg on 15 June. This requires all members states to ban the conventional battery cage from 1 January 2012 and to apply improved standards to its use in the meantime.
  265
  My right hon. Friend the Minister was delighted to be part of the qualified majority which took this historic decision.

  Meat Hygiene
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about compliance with meat hygiene regulations in other parts of the EU. [87936]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is responsible for ensuring that individual EU member states comply with their Community public health obligations, including the enforcement of the EU meat hygiene Directives. The FVO carries out a regular programme of inspection visits to all member states and publishes the reports of all such visits.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if raw meat products produced from whole carcases in meat processing plants, in premises which come under the supervision of local authority enforcement officers fail to meet hygiene standards more frequently than meats produced from whole carcases in cutting plants which come under the supervision of the Meat Hygiene Service. [88395]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available.

  Food Standards Agency
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the timetable for the introduction of the Food Standards Agency. [87940]

  Mr. Rooker
  If the Food Standards Bill can be passed successfully, we aim to have the Agency in place in the first half of next year.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of Milk Marque. [87941]

  Mr. Morley
  It would not be appropriate to comment until after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has published the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of raw milk in Great Britain.

  School Milk
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had regarding the provision of school milk. [87942]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department has regular discussions with interested groups about the operation of the EC School Milk Subsidy Scheme. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister raised the subject at the last Agriculture Council and received considerable support for our view about the value of the current EU scheme.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made on allowing the use of set-aside for environmental purposes. [87943]

  Mr. Morley
  The environmental advantages that can be gained from set-aside will be enhanced by the commitment we obtained from the Commission at the Council on 14–15 June to allow member states to apply more flexible set-aside rules where this brings environmental benefits.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates Special Advisers from his Department have travelled abroad on official business since 2 May 1997; which countries were visited on each occasion; and what were the names of the Special Advisers who travelled on each occasion. [86293]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 319 and 8 June 1999, Official Report, columns 249–50.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he is giving to the establishment of farmers' markets; and if he will make a statement. [88168]

  Mr. Rooker
  I support fully the establishment of farmers' markets. The Department organised a seminar on 9 March with key players to encourage the development and promulgation of the concept.

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had on the development of farmers' markets. [87929]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I opened the Islington Farmers' Market last month.

  Pig Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to ensure that Government Departments, local authorities and other related agencies purchase only UK-produced pigmeat products. [88855]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department has no powers to dictate to authorities with public procurement responsibilities. None the less, my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to a number of Government Departments to underline the guarantees that British pigmeat can offer. He drew attention to the good story which the industry has to tell in respect of its efforts on quality assured and welfare friendly production practices. The responses received indicate that quality assured and welfare friendly production practices play a full part in the tender specifications laid down by public procurement bodies.

  We believe that the most effective way to achieve change in the practices of reluctant local councils and health and education authorities is for contact to be made at the local level, both by the industry and by local MPs.

  267
  On those occasions where contact has been made, it seems to have had a positive effect. My right hon. Friend intends, therefore, to write to all MPs actively encouraging them to make contact with public authorities in their constituencies and invite those authorities to take British welfare and quality standards into account when procuring pork and pork products.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government will introduce regulations to impose the same standards of traceability and quality assurance on imported pigmeat products as apply to UK-produced pigmeat. [88856]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no powers to do so. It is also questionable whether such an imposition would be in the interests of the UK pig industry as it could forgo the possibility of obtaining a premium in the market.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the Government will cover the cost to pig farmers of offal and waste disposal; and if he will make a statement; [88852]

  (2) if the Government will restore rendering subsidies for the UK pig industry. [88853]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to do so.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of the climate change levy to his Department and (b) the savings from the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur when it is introduced. [88865]

  Mr. Morley
  The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions on this department will depend on the rates of climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  In addition, the Government are still considering a number of detailed issues on the tax treatment of different energy products which could have a significant impact in some instances. It is therefore not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on this department.

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the report by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh into the effects of exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips will be published. [89848]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) is today publishing its report on the effects of exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips.

  The report identifies handling of OP sheep dip concentrates as the main source of potential exposure. It suggests that the identified exposure to concentrates was associated with an increased likelihood of ill-health in the groups studied.
  268
  The report is being submitted immediately for consideration by the OP Working Group of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) which is reviewing the evidence on the possible ill-health effects of OPs. We expect to receive advice from COT, and from the other independent expert advisory committees on the implications of the COT advice, by the end of the year.

  In addition, I have asked the Veterinary Products Committee and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to consider urgently, in advance of the COT advice, whether the report has any immediate implications for approvals of OPs or whether further measures are necessary.

  I have also written today to representatives of manufacturers seeking a meeting within the week to discuss what action they will be proposing in response to the report.

  I am placing copies of the report in the Library of the House.

  Countryside Access Scheme
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about closure of the Countryside Access Scheme. [89849]

  Mr. Morley
  I am announcing today that the Countryside Access Scheme will be closed to new applications. This pilot agri-environment scheme provided public access to set aside land. Public access to farmland will continue to be available under the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas schemes, which provide more comprehensive incentives for farmers to provide access.

  All existing CAS agreements will continue until the end of their five year terms. At the expiry of their agreements, farmers will be offered the opportunity to apply for agreements under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Those which provide good quality opportunities for public access will be offered agreements.

HEALTH

  Junior Doctors
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the BMA survey which asked if junior doctors were prepared to take some form of industrial action regarding the out-of-hours rates of pay and conditions of service; [88068]

  (2) what discussions he is having with the BMA's Junior Doctors' Committee about improving the hourly rates paid to junior doctors for their work at night, weekends and bank holidays. [88067]

  Mr. Denham
  Pay rates for junior doctors, including rates for out-of-hours work, are decided on the basis of recommendations by the independent Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Body (DDRB). Their 28' Report, published on 1 February 1999, concluded that"there was no need for changes to the existing working patterns of junior doctors and against that background the existing rates of additional duty hours remain appropriate".
  269
  I held a positive and constructive meeting on 10 June with the representatives of the Junior Doctors' Committee on a number of issues relating to pay and conditions of service. We agreed that further meetings with officials would be held over the coming weeks.

  I value the commitment of all junior doctors working in the National Health Service. However, the threat of industrial action following the recent survey is an appropriate response in the light of that commitment, which can serve only to jeopardise patient care if carried through and is inappropriate for professional staff whose pay is set on the basis of recommendations made by an independent Review Body. Industrial action could undermine the modern staffing initiatives we are seeking to introduce to improve the working lives of junior doctors: shorter working hours, better training opportunities, decent pay levels, higher standards of accommodation and catering facilities and new family friendly employment practices.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the health authorities in which junior hospital doctors can be on call and working for periods of (i) 24 hours, (ii) 32 hours, (iii) 36 hours, (iv) 48 hours and (v) any longer continuous period and (b) those specialties or areas of hospital medicine in which such hours on call and working most frequently occur. [86707]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's response to the report of the Pensions and Retirement Age Working Group, published by the Ambulance Service Association 1997. [89087]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 June 1999]: The National Health Service Executive and the National Health Service Pensions Agency have discussed the findings of the report with the Ambulance Service Association. Further work is being done on costing the proposals.

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Joint Working Group which he set up with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to improve the provision of therapies for children with special educational needs to complete its work. [87854]

  Mr. Hutton
  The working group on the provision of speech and language therapy services to children with special educational needs was established in November 1998 and its membership includes representatives of a wide range of interested parties. The working group has met on four occasions to date. Progress and future plans will be reviewed at the group's meeting in November 270
  1999 in the light of preliminary feedback from specially commissioned research into speech and language therapy provision.

  Mobile Communications Bases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being undertaken or commissioned by the National Radiological Protection Board on the health effects of mobile communications base stations on the neighbouring population. [88108]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has a programme of research into exposures and possible effects of radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones and base stations. It has carried out field measurements in the vicinity of a number of base stations and it is proposed to extend the measurement database to be representative of a variety of base station locations in the United Kingdom.

  Experimental work is in progress to investigate potential effects on learning and memory using low level signals of the type used for mobile telephony. A research programme to investigate the possible induction of chromosome damage in cultured human cells is being developed.

  Other work involves computer models derived from medical images of people; these have been used to calculate how electromagnetic fields interact with the body. This work is ongoing.

  The NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation continues to review research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and NRPB have been instructed to set up an independent working group to assess the current state of research into the use of mobile phones. The group will be chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE. The membership and terms of reference will be announced shortly.

  Buprenorphine
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the FP10(HP)(ad) and FP10(MDA) forms will be amended to include buprenorphine (Subutex), to enable medical practitioners to prescribe the drug on a daily basis for a week by completing one form. [87999]

  Mr. Denham
  At present I have no plans to add buprenorphine to the list of drugs which may be prescribed by doctors on FP10(HP)(ad) and FP10(MDA) prescription forms.

  Beta-interferon
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what means recipients of Health Service Circular 1999/101 were informed that it had been withdrawn; [88002]

  (2) if he will list the recipients of Health Service Circular 1999/101 prior to its withdrawal on 20 April; [88001]

  (3) when he proposes to publish a new National Health Service circular on the use of beta-interferon in the treatment of multiple sclerosis to replace Health Service Circular 1999/101; [88191]
  271
  (4) if the proposed health service circular on the use of beta-interferon in the treatment of multiple sclerosis will distinguish between its value in treating relapsing/ remitting multiple sclerosis and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. [88190]

  Mr. Denham
  Advance copies of draft Health Service Circular 1999/999, which was due to be issued on 20 April 1999 as Health Service Circular 1999/101, were sent to the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the three manufacturers of beta-interferon, and the National Health Service (Regional Directors of Public Health and Regional Prescribing Leads, who were invited to forward the draft circular to health authorities).

  Owing to concerns expressed by some of the recipients of the draft circular, it was not issued on 20 April. The NHS was informed of this by way of a letter from the NHS Executive's Acting Medical Director, Dr. Sheila Adam. Copies of this letter are available in the Library. I also refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 22 April 1999, Official Report, columns 1055–56.

  The Department plans to consult interested parties shortly on a revised draft health service circular on beta-interferon. The contents of the circular that is subsequently issued will take into account comments received during the consultation period.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make beta-interferon available on the NHS for progressive MS; and what funding is to be made available to health authorities for it. [88737]

  Mr. Denham
  Beta-interferon may be made available on the National Health Service, but the costs of prescribing it are expected to be met within health authority allocations.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he has received to date(a) in support of and (b) opposed to the proposed MLX 249 Regulation. [88004]

  Ms Jowell
  We received six representations broadly supporting the proposals and 610 representations opposing some or all of the proposals during the 12 week consultation period, which ended on 31 January 1999. Since the end of the consultation period we have received several thousand more letters opposing the proposals, many of which were based on a fundamental misapprehension of the content, purpose and effect of the proposals.

  Unused Medicines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number and value of unopened blister packs of drugs returned to dispensing chemists for the latest year for which figures are available; [88146]

  (2) what is the value of medicines returned by patients to dispensing chemists for the latest year for which figures are available. [88147]
  272
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received organs for transplant which originated from countries outside the EU in each of the last three years. [88145]

  Mr. Hutton
  For the period 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1998 there were 10 transplant operations using organs which originated from countries outside the EU. Three were carried out in 1996, two in 1997 and five in 1998.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organs for transplant were brought into the UK from EU member states; and what percentage came from living donors in the most recent year for which figures are available. [88837]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1998, 26 organs for transplant were accepted from hospitals in European Union countries outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Of these, 23 were suitable and subsequently transplanted.

  No living donor organs were offered from abroad during 1998.

  Accident and Emergency Departments (Staff Security)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve security for staff working in accident and emergency departments. [88340]

  Mr. Denham
  We have initiated the biggest programme of capital investment in accident and emergency services in the history of the National Health Service (a total of £115 million in three quarters of all Accident and Emergency departments). This money should ensure that patients are treated more quickly, more effectively and with greater privacy than ever before, and create safer working conditions for staff.

  Tackling violence against staff is a priority area for action. A key objective is that each local employer will, by April 2000, have systems in place to record and monitor the incidents of workplace violence and have published strategies in place to achieve a reduction.

  The NHS Executive is also working on a cross-government drive to reduce the incidences of violence against staff. The campaign, which has the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The campaign will be backed up by national guidelines for action including prevention, prosecution, sentencing, good practice and challenging targets. The over-arching message of this campaign will be that violence against staff is unacceptable and that the Government are determined to stamp it out.

  Bedford Hospital
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 March 1999,Official Report, column 844, if he will meet Dr. Niblett to discuss the number of beds in relation to demand for them at Bedford Hospital. [88184]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Dr. Niblett on 11 February this year and visited the Intensive Care Unit at Bedford Hospital.

  Smoking
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to protect children from the effects of passive smoking in public places. [88214]

  Ms Jowell
  The White Paper "Smoking Kills" includes a new charter on smoking in public places, agreed by the hospitality industry. We will now negotiate with the industry to work up the detail of a Charter which will ensure that all consumers, including children, are better able to choose whether to eat, drink or socialise in smoky atmospheres. The results will be monitored and we will consider the need for any further action in the light of progress.

  Temporary Contracts
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has set health care trusts for the eradication of temporary contracts; and if he will make a statement. [88392]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service managers need the flexibility to offer temporary or short-term contracts. We want to stop the systematic use of such contracts in the National Health Service, and the National Health Service Executive has made it clear that short-term (fixed) contracts should be offered only where a post is genuinely time limited. The general presumption is that permanent contracts should be the norm.

  Influenza Immunisation
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what data are required to be collected on influenza immunisations by(a) his Department, (b) local health authorities and (c) regional health authorities; [88778]

  (2) what requirements exist for general practitioners to provide data on the number of their patients vaccinated against influenza in risk groups; [88773]

  (3) what information is collected on the coverage of the influenza vaccine (a) in risk groups and (b) for all people over 75 years of age; [88775]

  (4) what targets his Department has set for increasing the percentage of people in risk groups receiving influenza vaccinations. [88777]

  Ms Jowell
  No data are required to be collected but some health authorities collect the information locally. Estimates of national influenza vaccine coverage are made by analysing the General Practice Research Database by risk group and by age. Figures for 1989 to 1997 were published in Health Trends (1998; 30: 51–5), copies of which are available in the Library. Overall uptake in the 274
  risk groups was estimated to be about 23 per cent. and varied with age—about 44 per cent. of those over 65 years in a high risk group received vaccine in 1996–97 compared with 13 per cent. of those aged 35–49 years. Figures for the 1998–99 influenza season are not yet available. Targets are not set because of the difficulty of accurately assessing denominators for the risk groups.

  Guidance for health authorities on planning for dealing with winter pressures includes the need to increase influenza immunisation uptake in the risk groups. Flu Awareness Week, launched each year at a press briefing held by the Chief Medical Officer, also aims to increase vaccine uptake.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by his Department to local health authorities and general practitioners about running effective influenza immunisation campaigns to target risk groups. [88772]

  Ms Jowell
  Information for general practitioners and health authorities is given in the United Kingdom Health Departments' memorandum 'Immunisation against Infectious Disease' and in letters and circulars issued by the Department (most recently Professional Letter/Chief Medical Officer/98/4/PL/Chief Nursing Officer/98/6 and Health Service Circular 1998–140), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific evidence his Department has evaluated on the success rate of the influenza vaccine in preventing this disease. [88779]

  Ms Jowell
  Influenza viruses change and different strains predominate from year to year. Each season a new vaccine is produced from strains of virus closely related to those expected to be in circulation. The effectiveness of the vaccine will depend on how well the vaccine strains match the strains of influenza that actually circulate. Effective global surveillance co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation means that in most years there is a good match.

  All information on the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in preventing influenza and its complications is reviewed on a regular basis by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the expert advisory committee that advises the Government on immunisation matters.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the unit cost of an influenza vaccination. [88770]

  Ms Jowell
  The list prices for vaccines are given in the British National Formulary, copies of which are available in the Library. Last season's list prices for influenza vaccine ranged from £5.08 to £5.70 a dose. Prices for the coming season have not yet been announced.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how and when the proposed Sure Start Plus announced in the Social Exclusion Unit report on teenage pregnancy will be piloted; which areas have been chosen; what criteria will be used; and what resources will be available for such pilots. [88670]
  275
  Ms Jowell
  Roll out of the Sure Start Plus pilots will begin from April 2000. They will be funded from within the Sure Start programme. The areas chosen will be covered by Health Action Zones and have high rates of teenage pregnancy.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1999,Official Report, column 416, if he will make a statement on the joint funding by the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trust and the North Staffordshire Trust of a cancer specialist. [88724]

  Mr. Hutton
  The North Staffordshire Hospital National Health Service Trust has recently appointed a clinical oncologist who will also work a number of sessions in the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust joint cancer centre. Manpower issues in respect of the business case for a new linear accelerator at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital joint cancer centre will be explored more thoroughly within the NHS Executive—West Midlands Regional Office's overall consideration of the business case.

  Loughborough General Hospital
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1999,Official Report, column 133, when he expects the National Health Service Executive to make a final response to the full business case made by Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust for the replacement of Loughborough's General Hospital. [88595]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive provided a detailed response to Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust about their Full Business Case (FBC) to replace Loughborough General Hospital on 3 June 1999.

  The NHS Executive has not been able to make a formal decision on the recommendation of the FBC as further work is required on some key elements of the FBC, including issues relating to the scheme's value for money.

  The trust is currently working on responses to the issues raised by the NHS Executive and is to set a timescale for the FBC to be resubmitted. In view of the length of time that it has taken to progress this scheme, the NHS Executive will be having meetings with the trust as a matter of urgency to resolve the above issues and progress the scheme to resolution.

  Allergy Clinics
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of allergy clinics. [88657]

  Mr. Hutton
  Officials from the Department recently met representatives of the relevant professional and patient representative bodies to discuss the future of allergy services; possible action will be discussed at a follow-up meeting to be arranged. It is, however, the responsibility of individual health authorities to assess the health care needs of their residents and to secure access to a range of services which aim to meet those 276
  needs. Each health authority therefore decides how great the need for a local allergy clinic is, based on local priorities and resources.

  Dental Services
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the availability of dental treatment on the NHS. [88604]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have already taken action to improve the availability of National Health Service (NHS) dentistry through the Investing in Dentistry (IID) and Personal Dental Services (PDS) initiatives. The IID initiative, which ended in April, should give over 650,000 extra patients the opportunity of registering with an NHS dentist. The 15 PDS pilots which began in October 1998, and the 24 new proposals to be developed into pilots for this October, are designed to offer NHS patients a better, more accessible, reliable and higher quality dental service. The Government are now examining options on how best to use the resources available for further improving the availability of dentistry. A dental strategy will be published later this year.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the NHS strategy for dentistry. [89080]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's strategy on National Health Service dentistry will be published later this year.

  GP Facilities
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to discuss with commercial organisations the availability of sites for the development of GP facilities; and if he will make a statement. [88823]

  Mr. Denham
  Officials regularly have discussions with interested parties, including commercial organisations, about primary care facilities and I am kept informed of developments.

  National Donor Register
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism is in place to target those people aged 18 years to go on the National Donor Register. [88713]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Our continuing national and local publicity campaigns encourage people to join the NHS Organ Donor Register, to carry the Donor Card at all times and, most importantly, make their wishes known to their family and friends. The campaigns have been designed to reach people of all ages.

  While there is no specific mechanism for targeting 18-year-olds, people can register when applying for driving licences and this is one of the major routes onto the register. A high proportion of such driving licence applications are from first time applicants in the 17–21-year-old age group.

  Hospital Food
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of hospital trusts which have in place a system of quality control for
  277
  hospital food; and what advice his Department has given to trusts on the introduction of such quality control systems. [888661

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Guidance on delivering a quality catering service and improving nutrition standards has been issued to the National Health Service in recent years to ensure that food and eating are seen as an important part of patient care. All NHS trusts have been asked to adopt a recommended framework for auditing and monitoring performance to ensure consistent standards.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of the climate change levy to his Department and (b) the savings from the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur when it is introduced. [88858]

  Mr. Denham
  The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions on the Department will depend on the rates of climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until the Finance Bill 2000.

  In addition, the Government are still considering a number of detailed issues on the tax treatment of a number of different energy products which could have a significant impact in some instances. It is therefore not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on the Department.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into xenotransplantation; and if he will make a statement. [88941]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant in aid from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is currently funding two projects related to xenotransplantation:"Germ-line modification of pig organs for human transplantation" being conducted by the BBSRC Babraham Institute.
  "Endogenous retroviruses of pigs and xenotransplantation" being conducted by the Institute of Cancer Research and the MRC National Institute for Medical Research.

  The Department is directly funding a further project:
  "An investigation into the ability of porcine endogenous retroviruses to infect animals other than pigs" being conducted by the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  The Department is in the process of commissioning two systematic reviews of the published literature covering xenotransplantation. The first review will be looking at physiology, immunology and infection issues; the second covering legal and ethical issues. The reviews, which are expected to take around twelve months to complete, will help to highlight those areas where further research would be beneficial. Recommendations for further research are also included in the recently published United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority report of the workshop on porcine endogenous retroviruses.

  Biomedical Scientists
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the salary scales for trainee and newly qualified biomedical scientists. [88832]

  Mr. Denham
  Biomedical scientists are classed as medical laboratory scientific officers (MLSOs) for pay and grading purposes. Their pay scales are attached to a common pay spine for National Health Service Professional and Technical Staff. The current pay scale for trainee MLSOs, effective since 1 December 1998 is:

  Spine point

  £

  00

  7,476

  01

  7,726

  02

  7,988

  03

  8,260

  04

  8,544

  05

  8,839

  06

  9,146

  07

  9,463

  08

  9,796

  The MLSO Grade 1 pay scale is used for newly qualified biomedical scientists. The current pay scale effective from 1 December 1998 is:

  Spine point

  £

  00

  11,812

  01

  12,286

  02

  12,777

  03

  13,290

  04

  13,822

  05

  14,375

  06

  14,949

  07

  15,546

  08

  116,169

  09

  116,817

  10

  117,486

  Pay is negotiated in the Professional and Technical Staffs Whitley Council. Staff Side are consulting their members on the NHS Management Side's offer of:
  an increase in national pay scales for PTB staff of 3 per cent.
  an increase of 13.5 per cent. in London Weighting Allowances which will restore them to 1995 values
  additional increases for staff working in cytology screening, with trainee cytology screeners getting 6.6 per cent. and qualified cytology screeners getting up to 11.4 per cent.
  additional increases for staff in the MLSO grades, with trainee MLSOs getting up to 26 per cent., and MLSO1 s and some MLSO2s getting 7.1 per cent.

  If accepted this offer would produce a new pay scale for trainee MLSOs of:

  Spine point

  £

  00

  9,420

  01

  9,747

  02

  10,090

  03

  10,443

  279
  And a new pay scale for MLSO1s of:

  Spine point

  £

  15

  12,655

  16

  13,160

  17

  13,689

  18

  14,237

  19

  14,806

  20

  15,397

  21

  16,012

  22

  16,654

  23

  117,322

  24

  118,011

  25

  118,734

  1Employing authorities may advance the position of a grade scale (other than that of a trainee) on the pay spine by up to three points for posts which carry additional responsibilities or require specialist skills but which do not warrant a higher grade.

  DTP Vaccine
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the costs per batch of the(a) whole cell and (b) acellular DTP vaccine. [89008]

  Ms Jowell
  Vaccines are purchased by dose, not by batch. The Department does not publicise the cost per dose of any childhood vaccines, including whole cell DTP, as this information is a commercially confidential part of the procurement process. The only acellular DTP vaccine which is licensed for use in the United Kingdom is made by SmithKline Beecham and has a list price of £11.00 per dose.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1999,Official Report, column 185, for what reasons the whole cell DTP vaccine is used in the UK, in preference to the acellular vaccine; and if he will make a statement. [89050]

  Ms Jowell
  Whole cell pertussis vaccine, used in combined DTP vaccine, is used in the United Kingdom because it is the safest and most effective pertussis vaccine available for the UK childhood immunisation programme.

  Large vaccine trials in Sweden and Germany have shown that the pertussis whole cell vaccine that we use in the United Kingdom is amongst the most effective available. There is little difference in the level of local reactions and fever seen after use of the UK whole cell vaccine when compared to acellular pertussis vaccines given under the UK immunisation schedule. The protection given by the UK vaccine is as good as the best acellular vaccine tested and better than the rest. There is also some evidence that combining the acellular pertussis vaccine with Hib vaccine, which is given at the same time, may decrease the immune response to Hib which affects its suitability for routine use.

  Genetically Modified Pollen
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) received into the effect on hay-fever sufferers of the breathing in of genetically-modified pollen. [88874]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: This Department has not commissioned research into the effect that pollen from genetically modified crops may have on
  280
  hayfever sufferers, nor has it received any. I have asked the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants to take a preliminary look at this issue at the earliest opportunity.

  Medicines (Bovine Material)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 June 1999,Official Report, column 382, what estimate he has made of the quantity of vaccines held by manufacturers in whose early stages of manufacture bovine material had been used (a) when precautionary measures were introduced in 1989 and (b) when European Commission guidelines were issued in 1992. [88957]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: None.

  Drug-resistant Tuberculosis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter of 12 January (POH(3) 5437/68), what recent action he has taken to combat drug-resistant TB. [87389]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Work to combat drug-resistant and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis is continuing. The United Kingdom has heightened its surveillance of drug and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis through a scheme co-ordinated by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) through the UK Mycobacterial Resistance Network. Work has also commenced on enhanced surveillance of tuberculosis cases which should improve monitoring. The appointment of Regional Epidemiologists should help towards a more co-ordinated approach. The activities of the PHLS are now co-ordinated through the new Tuberculosis Programme. The PHLS has developed and made available more rapid diagnostic and drug susceptibility tests for tuberculosis, which can be used where there is a presence of risk factors which might predispose towards multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. A report by the Interdepartmental Working Group on Tuberculosis, "UK guidance for prevention and control of the transmission of HIV-related and drug resistant, including multiple drug-resistant, tuberculosis", was published in September 1998.

  Prodigy Prescribing System
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if lists of products appearing on the Prodigy prescribing system have been circulated to relevant patients and specialist groups for their views; and what formal consultation process exists in respect of such products; [89104]

  (2) what plans he has for the further use of the Prodigy prescribing system by GPs; [89100]

  (3) what account the Prodigy prescribing system takes of existing clinical guidelines; [89099]

  (4) what consultations his Department has undertaken in respect of the Prodigy prescribing support system in the last two years; [89098]

  (5) what method was used to select the products which appear on the Prodigy prescribing system; [89105]

  (6) if he will list the members of the selection panel for products on the Prodigy prescribing system; [89102]
  281
  (7) what assessment he has made of GPs' views on the Prodigy prescribing system. [89101]

  Mr. Denham
  The Prodigy decision support system has undergone two research phases, during which it was tested in 183 general practices with around 750 doctors. The results of the research indicated that a large proportion of general practitioners were very interested in having such a tool available for their use. In light of this positive response, a first release version of Prodigy will be made available to any GP who wants it. There will be a third phase of the research project, which will look at the management of chronic disease.

  Prodigy is designed to offer good quality, clinically effective advice to GPs. When applying the Prodigy recommendations, doctors should use their discretion and clinical judgment, taking into account individual patient variations and needs. General practitioners remain free to prescribe whichever product they feel is the most appropriate for their patients.

  The recommended treatments in Prodigy have been chosen on the basis of clinical effectiveness, safety and appropriateness. Where more than one drug exists with similar clinical effect, or where the benefits of one drug over another are marginal, then cost is brought into consideration. The clinical advice contained in the current release of Prodigy is refined and validated with the assistance of a committee of representatives from the General Practitioners Committee, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. All were chosen for the personal expertise and qualities they were able to bring to the process. For the longer term, an equally robust process will be set up under the oversight of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Full details of how NICE will take this forward will be published in due course. Prodigy guidance takes full account of existing national or well-recognised guidelines, where these are appropriate to general medical practice. In time, Prodigy will allow easy access to NICE guidance and a swift means of communicating emergency medical messages to GPs, plus information about new drugs, contra-indications and safety alerts.

  Patient groups, the pharmaceutical industry and other representative organisations have been consulted throughout the Prodigy project, both on the content of the clinical guidance and on patient information leaflets available as part of the Prodigy system. Each organisation is given the opportunity to comment on new Prodigy recommendations as they are developed and their views are taken into account at the time the recommendations are finalised. These groups will continue to be consulted as Prodigy is made more widely available to GPs over the coming months.
  282
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what skin products appear on the Prodigy prescribing system; and how they were selected. [89103]

  Mr. Denham
  A list of the skin products which appear in, or are being considered for inclusion in, the Prodigy guidance on skin conditions, will be placed in the Library. The majority of these dermatology topics have not yet been released to general practitioners as they are undergoing final amendments (the status of each Prodigy guidance topic is indicated in the schedule).

  All products are selected on the basis of clinical effectiveness, safety and appropriateness.

  Counselling Training
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on training medical professionals in counselling and interpersonal and management skills in the last year for which figures are available. [89092]

  Mr. Denham
  Although training in counselling, interpersonal and management skills is an important component of all stages of medical education, no data are held centrally on the resources devoted to these activities. Decisions on the allocation of resources between different components of training are professional considerations and are not prescribed centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines have been issued to magistrates in respect of the sentencing of young offenders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [88928]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government do not issue sentencing guidelines to magistrates. Factual information about the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act has been provided in accordance with normal practice.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training has been given to magistrates regarding the sentencing of young offenders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [88929]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is the responsibility of individual Magistrates Courts' Committees (MCCs) to provide training to the magistrates in their area. The Judicial Studies Board has provided training materials for those provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which are currently being piloted. These materials are being evaluated and will be issued to all MCCs in time for the piloted provisions being introduced nationally.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Tributes to the late Viscount Whitelaw
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as Leader of your Lordships' House, it is a sad duty but nonetheless a great privilege to pay tribute on behalf of the whole House to the late Lord Whitelaw, who died this morning at the age of 81. Many noble Lords, and indeed many Members of another place, were personal friends of Lord Whitelaw over very many years and many more were political colleagues and sparring partners. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the noble Viscount held a particularly significant place in the affections of both Houses of Parliament.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, Lord Whitelaw, known to many here and away from Westminster simply as "Willie" Whitelaw, had an extremely distinguished career in politics. There is no need for me to remind your Lordships in detail of his achievements.
Suffice it for me to say that after distinguished service in the Forces, decorated with the Military Cross, Willie Whitelaw won a seat in the House of Commons where he represented Cumbria, Penrith and the Border division from 1955 to 1983. During that time he served in a number of senior government posts, including as Lord President of the Council; Leader of the House of Commons; as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; as Secretary of State for Employment; and as Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Lord Whitelaw joined this House in 1983 and took continuing office as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House. His combined service on the Front Benches of the two Houses ran for more than 25 years. But it will be as Leader of your Lordships' House that many here today will remember him. Lord Whitelaw was Leader of the House at an extremely busy period. Many major government Bills were going through Parliament at a time when the House needed very careful handling. I am sure that noble Lords who were here during that period will agree that it was a great tribute to Lord Whitelaw's consummate skill and special combination of gravitas and charm that such good order was maintained in the House while the government's programme was being successfully delivered.
Lord Whitelaw made a particular contribution to the government in which he served as Deputy Prime Minister, overseeing the work of key Cabinet committees. Those of your Lordships who had personal
422
experience of his chairmanship of the so-called "Star Chamber" will recall the fairness and strength with which he brought his own special skill to delivering the public expenditure rounds at the time.
Perhaps a less formidable skill, but nonetheless one of enormous value, which Lord Whitelaw always exhibited was his sense of humour and his ability to see the funny side in any situation. I am sure that other noble Lords who will speak today will want to share with the House their experience of Lord Whitelaw returning from his weekly Monday meeting with the Prime Minister and colleagues, full of news of the day and anecdotes about the politics of the time.
It is of course very difficult to sum up a tribute to a man who commanded such wide respect for so many reasons on so many fronts and who so well combined a sense of service with a sense of humour. There can be no doubt that as a Leader of your Lordships' House, Lord Whitelaw was that invaluable phenomenon, a safe pair of hands.
Perhaps I may add a personal note. My only political encounters with Lord Whitelaw were during the Patter years of his life, but he was always charmingly courteous to a newcomer to this House, even one sitting on the Opposition Benches. But beyond the courtesies, he usually had an intriguing comment to pass on the events of the day when I met him in the corridors; a comment often enlivened by a certain degree of barbed wit. I am sure that many noble Lords who have joined the House in the past decade will, like me, be grateful that we have personal memories of a splendidly engaging personality and a very significant parliamentarian.
On behalf of the whole House, I hope that everyone will join with me in expressing our condolences to Lady Whitelaw and to the family. Our thoughts are with them and will be in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to Lord Whitelaw, known by so many as Willie. I thank the noble Baroness for her words.
Though he had not been well for a while, it is still a great blow to lose such an extraordinary man as my noble friend. He was a fine example of service and duty to the people of this country, most particularly to Parliament. He had a great war record and an extraordinary political one. He was a Chief Whip to Ted Heath; Secretary of State in Northern Ireland, in the Department of Employment and in the Home Office; and subsequently he came here as Leader of your Lordships' House. He came as one of the very last hereditary Peers ever appointed.
In this House, we have seen many former Members of another place make the transition from that House to this. Your Lordships will know that it is not an easy one to make. But for Willie it was as easy as crossing the road. He immediately made himself at home. He was comfortable not just with his surroundings, but with people who were here and he remained remarkably effective almost until the very end.

423
He was a Scot, although living in Penrith, and a countryman. Both Cumbria and Scotland will be the poorer for his passing. He also carried with him a tremendous sense of humour and a great understanding of human nature. He always recognised when someone was talking rubbish and behind his bluff exterior was a finely honed and cunning political mind. He was a great help to me as a Minister in this House, but he really came into his own when I became Chief Whip. From time to time, he would steal into my room and give me a word of advice. Invariably he was right. Whenever I did not take his advice I came to regret it almost immediately.
I, too, join the noble Baroness in saying that our thoughts at this time are for his family and in particular Lady Whitelaw. Undoubtedly, the whole House will miss Willie Whitelaw, but for the Tory Party he is irreplaceable.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity on behalf of these Benches to join in the tribute to the man who we all remember simply as Willie Whitelaw. Public life has lost a distinctive, wise and, as the Leader of the House said, very engaging figure. I did not experience him as Leader of the House; that was before my time here. But I know that with great skill he performed the difficult twin-track role of being the authoritative voice for the government in this House and also—and as important—a persuasive voice in Cabinet on behalf of your Lordships.
We all have our personal memories. Mine is of serving on a committee with him on the Contracts of Employment Bill 1963 in another place. I was new, young, partisan and even, perhaps, brash. He was a parliamentary secretary in charge of the Bill. At first I thought of him as a slightly laughable, Bertie Wooster figure. However, I quickly discovered that behind that slightly muddling style there was a great deal of substance. He was a man of considered opinions, bravely held, but prepared to listen, persuade or be persuaded.
I have a particularly fond memory of flying to Heathrow from Teeside Airport in a very small plane, together with my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, during the referendum campaign. He tirelessly advocated Britain's place in Europe and continued during our flight to London. He said later that it was the campaign he most enjoyed in all his life.
He will be remembered with affection across party and will remain a source of well-told anecdotes for many years to come. We shall all miss him but we shall also all remember him.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I had the privilege of being with the late Lord Whitelaw in both Houses and was interested in similar subjects. He had an agricultural background. He asked me Questions when I was Minister of Agriculture. The Questions were sensible and generous, just what I liked. As my noble friend said, he held a number of Ministries including
424
Ireland, Employment and the Home Office, which he organised with effective common sense (not always available there). Finally, he came to this House and became Leader when I was his opposition. It was a pleasure I shall not forget.
Willie was always ready to discuss problems and seek solutions. Beyond that, he had a ready humour and a good nature. We were fortunate to know Willie and shall miss him. We send our thoughts of Willie to Lady Whitelaw today.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I was not in your Lordships' House when Willie Whitelaw was the leader here but I rise to pay tribute to him on behalf of the Cross-Benches and also in a personal sense. I had been in the other place for only 18 months when, to my astonishment, I was summoned by him and invited to join the Whips' Office. I was put in to represent the new boys, suburbia and trade. These were vintage days. I always remember two dictums which Willie Whitelaw drilled into us as Whips: first, we should never take credit ourselves but always give it to the troops; and secondly, that arrangements brokered through the usual channels must always be kept, even though we had to fight for our own party.
As a result, he was trusted, respected and held in great affection. He was a role model for me throughout my time in the other place and for many other Members of Parliament also. He had that most desirable of all parliamentary reputations; that is, the respect of the House. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him and held him in such high regard and affection.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I learnt only a short time ago of the sad death of Lord Whitelaw. However, I gladly associate the Bench of Bishops with these tributes.
I understand from my noble friend the Lord Bishop of Carlisle that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was an active member of his local church in the parish of Dacre in Cumbria. He undoubtedly lived his life always as a deeply-committed Christian. He was a good man, a good churchman, and we thank God today for his life and example. We gladly remember in our prayers today his bereaved wife and family.
Lord Denham: My Lords, one of my most endearing memories of Willie was his flashes of extreme anger, which lasted approximately a minute and a half, and were followed by a totally unnecessary, abject apology. He was one of that very small number of immaculate politicians who are supreme in the skills of their profession and at the same time are incapable of doing a mean or dishonourable thing. Even among that select company, Willie stood out for his universal kindness and, above all, his approachability. The legacy of his benign influence will remain in your Lordships' House for a long time.
Lord Blease: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word on this occasion to the memory of Willie Whitelaw in

425
Northern Ireland. In 1962 there was a high rise in unemployment, particularly among young people. He was then Minister of Labour in the United Kingdom Government. He came to Northern Ireland and tried to promote some interest in the affairs of young people. He left a long-lasting impression there.
I first met him through my trade union background. I found him extremely helpful and earnest in his approach. Latterly, he became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Again, with my background of trade unions, not politics, and seeking to represent the broad spectrum of life in Northern Ireland, Willie Whitelaw was a gentleman in many, many ways. He listened attentively. He did not preach or lecture but talked with you. He will always be remembered for the way in which he handled affairs in Northern Ireland in those dark days.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it may be appropriate if I say a few words, particularly today when there is so much trouble in Northern Ireland over the setting up of an executive. Willie Whitelaw was the first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the dark days of 1972 when nearly 500 people were killed. I said today in Northern Ireland that of all the Secretaries of State that we have had since then, he will be remembered by thousands of people from both communities with great affection.
Within a few short months he was able to talk to the majority Unionist party and my own party, the SDLP. He had a great personality. He almost put his arms round the different factions. He brought us into a room on a few occasions and, within a very short time, we had the first executive in Northern Ireland. It was a very real tragedy that Willie had to leave Northern Ireland before the Sunningdale executive was formed. I have no doubt that many people have been saying over this past week, in view of events in Northern Ireland, that if that executive had survived and if Willie had remained there, Northern Ireland would not be going through such trauma today.
Willie Whitelaw was the first and by far the most courageous and far-seeing Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will be sadly missed in Northern Ireland. He will be sadly missed by all those who knew and loved him throughout his lifetime in this country.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I believe that there have been almost a score of Leaders of the House since the war. We are a mixed bag. Some people find us agreeable; others not so. However, I think that one matter on which all parties will agree, as will the present House, is that Willie Whitelaw was the most lovable Leader of the House that anyone can remember.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as one of the family—Willie Whitelaw's eldest daughter is my sister-in-law—I should like to thank the House for the very good tributes paid to him.
Baroness Young: My Lords, on behalf of the Association of Conservative Peers, I should like to say that we have lost a great friend and a great man;
426
someone who was respected for his integrity, honour, sense of duty and sense of service. He was an example to us all. We shall greatly miss him.

EU Intergovernmental Conference 2000
3.20 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to consult Parliament on the United Kingdom's preferred agenda for the European Union Intergovernmental Conference now planned for next year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the agenda for the next intergovernmental conference was agreed at the Cologne European Council. It builds on the agreement at the Amsterdam negotiations that the Union should prepare for enlargement by looking at the size of the Commission and the weighting of votes in the Council. The IGC will also look at the possible extension of qualified majority voting and other institutional issues arising from this agenda.
It is too early to say exactly how the UK will approach this IGC, but it will be a priority for the Government to ensure that Parliament is kept thoroughly informed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that some of the difficulties that this country faced in becoming a comparable member of the European Union arose from the fact that there has often been a wide gap between what those inside government accept as being on the agenda for negotiation and what those outside government are aware of as being under discussion? Does she accept also that it was helpful when the Government published a White Paper for Parliament in advance of the intergovernmental conference, though only in response to demands from committees of both Houses? Is it possible for the Government to give an undertaking at this time that they will publish such a consultative paper at an early stage to make sure that Members of both Houses are well informed of the issues on the agenda and of the Government's approach to them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, since the IGC there have been some improvements as a result of the Amsterdam Treaty about the flow of information to the United Kingdom. I hope, too, that the White Paper which the Government published in November last year—The scrutiny of European Union business—has given both your Lordships and Members of another place an opportunity to look at the agenda in a more structured way. The noble Lord is quite right:, it has been the usual practice for the government of the day to publish a White Paper setting out the approach to the IGC. The Government undertake to address that in due course. But for the moment we do not know how

427
the work on the IGC will be taken forward or what the precise timetable will be. The expectation is that the IGC will begin formally in the first half of next year under the Portuguese presidency. Then we ought to know precisely the scope of the negotiations and more about the positions of member states.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is government policy to agree to give up our second commissioner only if we are compensated by vote re-weighting in the Council of Ministers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it was agreed at Amsterdam that in the interests of a more effective Commission the larger member states would be prepared to give up their second commissioner when the European Union expands, provided that a satisfactory agreement was achieved on the re-weighting of the votes in the Council.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is the intention of your Lordships' Select Committee to investigate the IGC? The Select Committee will take on that task in the autumn of this year. Can we look forward to the usual co-operation from government departments in reaching conclusions that we can put before the House? Without wishing to pre-judge the outcome of that investigation, the call for a White Paper might well come from both Houses again.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says. We look forward to the outcome of the Select Committee's deliberations. During the progress of our discussions on the Amsterdam Treaty the whole House acknowledged the valuable work that the noble Lord's committee undertakes. I note what the noble Lord says about the White Paper. I hope that he understood the points that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire; that is, that the Government cannot make a hard and fast undertaking at this time, but it is my expectation that such a paper will be published.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say that Parliament will be consulted on the possibility of an early and wide enlargement of the European Union, perhaps linked with variable periods of adjustment for individual countries according to their needs and situations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I can remind the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the Government deposit with Parliament all proposals for Community first pillar legislation coming from the Council of Ministers, as well as the legislative business under the second and third pillars. Certain other documents dealing with major policy, legislative or budgetary implications are also deposited. I hope that the undertakings made in the White Paper published in November last year assure the noble Lord and the whole House that the Government will seek to consult properly on the issues covered in that paper.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that at the
428
forthcoming intergovernmental conference the momentum established by the Prime Minister in his terse observations on fraud and irregularity in European finances will be fully maintained and explained to the intergovernmental conference in order to ensure that the new Commission adopts different standards as regards the administration of public finances from those it has adopted in the past?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can give my noble friend the absolute assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to be in the forefront of the arguments that the Commission should be more effective, more efficient, more accountable and more transparent in its business. We believe that it must operate by the highest standards of honesty, integrity and accountability. That will be our stance not only during the IGC, but also before it as well.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will take care in developing the policies in the conference to make sure that communication is not only with the Westminster Parliament but also through the proper channels for the devolved Parliaments? Noble Lords who this morning saw the opening of the Scots Parliament on television will realise that there are high expectations in Scotland as regards its political future within the Union. There are so many Scottish interests in Europe that are being handled through Westminster that it is vital that roads of communication are constantly open. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that that will be done?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that not only will my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary be extremely vigilant, but also his right honourable friends the Secretaries of State in all the departments concerned, in making sure that matters appropriate for discussion—possibly also in relation to the Welsh Assembly—go to the appropriate quarters.

NATO: Strategic Concept
3.27 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they will propose to other NATO countries by way of reviewing NATO's strategic concept.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, NATO heads of government and state agreed an updated strategic concept which takes full account of the environment in which the alliance operates and the challenges and opportunities it faces at their summit meeting in Washington on 23rd to 25th April. There are no plans for a further review at this stage.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords. I am somewhat disappointed with the Answer of my noble friend. However, does she agree that at the

429
non-proliferation treaty review conference next year it will be essential for the nuclear powers to demonstrate their good faith if the whole process is not to risk collapsing? Could not that demonstration be provided by NATO, for example by a declaration of no first use? In what conceivable circumstances is NATO likely to encounter an aggressor in which it could not muster an overwhelming preponderance of conventional weapons? Is there not everything to gain and nothing to lose?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right that it was agreed in Washington that proposals for options on confidence-building, on verification, on nonproliferation and arms control should be taken forward and put to NATO Ministers for agreement in December. Allies are discussing what those proposals might be, but those discussions are at an early stage. I ask my noble and learned friend to recall the considerable progress Her Majesty's Government have made over nuclear issues—the withdrawal of the free-fall bomb, cuts in operationally available nuclear warheads among other things. It is clear that there is no prospect at the moment of consensus among NATO allies on a move to a policy of no first use.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that never again will NATO's strategic judgments be corrupted and confused by sentimental estimates of humanitarian needs in advance of Security Council authority?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that NATO's use of any weapons whatever has been corrupted by sentimentality. I believe that NATO has acted entirely properly. I know that the noble Earl disagrees with that; and, indeed, we have had an honest disagreement in that respect. However, I must say to the noble Earl that I do not believe that I have to give the assurance that he seeks, because I do not believe that the words "never again" were quite appropriate in the question that he put to me.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Kosovo operation has, however, provided very considerable lessons for the future of NATO and for the balance between European and American contributions to NATO? Can she tell us how NATO intends to reflect on the lessons of the Kosovo operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when one thinks of what has happened in all these enormous encounters—for example, in Iraq and in Kosovo—it is only human to draw lessons from such events. However, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that one of the lessons that we should all draw from this is the really quite remarkable achievement of the 19 countries of NATO staying united throughout what was, after all, a very difficult operation. Indeed, not only did they stay united but they also remained engaged in a discussion with Russia about the way forward. We have a great deal to learn over what happened during
430
the engagement. I believe that we also have a great deal to learn about the re-building exercise, which will now be going forward.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that her noble and learned friend has raised a most important issue by drawing our attention to the new NATO strategic concept? Is she aware—I am sure that she will be—that the 1991 NATO strategic concept contained as its central message the words,
"NATO is a purely defensive alliance"?
Does she also agree with me that the disappearance of those words from the 1999 strategic concept is a cause for concern? On a close reading of the new NATO strategic concept, does she further agree that NATO now seems to have a licence to intervene almost anywhere in the world, not only where its security is involved but also where, to quote the new strategic concept, its "interests are involved"? Is this not a path that must be trodden with very great care?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, all matters concerned with defence must be a path trodden with very great care, as the noble Lord says. However, I do not agree with him that the omission of the words he reminded us of are a particular cause for concern. Like any other organisation, NATO has to be updated as the circumstances around it change. That was the point of looking at the strategic concept. I should remind the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that this was agreed by the then 16 nations in NATO—now 19, as a result of what happened in Washington—and that the new strategic concept still takes into account the five fundamental security tasks; namely, security, consultation, deterrence and defence, crisis management and partnership. I believe that those five criteria are correctly identified as the ones that should inform the way in which NATO undertakes future decision making.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in these forthcoming discussions, can my noble friend the Minister say whether it will be borne in mind that NATO was created to perform a defensive role, rather than an attacking role, and that that is still the primary purpose of the organisation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all appropriate matters will be borne in mind. I should point out to my noble friend that I believe there is a little confusion here. The strategic concept was set and agreed in April of this year. The NATO countries have undertaken to look at issues around disarmament and non-proliferation and have agreed to take those discussions forward in December of this year. When we talk about nuclear issues, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are three important matters which lie ahead of us; namely, the ratification of Start II, the negotiation on Start III, the entry into force of the comprehensive test ban treaty and the negotiation on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Those three issues are very important and they are the ones upon which we will be concentrating.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government agreed at Cologne to the merging

431
of the functions of the Western European Union into those of the European Union, when that very move was described by the Prime Minister only two years ago as an "ill-judged transplant"? Can the noble Baroness explain why what the Prime Minister vetoed at Amsterdam was acceptable at Cologne?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will know that there are a number of outstanding questions which now need to be taken forward in the light of the St. Malo discussions that the Prime Minister had with the President of France. This raises the issues around the relative positions of the WEU, around NATO and around the discussions which the noble Lord knows are ongoing about the future of the EU countries in European defence. The noble Lord knows that these are all issues which are currently under discussion. The Government will be keeping not only the Opposition parties but also the public in general well in the picture as the matter develops.

UN Security Council: Reform Proposals
3.35 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have prepared for the reform of the United Nations Security Council, covering both its membership and its procedures.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in discussions at the United Nations, the United Kingdom has continued to advocate early enlargement of the Security Council, with an increase in both permanent and non-permanent seats. We would like to see an additional five permanent members and four non-permanent members, making an enlarged council of 24. The United Kingdom has also taken the initiative in the council's Working Group on Procedures in suggesting ways to promote greater openness and transparency in the council's working methods. We will continue to look at ways to make the council more effective.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that interesting reply. However, when it comes down to specifics, does she agree that credibility will depend upon more representation for the third world and probably permanent places for Germany and Japan? Can my noble friend tell the House how the Government see a permanent place for Germany, bringing European permanent places to three within the Security Council, in the context of the development of a common foreign and security policy? Does my noble friend also agree that there is a danger, as illustrated by what happened in Kosovo, that the veto system could undermine the role of the UN in global security policy by leading to action which bypasses the Security Council? What do the Government believe can be done to prevent such a danger arising?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend is always extremely skilful in asking a
432
number of linked questions. I can tell him that we would like to see an additional five permanent members. We believe that three of these will be for the developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and that two of them will be open to applicants from the industrialised countries. The United Kingdom believes that Germany and Japan should be permanent members, but we have yet to take a decision on the others. We also support four non-permanent member seats—one each for Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. I hope that that deals with the point that my noble friend raised about the issue of developing countries.
As to the question of the veto, I can tell my noble friend that the UK Government have argued for some time now that this should only be used with restraint and in a manner which is consistent with the principles of the charter. I believe that we have been true to our word over this matter. I also pay tribute to the previous government for their use of the veto; indeed, we have not cast the veto in almost 10 years.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the number of members is increased, is there not a danger that the use of the veto might also be a tempting proposition for some of the new member states? Further, does the Minister agree that recent events show that the Security Council should, while it is reforming its procedures, look at Article 27 of the charter with a view of defining more closely the circumstances within which the international community is entitled to intervene across a boundary in support of the objective of preventing an overwhelming humanitarian disaster?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we must be very careful over the use of the veto. Indeed, we must be clear on this point. For some time, the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been that we are opposed to any change to the current veto for the permanent five. However, we recognise that there is a need to find new ways to make the United Nations and the Security Council work more effectively. Given the difficult issues at stake, a decision on extending the veto to new permanent members may have to wait until after they are elected. I believe that the points the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raises, and the additional points that my noble friend Lord Judd raises, are recognised and that there is caution about the extended use of the veto in future.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, uniquely in an otherwise exceptional and Boadicean presence at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, I am not sure that the Minister wholly answered the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Can she assist by informing the House whether she agrees that while we would strongly support Germany's candidacy for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council it would not be, nor conceivably would ever be, in this country's interests to give up our permanent seat in favour of a European seat on the Security Council?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thought that I must have answered at least six of my

433
noble friend's questions. I take the point that the noble Lord raises about the possibility of an EU seat on the Security Council, which I know has been discussed. We believe that the United Kingdom is on the Security Council on its own merits. This country makes a disproportionate contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. We are the sixth largest contributor to the UN regular budget and the fifth largest contributor to the peace-keeping budget. An EU seat is not possible under the UN Charter as only the UN member states are eligible for membership of the Security Council. It is the states; it is not the EU. I do not believe that t e United Kingdom Government are about to give up cur seat.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether, in reviewing the role of the Security Council, the relationship of the Council to the General Assembly will also come under consideration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that there is much reform going on at the moment in the UN. Of course there is an important area of reform outside what we are talking about in terms of the Security Council and permanent and non-permanent members. The reforms have to be seen as a package of reforms which your Lordships will know was brought forward by Kofi Annan. The United Kingdom is committed to achieving a modern and effective United Nations. We believe that there has been some progress over this. Certainly the appointment of Louise Frechette, the Deputy Secretary General, has already had an impact. She has particular responsibilities for reforms. However, this matter does not just concern the Security Council but the organisation as a whole. We must look particularly at the budgetary and management techniques that are deployed.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, the five power veto to which the noble Baroness has referred, and to which she suggests no extensional change, was devised in the first place to prevent the walk out by great powers that had destroyed the League of Nations. Does she agree that the need—anachronistic though it is—to alter the veto would require urgency only if any major power in the future threatened to walk out completely from the organisation; a possibility which happily does not pertain at present?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am doubtful about the wisdom of dealing with a hypothetical question of that nature. However, I assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government's policy as regards the United Kingdom veto remains the same policy as was adopted by the previous administration, which is that we believe that we have that veto on our own merits. We do not see that there is an argument to change the current veto rights of the current permanent members, as I hope I have made clear to your Lordships. Future vetoes should be dealt with in due course as
434
regards those who may join the Security Council, but we believe that the position of the five permanent members should remain as it is.

Abattoirs
3.44 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will convene an urgent meeting with representatives of the Federation of Small Abattoirs and other interested parties in order to discuss the current position of abattoirs and the rural community.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, Ministers are very willing to meet representatives of the abattoir industry. My honourable friend the Minister of State wrote to the Federation of Small Abattoirs on 25th June welcoming a meeting and a meeting has been arranged for Monday 5th July.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he ask his honourable friend in another place to bear in mind the effects that the present activities of the Meat Hygiene Service are having not only on small abattoirs but on the whole of the rural community, including consumers who like good food? Is there any possibility that I might meet with the Meat Hygiene Service to discuss all the questions that are arising to which we have had no proper answers over a long period?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I assure the noble Countess that my honourable friend is aware of all the very genuine concerns of the industry and will bear them in mind. I spoke this morning with senior officials of the Meat Hygiene Service. They are happy to meet the noble Countess and for her to raise her concerns. As regards not responding to questions, I feel that the replies I have signed to the large number of Questions tabled by the noble Baroness cover the concerns she has expressed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, one of the issues that has emerged from the closure of so many small abattoirs is that of animal welfare because animals now need to be transported longer distances. Is the Minister aware that the Farm Animal Welfare Council has commissioned two reports and is investigating slaughterhouses and livestock markets, but neither report has addressed the transportation and collection of animals, which seem such fundamental issues?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Baroness that the welfare of animals is a most important aspect of the closure of abattoirs, especially small ones in remote areas. We believe that

435
transportation is an important aspect of animal welfare. We bear that in mind. There are already welfare rules covering the matter.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that while we worry about abattoirs here we allow animals to be exported live on nightmare journeys to the Continent to be slaughtered, in many instances in abattoirs which would be closed immediately if they were situated in this country? Can the Minister give us any encouragement on that score?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the export of live animals is allowed under the existing rules to which we are subject. We subject that transportation to quite strict welfare rules. I do not believe that continental abattoirs operate under much poorer regulations than ours. We are all subject to similar rules. We have written to the Commission asking it to inspect abattoirs throughout the whole of the European Union to make sure that similar rules are being applied.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before asking my question I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a large pork meat processing company. Not long ago meat hygiene services were the responsibility of local authorities. Since the central Meat Hygiene Service took over, its charges have risen astronomically. That affects not only the small abattoir but also the large abattoir and affects export capability. Will the noble Lord therefore contemplate reversing the centralisation of meat hygiene services and reverting to the localised service which was much more sensitive and infinitely cheaper? Finally, will he consider how Germany manages to have vastly more small abattoirs which seem to survive, and indeed thrive, to the benefit of their local communities?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. All the evidence shows that under the previous system hygiene standards were not as high as they are now. Standards are rising under the Meat Hygiene Service. Currently, 75 per cent of plants meet a B category under the HAS system—that is a score of 70 or more—and standards are rising. It would be quite wrong to revert to the previous system. The charges we apply for hygiene inspections are required under the European directive. We are required to recover the costs; there cannot be cross-subsidisation. As to the German system, I do not feel expert enough to comment.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment today and before the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which has been made in another place on the Child Support Agency.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland Motions
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to move, That, in the event that one or more statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland are laid before the House this day, a Motion or Motions to approve them may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be moved this day without notice; and that Standing Order 70 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motion or Motions to be taken, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may give a brief word of explanation. This is an unprecedented Motion but I believe it is justified by unprecedented events. It has the full support of the usual channels.
As your Lordships will be aware, discussions in Northern Ireland are still under way. I must report to the House that they are still without conclusion. It had been agreed through the usual channels that should a resolution have been reached sufficiently early yesterday, the necessary secondary legislation would have been laid last night and would have appeared on your Lordships' Order Paper today. Had this been the case, I would have moved only the second part of the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper today, that which dispenses with Standing Order 70.
I should like, if I may, to take this opportunity to emphasise again that the Government take very seriously the work of the Joint Committee. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that we move to suspend the Standing Order requiring the Joint Committee to report on a Statutory Instrument before the instrument is taken. In the event, it was not possible to lay the necessary secondary legislation last night. In those circumstances, it was agreed through the usual channels that this Motion should appear on the Order Paper today against the possibility that the process would be complete and it would be possible to proceed with the necessary secondary legislation tonight. The Motion before the House will allow an order laid today to be taken tonight; a similar Motion has been passed by another place.
It is proposed that any substantive Motion should be taken by my noble friend Lord Dubs during the dinner hour this evening or, if necessary, at the end of Business. So your Lordships will have time to study the text. I hope that in the circumstances the House will support this Motion.
Moved, That, in the event that one or more statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland are laid before the House this day, a Motion or Motions to approve them may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be moved this day without notice; and that Standing Order 70 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motion or Motions to be taken, notwithstanding that

437
no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the background. It is an unprecedented Motion but, under the extraordinary and unusual circumstances that exist today, we are happy to agree with it.
Will there be any means of letting Members of the House know if an agreement has been made and if the Business is to be dealt with in the dinner hour or at the end of the day? If not, could there be? Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, which is about to get underway, could be broken into and an announcement made. Perhaps information could be shown on the annunciator so that people are:not kept hanging around if nothing is going to happen: alternatively, if something is going to happen they will know at what stage they should go and look for papers in the Printed Paper Office.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his support for this unprecedented Motion. As he and the House will see, my noble friend Lord Dubs is in the House. He is, of course, in constant contact with his office in Belfast. He will let the Government Chief Whip and myself know if there is any news and that will be immediately conveyed through the usual channels and there will be an announcement on the annunciator. The noble Lord's suggestion that an announcement be made during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, which we are now about to begin, would be appropriate.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, although the Cross-Benches are not normally part of the usual channels in respect of business of this kind, may I ask the noble Baroness whether, in future, when matters of this kind—particularly concerning Ulster—are being discussed through the usual channels, we can be so informed? We have on our Benches a number of noble Lords with Northern Ireland connections—we are about to have a number of others as well—and it would be very helpful to us.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's comments. I am sure that the usual channels have heard them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Agency
3.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on our reforms of the Child Support Agency, a
438
key part of our strategy for supporting families and children. The Statement is as follows:
"Last year, we published our Green Paper setting out our proposals. There was overwhelming support for change and I am placing in the Library a summary of the 1500 responses, along with a list of those who contributed.
"Today, I am publishing our White Paper on child support, setting out reforms which will get money to one million children who today miss out. I have written to all Members enclosing a summary of the White Paper and placed copies of the White Paper in the Vote Office.
"The reforms I will set out today are driven by principle. We are putting children first. And we are making sure the new system is fair on fathers who want to support their children and tough on those who will not. Our reforms mark a new contract for child support based on the right of a child to the care and support of its parents and the responsibility of parents to provide it.
"The responsibility for bringing up children lies squarely with both parents. And it is a responsibility that endures whether they live together or apart. All children have the right to a decent start in life and this Government are already doing a great deal to help. We are increasing child benefit by a record amount and providing more help for low-paid families through the new Working Families' Tax Credit, tax changes and the national minimum wage. Together, this means that a family on £13,000 a year will be better off by up to £2,500 a year. We are investing £540 million in the Sure Start programme for very young, disadvantaged children. And we are committed to ending the scandal of child poverty in a generation.
"We are determined to make sure children get all the help they need, which is why we are introducing a new system of child support that is simple, effective and fair. Because, today, many children miss out on the support of both their parents. Under the present system, only 250,000 children actually get maintenance and only 100,000 children get all they should. Thirty per cent of parents using the CSA are paying nothing towards the care of their child. That cannot be right. The child support system should help parents meet their responsibilities and, where necessary, take action when parents will not.
"But the system we inherited has failed. It does not help parents who want to pay and it is not tough enough on those who will not.
"The previous Government set up the Child Support Agency in 1993 to replace a courts system that could not cope. Going back to the courts is not the answer. In 1979, 52 per cent of lone parents on income support were getting maintenance. By 1990 the courts were getting money to only 20 per cent. On top of this, decisions were often unpredictable, unreliable and unfair. The CSA was meant to sort this out. But it did not. The percentage of lone parents on income support getting child maintenance is the same today as it was when the Agency was set up.

439
"The CSA became a bureaucratic nightmare for parents and staff alike. And the reason for that is clear. Under the current system the CSA can need over 100 different pieces of information to make a single decision. So today a third of all child support cases wait at least six months for a decision. The CSA spends 90 per cent of its time chasing information and only 10 per cent chasing parents who will not pay. The result: many responsible parents who genuinely want to support their children often find themselves facing a mountain of debt through no fault of their own, while irresponsible parents can play the system to their advantage and end up paying nothing for their children. And it is children who lose out.
"These failures have their roots in the complexity of the current system. And the result is an administration so burdened that only root and branch reform will turn things round.
"So we are tackling that inheritance by introducing a simple, new and effective system of child support; delivering for children by reforming the policy—and rebuilding the agency.
"We are putting the confidence back into child support by introducing radical reforms in four key areas. First, we are abolishing the current system for calculating child support, replacing unworkable policy with a workable new system that is based on a simple way of deciding how much parents should pay. Secondly, we are turning the agency around so that it provides a decent and effective service to all parents to make sure that children actually get the money from their parents—and quickly. Thirdly, we are introducing tough new measures to deal with parents who try to run away from their responsibilities. Fourthly, we are helping the fight against child poverty by introducing new help for children in the poorest families.
"I turn now to the detail of our proposals. First, I want to set out our plans to reform the formula that is currently used to calculate how much parents pay towards the care of their children. This is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the system. It was designed to take account of any—in fact, almost every—detail that might affect how much a father could pay. The result is a calculation so complex that it is barely workable; so complex that it is often difficult for parents to know whether a decision is right; and so complex that it takes months to get a decision.
"So, today, I can announce that we are abolishing the complex formula and replacing it with a system of simple rates that is so easy to understand that parents can work out for themselves how much they should pay. We will publish these rates—they are in the White Paper—putting leaflets in post offices, libraries and elsewhere. The new rates are reasonable because they reflect the amount that a parent would pay if he were still living with his children.
"Under the new system, a father will pay a flat rate percentage of his net pay—that is, his take-home pay. This will amount to 15 per cent if he has one child to
440
support, 20 per cent if he has two and a maximum of 25 per cent when he has three or more children. For fathers on less than £100 a week, there will be a flat rate payment of £5 a week.
"Every parent knows that one cannot calculate the cost of bringing up a child down to the last penny. However, our proposals are fair and reasonable. They are fairer to fathers because they are more reasonable and realistic; they are fairer to mothers who will get money much more quickly; and, above all, they are fairer to children who will actually get the money they need. Because it is so simple, it will take the agency only a few days to confirm what should be paid rather than the months that it takes now. It is fast and simple for parents, fast and simple for the agency, but, above all, right for children.
"Secondly, to do this we need also to reform the way in which the CSA operates and significantly improve the service that it provides. This will not be easy. The CSA will never be popular: it will always do a difficult job at a difficult and emotional time. However, by replacing the complex formula with new simple rates, we are laying the foundations for a far better service than would ever be possible under the current system. So these reforms mark a new contract for the CSA too: a new system in return for a radical change in culture, service and approach.
"The shake-up has already started. We are strengthening the agency's management, importing private sector know-how to work together with public sector experience to sort things out. From next week, we are bringing in the private sector to help the agency collect more money from more parents. I can announce today that we will invest an extra £28 million over the next three years. However, in return, the CSA will have to deliver clear and tangible improvements: a better service, quicker decisions and more money getting to children than ever before.
"The CSA will get new information technology and will make more use of the telephone to sort out queries quickly. The CSA will be there at times that suit parents so that they can call in the evenings or at weekends from the privacy of their own home and not in the daytime while they are at work. The CSA will also introduce a more effective complaints system to ensure swift and effective action if things go wrong. Parents will get a clear statement setting out what they have paid and what is due—a clear picture of where they stand, just as one gets from a bank statement. In short, the CSA will move from an organisation bogged down in paper to an organisation that will focus on the needs of parents and, above all, on the need to get money to children fast.
"Thirdly, our new contract for child support is good news for responsible parents who get a better service that helps them do what they want to do. However, it is bad news for the minority—the hard core who persistently let their children down—because we will make sure that they are brought to book.
"So I can announce that, for the first time ever, we are making it a criminal offence to fail to provide or misrepresent information to the agency. If parents lie

441
to the agency, if they try to dodge their duty and if they persistently pay late, they will face a fine or time in gaol. While most self-employed parents are highly responsible, there are some who are not. So we are introducing new measures allowing us access to tax records to get a true picture of their income. We will make sure that fathers who run around in the company Porsche but who plead poverty to their children cannot get away with it.
"We are also closing a loophole that allows fathers to string out a decision by denying that they are the father of their In future, if a child is born while a man is married to the mother, the burden will be on him to prove that he is not the father. We will also make sure that teenage boys who become fathers face their responsibilities. They must realise that bringing a child into the world is a lifelong responsibility—it is not something from which one ever walks away. So we will make sure that, once they can pay towards the care of their child, they do pay.
"Because we are determined to make sure that all parents meet their responsibilities, we are looking at further measures to deal with the persistent minority who will not co-operate, including taking driving licences from fathers who persistently shirk their responsibilities. The message is simple: no hiding place, no excuse and no easy way out. Their child is their responsibility. Every parent must face up to that—they owe it to their children.
"This is our new contract for child support: we will deliver a new, fair and simple system that will help responsible parents to support their children, but, in turn, we will take tough action to make sure that the rest deliver for their children.
"Fourthly, we are also reforming the system to make sure that it does more for children in the poorest families. Under the current system, mothers lose their income support, pound for pound, whenever any maintenance is paid. Because mothers lose out, their children lose out also. So today can announce significant new help for children in the poorest families worth up to £10 a week. More than 250,000 children will gain from this change alone. That is real help from this Government for children in the poorest families. For the first time ever, we will make sure that money gets to the poorest children, not to the Treasury.
"I can also announce today that in order to make work pay, from October, low-paid families in work receiving the working families tax credit will keep every pound and every penny of child maintenance paid. All of these measures are delivering on our commitment to do more for those who need it most, to end child poverty and to make sure that Government, parents and the Child Support Agency together deliver for children.
"Finally, we must make sure that these changes are introduced smoothly and successfully. We want to introduce the new scheme as soon as possible, but it is vital to get it tight. The present system collapsed under its own weight because the previous government tried to introduce it too quickly and with
442
too little thought. This is a massive task. Within a year of the millennium, the Child Support Agency will be dealing with more than one million cases—that is more than two million parents. Radical change on this scale will take time. The new system needs legislation—new IT systems—and a radical change of culture and working practices in the CSA itself. We plan to introduce the new system for new cases only towards the end of 2001, with existing cases coming onto the new system later, once it is up and running. But we want to introduce some measures earlier: such as making it a criminal offence to lie to the agency, and closing the loophole that allows fathers to falsely deny their paternity; and improving the administration of the CSA itself.
"The future of child support lies in our new contract that puts the rights of children first, and the unshakeable duty of parents centre stage. The new system will be simpler and fairer for those fathers who want to support their children. And it will be tougher on those who will not.
"The agency will be turned around—so it provides the standard of service we all expect. We are putting the confidence back into child support; replacing complexity with simplicity; replacing delay with quick and accurate decisions; replacing bureaucracy with high quality customer service.
"Together, our reforms will help one million children who today are let down by the current system. We are delivering for children; putting their needs first. I commend these proposals to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating an important Statement on child support. Perhaps I may begin by congratulating her on her stamina. It was a fairly lengthy report. It is particularly appropriate that the noble Baroness should be the one to repeat the Statement in this House, as I understand that she has played a significant role in the work on the White Paper.
Ever since the Child Support Agency was introduced in 1993, policy has been bi-partisan. Indeed, that continued in 1995, when some of the proposals put forward by a Select Committee chaired by Mr Frank Field were placed before both Houses and implemented. The situation inherited by the present Government reflected that bipartisan policy. The matter was clearly in need of further reform.
Having spent many hours, as a Member of the other place, dealing with child support cases, I recognised the problems—not least when one was faced with a father who was determined not to pay anything at all if possible towards the upkeep of his children, and on the other hand a department that worked inefficiently and constantly made mistakes, thereby making it very difficult to resolve constituency problems. I remember spending a great deal of time on one case, and even taking a particular individual to see Ministers on two occasions, simply in order to try to sort out the problems that the agency was experiencing. Nevertheless, the

443
White Paper comes halfway through this Parliament, and its proposals will not be come into operation until nearly the end of its term.
There are some aspects of the White Paper that we can welcome. In particular, it is right for the Government to say that they are not going back to the courts—for the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, but also because many of the problems caused, which resulted in the setting up of the Child Support Agency, came about because the courts would often award the matrimonial home to the wife, and then expect public support—income support and so on—to provide for the children. That was the problem that the agency was intended to address.
Many of the problems at that time arose because, instead of dealing with new cases, the agency was asked to go back over previous cases, many of which had a long history, had been through the courts and so on. I therefore have some specific questions for the noble Baroness with regard to the proposals for the new system to work alongside the old. If I understood the Statement correctly, it is proposed to go ahead with the new system and then to turn back, so to speak, to the cases that are already in front of the Child Support Agency. I am sure that it is absolutely right not in any sense to give an amnesty to the old cases, but it seems that the Government intend effectively to place a moratorium on them. Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify the Government's exact position in regard to the relationship between existing cases and those that will be dealt with under the new system.
Also, is it intended that cases that are already in front of the Child Support Agency will be dealt with on the old formula, and new cases on the new formula? If that is so, one family or another might reasonably complain that they are being treated either "too fairly" or unfairly. Will the noble Baroness also confirm that, as there are many cases of serious arrears now before the Child Support Agency, it is the Government's intention to collect those arrears in full? We need to be clear on that point.
On a more general point of principle, do the Government accept that it is important to encourage the sharing of care between parents, even though the actual marriage or partnership may have broken up? In that context, what will happen under the new formula as regards an allowance for the income of the parent with care? It may well be that the income of the parent with care is generally much smaller than that of the parent who does not have care; I believe that that is statistically the case. Be that as it may, there is an important point of principle here. Both incomes should be taken into account. Otherwise, there would seem to be an intrinsic bias against the father. How will the new formula cover that particular point?
Another point on which I am not entirely clear relates to appeals or tribunals. They have not been working properly. I remember one case that I finally managed to bring before a tribunal where everyone turned up except the chairman. What ideas do the Government have on improving the situation?
444
We part company with the Government on the question of penalties and the proposal that the criminal law should be invoked in relation to child support cases, by way of either a fine or imprisonment. Clearly, fines will be as difficult to collect as arrears are. But sending people in these circumstances to court, even as a last resort, may result in their having a criminal record and will not help the children. It would make it more difficult for them to get a job and pay for their children.
The noble Baroness referred at length to the consultations that have taken place. Have lawyers or the judiciary expressed any view on that point? My understanding is that, for example, the CAB took the view that it was not necessary to have such draconian sanctions but that it was important to use the existing sanctions more effectively. If cases are to go before the courts, we need to know to what extent the courts will be able to take mitigating circumstances into account.
The Statement also refers to taking away people's driving licences—although it is worded in a weasel way. It says that the Government are "looking at" the idea of withdrawing driving licences. Will the noble Baroness say how long they are going to look, or whether they have now finished looking so far as concerns that particular proposal? But again, taking away people's driving licences is not likely to help the children.
There was a strange reference in the Statement to the "company Porsche". I can see why the reference is made to Porsches, but I am not quite clear why it has to be a company Porsche. If it is a company Porsche and the driving licence is taken away, then the person will not be able to work as effectively and will have less money to give to the children. Perhaps the noble Baroness will make that plain.
The crucial point is this. Is it really the case that the present civil penalties are inadequate? Will the noble Baroness tell the House how many civil cases in relation to child support cases have actually been brought successfully? I understand that there are very few. The Child Support Agency has not used all its existing powers, but now wants to take the more draconian powers outlined in the Government's Statement.
Other issues cause concern, particularly with regard to the transfer of information from the Revenue. The noble Baroness will know that I have often raised that subject with her. At what level of seniority in the Civil Service will approval for transferring information to the Child Support Agency be given? We do not want that kind of information floating around at the level of seniority in the Child Support Agency that deals with such cases at the front end. One may be aware of situations like that from one's constituency experience.
There is also some concern about the idea of the private sector collecting such child support payments. I am not sure what sort of organisation the Government have in mind, nor am I sure what degree of supervision and accountability there will be by the agency and by Ministers.
In regard to the timetable, I understand that the Government need time to make sure that their computers work. Their record on computers in the Department of

445
Social Security recently has not exactly been magnificent. Therefore, it appears that we shall not see the new system in operation until 2001.
Shall we have one or two Bills to deal with this matter? The implication in the Statement is that in regard to the penalties and in regard to one other matter, the Government will go ahead with the main bulk of the legislation, and the implication would seem to be either that they will tag it on to another Bill, or that there will be two Bills before your Lordships' House.
Be that as it may, we on this side of the House welcome a number of aspects of the Statement and what is proposed, but we shall scrutinise with great care some other aspects that vie believe are controversial.
4.20 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while on my way to the House today I remembered another occasion when I had to come hot-foot from my day job to deal with a Statement on the Child Support Agency. That was the very first Statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in October 1990 announcing the policy. I believe I am the only spokesman in any party in either Chamber who was in place then and is still in place now. I have seen it all. It is beginning to feel rather like reading War and Peace, except that there is not much peace.
During that time I have done business with a number of extremely able Ministers. I want to say a word in praise of Mr Alistair Burt, whose handling of casework showed a degree of integrity and attention to detail which I admired deeply. The Minister herself is in that league. It has been a privilege to do business with her. She has listened with immense care. She is well aware of a number of points which I shall not repeat at as great a length as I otherwise would have done. However, that does not mean that the policy is satisfactory.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, chose his words carefully when he said that the policy was bipartisan. He did not say it was all-party. We on these Benches have never been convinced by this policy and we are beginning to feel uncomfortably like Cassandra. Our objection is not—I repeat this for about the thousandth time—to the principle that fathers should pay for their children; our objection is to the principle that they should do so according to a formula.
The formula does not fit into the real world. The Minister said that the formula was complex; that is because real life is complex. The Government are entirely unaware—at least in their official capacity—of the immense variation in the types of matrimonial break-up that exist in this country, of the immense variation in the types of financial arrangements that have been reached and the types of problems involved.
Beware of Ministers offering simplicity. When they tell us all about the problems of fathers who will not pay, and do not consider the possibility that any of them may be in a position where, because of the formula, they cannot pay, I am uncomfortably reminded of Ministers defending the administration of the poll tax.
446
In regard to teenage boys, it is right that they should be held responsible. The Minister should consider that there may be more than one way of accepting responsibility. I remember one of my pupils asking to change the time of her tutorial in order to look after her sister's baby while her sister sat her A-level examinations. The parents were both teenagers, both father and mother took full shares in the care of the child and both sets of grandparents took full shares in the care of the child. Both parents graduated; they then married and set up a stable household. If the CSA had intervened I am almost certain that that success would have been made impossible. I am not sure that that would have been in the interests of the child, the Treasury or anyone else.
I could add many other stories, but I shall not. I hope that the Minister will understand that there is more than one kind of responsibility. I do not believe that the comments of the Minister on the courts—and those of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—took account of the improvements in procedure in courts brought in under the Children Act 1989, or indeed of the improvements in the courts' powers of enforcement. I believe that some of what they said is out of date. Perhaps they could consult the Magistrates' Association on that point.
I shall concentrate on what is new in the Statement. In relation to misleading information, we on these Benches have no objection to the idea that to supply misleading information should be an offence, but we should welcome the qualification "knowingly supplying misleading information". I believe that the term is known in law. We have misgivings, like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about imprisonment and deprivation of driving licences. Improving employability has been the basis of much of this Government's social security policy. I do not believe that the Minister will tell us that either of those measures complies with that policy. To diminish "aggro" between parents, which occasionally leads to seriously undesirable consequences, is a desirable objective. I cannot see that that would do that.
Nor do I believe that that would diminish tension for the children. One can imagine what two very quarrelsome parents may tell them about it. I am pleased that they are still thinking about driving licences. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that the Government had used weasel words, but at least the weasel appears to be travelling in the right direction. I hope it carries on.
I was a little taken aback by the Minister's statement about clarity—"just as you get from a bank statement". I must offer my congratulations to her bank manager.
There was much in the Statement about improvements for children. Many are genuine and I want to congratulate the Minister on her achievement with the working families' tax credit. I also want the Minister to ensure that the Department of Social Security, as well as the Department of Health, studies today's publication by the BMA, Growing up in Britain, in which they show that in health, in height and in infant mortality there are still wide variations between children in different income groups. The BMA also recommends that there be no further cuts in the single parent benefit. That needs to be put on to the other side of the scales.

447
On what we may, in shorthand, describe as the "Porsche problem", yes, something needs to be done. Long ago, I remember writing to a correspondent, "Don't shoot Mr Lilley, he's doing his best". The Minister may perhaps have done better, although I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the level on which decisions are taken and about confidentiality. There is a real problem here. If there is a solution—I am not sure that there is one—it may be along the lines that the Minister is investigating. I wish her luck.
I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about involving the private sector. I hope that the Minister can give us a little more detail about the way in which the private sector is to be involved, in what context and on what terms. If it is starting next week, at least some of the answers must be "No".
There are problems of confidentiality; I should be glad to know how those are to be tackled. There are also problems of conflict of interest. The private sector must necessarily aim at profit; that is what it is for. It is foolish to complain about that; it is simply the nature of the animal. Attempts will doubtless be made to control that by performance indicators, but performance indicators, as Matthew Taylor of the IPPR pointed out recently, are capable of creating all kinds of perverse incentives. This is something that should be scrutinised very carefully. The terms on which the private sector is brought in are something about which the House should know a great deal more than it does at present.
Finally, I should like the Minister to think very hard about the point made by the late Lord Bancroft in the last year of his life that, if we are to expect the CSA to produce anything half-way towards a competent performance, we must consider the case for exempting it from the change programme which cuts the running costs of the DSS by 25 per cent. There are not many organisations that could take a 25 per cent cut in their running costs with their performance unimpeded. If there are any, I do not believe the CSA has turned out to be one of them.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I welcome the responses of the noble Lords, although I welcome that of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rather more than that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but the noble Earl will not be surprised about that.
Perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I was pleased that he felt able to adopt such a bipartisan and consensual approach. He was right that when the agency was set up in 1993 there was support for the principles of what the then government were seeking to do. The difficulty was that, the more the previous administration sought to tweak the formula by taking extra information into account to make it apparently fairer, the net result was simply to complicate it still further and therefore make it harder for the staff to produce speedy and accurate assessments. That meant that men waiting for their assessments and women waiting for their money had to wait longer and longer
448
and became more and more baffled and the system imploded into a black hole. We ended up with a system which had none of the simplicity of the bureaucracy and none of the individually tailored quality of the courts.
That is why—turning to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—when we approached this matter I did my best to read the research and track the footsteps of the previous government to see why they decided in 1992–93 not to go back to the courts. Some of the reasons are mentioned in the Statement today. It was clear that by 1990 the courts were delivering only about 20 per cent of maintenance to families entitled to it. It was also the case that the decisions the courts were making were extremely erratic. On the then average income of £140 a week, for a family with three children, in a quarter of cases assessments were below £12 and in a quarter of cases assessments were over £40. In cases with identical circumstances, there were whimsical results. Should we go back to the courts? I think not.
We now have a situation in which 1 million couples—2 million parents—are coming through the CSA. For the most part they are poor, particularly the women with care who are on benefit. For the most part they are not married, do not have matrimonial property and are not getting divorced. They have no need to come through a court system. Suddenly to bring through a court system nearly a million extra people, possibly having three changes of circumstances in a year, resulting in three million court visits, would, I think, destroy the court system for those who can go nowhere else but to the courts.
I agree with the previous administration that it was right to abandon the court system and to deliver instead an agency with a formula. We are all culpable in having made that formula more complicated. As far as concerns housing costs for those who have a mortgage, there are 49 different kinds of mortgages. Every time a mortgage changes, new calculations have to be made. A father may receive four different assessments in a week, all containing different figures. It is not surprising that he does not pay. We need to go back to a simple formula in which all that is needed to be known is the father's net take-home pay and the number of children. He pays the money according to the ready-reckoner of tables. The children, his former partner and he all know where they stand.
I now turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He pressed me about the timetable. We are expecting that new cases will come into this system towards the end of 2001. We shall bring on existing cases as soon as we decently can, but we are determined that the information technology that sustains the system must be rock solid. What we cannot afford to do is to bring a million new cases into the system on day one and risk the kind of overwhelming flood of cases and problems that the CSA experienced in 1993 and even now has not fully overcome. In the meanwhile, the existing cases will continue on the old system. I reaffirm that we shall not give any amortisation of arrears. Any money owed is properly owed. To amortise arrears would be to signal to those who have paid that they are being punished for doing the decent thing and paying for their children. Clearly, if someone is having financial

449
difficulties we shall talk to them and make reasonable arrangements. If they pay regularly, we shall suspend more than six months of arrears as an encouragement to them to continue The existing system will continue until the non-resident parent goes on to the new system.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me on shared care. He is absolutely right: the argument behind this is that what we want is child support, in all its complexity, going to children. That is a financial matter and, as an agency, we are obviously dealing with the financial aspects. But we also want to encourage the emotional support that children are entitled to enjoy, even when their parents are separated. It seems to me that this is best done by enabling contact and making the maintenance system support contact where possible without legally connecting the two. This means that for the first time, instead of providing for an abatement of maintenance only in cases where the child stays with the non-resident parent at least two nights a week, we are proposing an abatement of maintenance where a child stays with the non-resident parent one night a week—say, every other weekend. We think that this will encourage the father to have the child living with him on an occasional basis while not discouraging the mother for fear of losing too much maintenance.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why we were not taking into account the income of the parent with care. There are two reasons for that. First, we do not think it is reasonable to do so. The parent with care is providing her share of support for the child because the child is living in her home. Whatever standard of living she enjoys, through her own income or that of her new partner, so will her child. That is her contribution. If we calculate that on average it may cost 30 per cent of an income to bring up a child, the father continues to pay 15 per cent and the mother's share comes through her contribution. We do not think that the father's responsibility for his child should ebb and flow according to the fortunes of the parent with care or the size of her new partner's income. We believe that the father's responsibility to the child continues, whatever happens, and that it should be firm and clear.
The second reason why we are not taking into account the income of the parent with care is that it would make little practical difference. Ninety-six per cent of all parents with care have incomes of less than £100. Only 200 of a million parents with care have incomes of more than £500 a week. The amount of income earned by the parents with care is so modest that in relatively few cases would it significantly affect the assessment. Why bother? Ninety-six per cent of parents with care have incomes around income support rates or just above. In the same way, we are not taking account of the income of the new partner of the father, so we believe that there is equity across both families.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me about tribunals and whether we were speeding up the process. As he knows, the new decision-making and appeals procedure is coming into force as of June. I share his hope that this will result in a speedier approach.
The noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both pressed me on penalties. We are seeking to change the culture. We are trying to develop a system in which the
450
60 per cent of fathers who do not now co-operate and the 70 per cent of mothers who do not now co-operate will in future co-operate in the best interests of their children. The men should co-operate because we are making a lower assessment for them, because the system is simple, and because we are giving greater support to their second families. We hope that mothers will co-operate because we are allowing them to keep maintenance for the first time.
If we are wrong and a father who can pay fails to co-operate, even though his assessment is lower, the system is simple and the money is going to the children. we shall be unashamedly tough. We shall not tolerate people who could and should pay but who apparently so undervalue their children that they would rather that anyone but themselves took responsibility for caring for them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister think a few more times about her criteria for defining those who "can't pay"? She is achieving simplicity only in so far as she departs from reality.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Earl really think that someone on an income of £200, £300 or £500 a week cannot afford to pay 15 per cent for the support of his child, leaving him with 85 per cent of his income? That is an entirely reasonable figure and somewhat less than he is currently assessed to pay. Any man who believes that a child can be maintained for less should do the weekly shopping.
I hope that fathers will co-operate with us and pay the money, knowing that it is going to their children and that their children will see that they are paying. If they do not, we are willing to extend the penalties available to us. There are already extensive civil action powers, including bailiff action and garnishee orders. Because it takes us so long to assess and the formula is so complex, those powers have not always operated as successfully as they should. We are seeking to strengthen the penalty regime for those who can pay but refuse to do so. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving me notice of his question and I am happy to assure him that we shall seek additional penalties for those who knowingly or wilfully give false information. An honest mistake is not an issue for us. We are talking about someone who is wilfully deceitful to avoid his responsibilities.
We are contemplating the penalties that other countries use. In some states of the United States, driving licences are taken away. The state of Texas has been doing that since 1995. In that time 18 have been taken, but in the past six months the threat has brought in an extra 22 million dollars in child support. If we have to implement the penalty, we have failed. But we may need to do so if men who should pay do not. We are not seeking to make life harsh, but we are determined to ensure that children enjoy the support that they should get.
The noble Lord asked about the transfer of information. The relevant level of civil servant will be executive officer. On the role of the private sector, we are expecting banks and building societies to help to

451
collect the money in the same way that they help to collect housing benefit from local authorities. The issues of confidentiality are similar in both circumstances. Will we have one Bill or two? If legislative time permits, we expect an early Bill to deal with all the issues, but some proposals could be implemented ahead of the new case load, which has to wait for the IT machinery.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether I was aware of the British Medical Association report Growing up in Britain. He should keep reminding the House that the poorest children in this country still suffer in their education, their health, their housing, their poverty and their life chances. The poorest children in this country are the children of lone parents. They are poor sometimes because their mother is not in work, in other cases because their mother is not receiving the maintenance that she should. With the New Deal and the working families tax credit, the Government are encouraging parents to go to work, but through child support we are ensuring that the non-resident parent should co-operate. The noble Earl and I may disagree on how best to deliver support to children, but by ensuring that child support flows and that parents have opportunities to go to work we can stop children bumping along on the bottom of income support rates for 16 or 18 years and then becoming unemployable as they hit working age. We have a responsibility. Child support is part of it. I hope that your Lordships will help us to achieve it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am sorry to say anything more after such a full reply, but will she tell the House in what way the Government are involving the private sector?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are expecting to use the private sector for consultancy on debt collection and its expertise on issues such as debt management work for self-employment.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Higgins, I consider this to be a bipartisan matter. I welcome the Minister's commitment to maintaining the principle of the child coming first as the mainstay of the Child Support Agency. Like my noble friend, I recognise that there have been great failings in the way in which the system has worked. I sat for a few years as a lay member of a child support appeal tribunal. I have also sat on a family panel dealing with non-CSA maintenance payment enforcement. I see the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, in his place. I was honoured to serve with him as a magistrate on that panel. I am sure that it is fair to say that we both found it frustrating to see how difficult it is to enforce the payment of maintenance to children from the father or, in some cases, the mother.
My questions for the Minister are about the penalties. With great respect, she talks about the Government getting tough and imposing tough penalties, but in the real world it will be the magistrates who will be called on to impose those tough penalties. What consultations
452
have the Government had with the Magistrates' Association about the implications of imposing fines for the way in which magistrates' courts currently work? The Minister talked about penalties of imprisonment thereafter. I am sure that she is aware of the instruction from the Lord Chancellor's Department on the training of magistrates—it has been in force for some years—that imprisonment should be a last resort. Even if the penalty is "only" the imposition of a fine, non-payment of the fine will result in possible imprisonment. Magistrates are very reluctant indeed to impose a sentence of imprisonment. Very few cases of social security fraud ultimately lead to that. Perhaps we might temper our language when talking about penalties to take into account the practical realities.
What views have the magistrates expressed about the implications of such changes for CSA cases on the way in which maintenance is enforced through the family panel? The Minister and others have talked about equity. The noble Baroness also referred to abandoning the courts. One must remember that a huge number of maintenance cases are still heard in magistrates' and county courts. That will continue regardless of what has been said today. But the White Paper proposals may have huge implications for the way in which those cases are heard. For example, there is the matter of equity of treatment in access to tax records. Magistrates may feel hampered by not having access to them in cases that they hear. Those who are subject through CSA assessment to having their tax records open to view may find that there is a lack of equity of treatment. What view have the Government taken on that and what advice have they had from the Magistrates' Association.
What view has the Lord Chancellor's Department expressed to the Department of Social Security on write-offs? The Minister has already said that in the interim there may be write-offs for those who find it difficult to pay under the current system. I heard her refer to write-offs in her response to my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sure that she is aware of the guidelines given by the Lord Chancellor's Department to magistrates in non-CSA cases that if someone has run up substantial arrears, usually more than one year's total maintenance, the amount is written off and the person escapes—I can say that in this House—from their duty.
I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer some of my questions today because I have referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I would be happy for her to write to me about them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I wonder whether we are contravening Standing Orders.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we have 20 minutes for questions to the Minister on this matter. It would be helpful if noble Lords confined themselves to questions rather than comments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my answer will be very brief. We have consulted both the Magistrates' Clerks' Association and the Magistrates' Association, not on the particular point about penalties

453
but the scheme as a whole. They put their views to us which we found extremely informative. I must point out to the noble Baroness that most of her remarks went outside the realm of the White Paper which is concerned with reform of the Child Support Agency and, therefore, the mode of child support. We are not addressing ancillary relief issues currently handled by magistrates' courts. I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness on the question whether the LCD has any proposals for magistrates' courts, but they are not part of the White Paper. Therefore, many of the questions put by the noble Baroness go well beyond the subject we are discussing today.
Baroness Fookcs: My Lords, the staff have had a very difficult task over the years. Is it intended that their number should be supplemented under the old system. which is extremely complex, while they prepare for the new?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the point raised by the noble Baroness. We are recruiting an extra 600 staff in order to develop face-to-face interviews. I have worked on these schemes with the staff fairly closely. They say that they spend 90 per cent of their time trying to make an assessment and, because the system is so complicated, only 10 per cent of their time is devoted to compliance. They want a simple system so that they can get the assessment cleared within days and then spend their time ensuring that the money flows. They tell us that a simple system such as that now proposed will make training and other matters much easier. We hope that as a result we can retain more staff—obviously, there is, a problem of morale and turnover—and offer a quality service, with the provision of information and face-to-face or telephone contact that too often the CSA has not been able to deliver.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins? The Minister said that the new IT system would come into operation at the end of 2001 and new cases would be dealt with under that system at that time. That is a very short interval for a major computer system. As the noble Lord said, the record of the department has not been magnificent. Can the Minister say to what extent the timing of the introduction of the scheme is robust in terms of the non-delivery of the computer system? This has arisen in many other sectors of government. What are the fall-back plans if the noble Baroness introduces the new casework system at the end of 2001 and the computer system is not operational?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely take the noble Lord's point. The most worrying aspect may very well be the slowness of any new computer system. We cannot afford to bring on the new case-load, let alone the existing one, until we have a secure IT system. As this year progresses I shall be able to share with your Lordships the information that is available. Our realistic expectaion is that the IT system will be in place so that we can take on new cases towards the end
454
of 2001. But noble Lords are right to be pessimistic. Our experience and that of the previous administration of IT systems has not always been a happy one.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister said that the comments of my noble friend Lady Anelay were lengthy and not wholly relevant. I suggest that when she reads Hansard she will find that a number of the points are relevant, particularly those related to penalties. The Minister said that all along she had consulted the Magistrates' Association. Has she also been in touch with the courts in Scotland to which this White Paper applies? If not, will she ensure that she does so soon? I am not sure how it is to be done, because as from today the courts are devolved to Scotland's Parliament. However, I am sure that the Government have worked out a way. It is important that any scheme that emerges in the form of legislation fits well with the Scottish system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, not only have we had replies from 1,500 individuals; we have also discussed these proposals round the table with about 40 organisations, including the Law Society, the Magistrates' Association, family court judges, solicitors, the Family Law Bar Association and so on. They spoke regularly about both the Scottish and English experience. Representations have also been made to us by Scottish organisations. If the noble Baroness believes that we have overlooked any points I shall be very happy to take her advice, but in our consultations we have cast the net as wide as we can possibly conceive.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many noble Lords hope that the attempt to make the CSA more effective will succeed and that the many children who need help receive it? Does the Minister agree that those who lie or who are deceitful, and fathers who deliberately evade their responsibilities, should realise that if they persist they must take the consequences?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord and others. This matter will be judged by whether the poorest children, particularly the 1 million who should receive maintenance at the moment but who do not, are given that support. If so, all of us can help to trampoline those children out of a life of rather deep poverty.

Greater London Authority Bill
4.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 133 [Transport for London]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 72, line 4, at end insert—
("() Transport for London shall secure the provision of transport services that enable disabled people to have access to the same level of services as all passengers.")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 250 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 287 in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that Transport for London secures the provision of special transportation services, such as Taxicard and Dial-a-Ride in order not to discriminate against older and disabled people who cannot use regular buses. The Committee will be aware that all buses in London will be physically accessible by 2017, but there will still be an enormous need for other types of transport provision for those who cannot use mainstream buses. I am advised that there are between 250,000 and 500,000 disabled and older Londoners who cannot use regular public transport, even when it is made physically accessible.
Under the Disability Discrimination Act, Transport for London will be obliged to ensure that all its buses are accessible, but it says nothing about provision for those who cannot use physically accessible buses. These Londoners need special transport provision such as Taxicard and Dial-a-Ride which now provide in the region of 1.5 million trips a year. These are not provided as a duty and are partly funded by voluntary contributions from the London boroughs. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who has recently tried out the Taxicard service, may have something to say about this.
If special transport services are not continued and developed, thousands of older and disabled Londoners will be left marooned in their homes. It will also mean that members of their families will have to take extra time off work to look after them, to do their shopping and to run any necessary errands, which is not to the economic advantage of the country. The amendment is also designed to ensure the continuation and development of these special transport schemes. We should place a duty on Transport for London and make provision for it. If the Government are committed, as they have said it is, to ending social exclusion and integrating all older and disabled people, will they also give a commitment to the continuation and expansion of these vital transport schemes?
I realise that there may be a drafting error in this amendment. As drafted, it may mean that the Underground services have to be accessible to everyone, even people in wheelchairs. That, of course, is impractical and is not the intention of the amendment.
With regard to my noble friend's Amendment No. 287, to which I have put my name and which I strongly support, the noble Baroness will speak on it, but it is designed to reintroduce original Clause 169 of the Bill, which was removed in the other place. It will
456
allow the Secretary of State to make regulations ensuring the provision of door-to-door transport for disabled people. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I rise to support Amendment No. 250 and to speak to Amendment No. 287, which is in my name. My noble friend Lord Swinfen has covered most of the important points. I have put down Amendment No. 287 because it does not insist on any particular scheme. The wording of Amendment No. 287 is:
"may by regulations make provision for and in connection with the provision of transport facilities and services provided for the purpose of meeting the needs of disabled persons resident in Greater London".
That is not prescriptive in terms of how he must do it or whether he must do it. However, at least it places a responsibility upon the Secretary of State to ensure that disabled people in London are carefully considered and catered for in all forms of transport need.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen has mentioned the Taxicard scheme. I believe that it is an extremely valuable scheme. It works very well in central London. The reason for that is that central London boroughs have quite a high parking revenue and they are allowed to apply that to the Taxicard scheme. It is a greater problem in other boroughs. In fact, five boroughs have either greatly reduced the budget for it or reduced the number of journeys that people can take, which has more or less the same effect. No doubt those boroughs have found that their budgetary pressure has demanded that. If it became a part of the Transport for London issue, I am not sure where the money would come from to introduce throughout the whole of London a scheme as good as that in the boroughs in which it is working very well at present. However, one must accept the principle that it is desirable to see a gradual expansion of this scheme throughout London. Above all, we do not want to see an erosion of the present scheme, which has served so many people so well.
My noble friend mentioned that perhaps there may be a danger of implicating the Tube system. I took up this issue. It transpired that one of the real problems is that you cannot necessarily replace an escalator with a lift. An escalator can go down sideways underground and is not owned by the London Transport Authority, whereas a lift has to go down vertically and, for that reason, cannot necessarily be used.
I have for many years campaigned for a case of wheel accessible transport in London, not just for wheelchair users but also for travellers carrying heavy shopping and accompanying small children. For example, if the escalators at Heathrow are out of order, there is no way in which travellers can gain access to the Underground, which I believe is quite appalling. I asked the people at Heathrow, "What happens if you are disabled and you cannot walk down this escalator?" The reply was, "I suppose someone would have to carry you down. There is no other way". On the other hand, the access in the newer terminals, where they have been able to incorporate walking areas for passengers, is so much better. The disabled, of course, are greatly

457
disadvantaged by a lack of access to the Underground. I believe that the Underground answer is a long way off. The bus answer may come much sooner. The taxi answer covers a different need; that is, the need of those who cannot manage on either the Tube or the bus.
I shall refer later to the issue of concessionary fares. I mention it in passing. Many people who are not yet disabled, but who have incipient disability, benefit greatly from the fact that they can use the buses and the Tube. Keeping those people mobile is really a very important way of dealing with their conditions and ensuring that much can be done for them.
With regard to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and perhaps the other one too, I believe that there is a need to define "disabled persons". This is referred to in another part of the Bill. I know that it includes people with mental disabilities, a point on which tie noble Lord, Lord Rix, has spoken. It refers to "disabled persons". I believe that it would be more helpful if it said "as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act". I find it extraordinary that at the time when we brought in the Disability Discrimination Act, we removed the term "registered disabled", which was very clearly identifiable for people. However, we apparently decided at that time that this term should no longer be used. I believe that it is important to identify in any clause of the Bill exactly who we wish to identify, so that there can be no confusion about that.
I will not continue for much longer. This is an issue in which many people are interested. I hope that the Minister will take our worries very seriously and look again at these amendments.
Lord Berkeley: Both the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, have mentioned the question of access to the London Underground for disabled persons. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that all new construction to the London Underground, such as the Jubilee Line and the Heathrow Express, is designed with disabled access in mind, with lifts as well as escalators. The problem is that if one gets on the Jubilee Line at one end, one cannot get off anywhere else.
Having said that, I do not believe that the problem centres around new construction, but rather converting the existing lines, which does not involve only escalators. When you get to the bottom of an escalator at many stations, you have to walk up or down a flight of steps. I do not believe that it is feasible, at a reasonable price, to convert every one of those stations to provide full disabled access. Therefore, some reasonable compromise has to be made to recognise that matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I intervene to say that I introduced the Jubilee Line Bill in this House. It was a very important part of that Bill, and the changeover to Waterloo Station, that lifts were installed. I completely appreciate the point. In relation to the very remote future, it should certainly be incorporated in any new station design.
Lord Renton: In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Swinfen expressed a doubt about the
458
drafting of it. I am sure that that can very easily be put right. I would prefer to have this matter dealt with in the way that the noble Baroness has mentioned; namely, as part of Clause 133 of the Bill, Chapter II, which is headed, Transport for London. I believe that it would be better inserted there, creating an obligation, than in the position suggested by Amendment No. 287, which would bring it within Chapter X, dealing with transport concessions. Here we are dealing not merely with transport concessions. We are dealing with an obligation to provide transport. I suggest that it should have some prominence and come at that earlier stage of the Bill.
So much for the drafting of the amendment. Amendment No. 287 provides a good way of dealing with it. Though I always have doubts about giving power to make regulations, I believe that in this case it might be better to give that power rather than to attempt to set out all the detail in the Bill. Some provision along the lines of Amendment No. 287 but inserted after Clause 133 might be the best way to deal with the matter. However, that is for the Government to consider and decide.
As regards the merit of the amendment, we have to do something. I referred recently to GLAD as the Greater London Association for the Disabled. That body has done a great deal. However, I must confess that I was not quite up-to-date. It is now called Greater London Action on Disability. That good work must be carried on. The Dial-a-Ride scheme was introduced as a result of its efforts.
We have to bear in mind that many of the disabled people to whom my noble friend Lord Swinfen referred—there are roughly a quarter of a million—live in their own homes, including, alas, tower blocks. Others live in nursing homes, old people's homes and various charitable institutions. Some of those places can provide some transport. But it is where the individual is at risk that something needs to be done. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at both amendments. Both have great merit. Something must be done.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support most warmly the two amendments and pay tribute to the work of GLAD. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to it. Perhaps I should declare that I am a patron of GLAD.
I have added my name to both amendments because I believe that it is important to write into the Bill a duty for TfL to make provision for those who cannot make use of regular public transport even when it is physically accessible to them because they need door-to-door transport. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, signalled that I would mention this issue. Owing to a combination of circumstances, for the past two days I have had to travel by accessible taxi from Maidenhead to London and, I hope, back again. The seamless journey has worked wonderfully. I do not think that I would be here if I had had to get in and out of a taxi, a train and another taxi, owing to sheer exhaustion and the time taken. The seamless journey assists those who cannot make use of public transport.

459
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to Taxicard. I stress that I do not live in London. I should not be eligible for the Taxicard scheme—in case any noble Lord is having a fit because of my travelling from Maidenhead and returning there.
I support Amendment No. 287 which reintroduces a clause removed in another place allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations ensuring provision of door-to-door transport for disabled people. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that in some boroughs the system works brilliantly. However, it is patchy at present. There has been a recent decline in finance in some boroughs. It is desperately important to ensure that that does not happen. I think that Taxicard should be transferred to TfL as soon as possible. Until the journeys currently made possibly by Taxicard are part of an integrated London public transport strategy, the provision will continue to be uneven. Users in different boroughs will receive varying levels of provision. The funding and future of Taxicard services will be at risk and further Taxicard services will be lost. We must not let that happen. The single management and funding regime would provide a focus and platform for the development of the integrated transport service. I hope therefore that we shall hear an encouraging reply from the Minister on both amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have added my name to Amendment No. 250. I support the ideas underlying both amendments. I wish to give emphasis to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, about the seamless journey and the need to provide a Taxicard service across the whole of London and not just in some boroughs.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I support both amendments. I urge the Minister to consider in particular Taxicard which has 45,000 members. In Greenwich the service has stopped completely; in Lewisham, Redbridge and Enfield it is on the verge of stopping.
Most courteously, I remind the Minister that paragraph 5.30 of the White Paper of March 1998, A Mayor and Assembly for London, states:
"Transport for London will acquire specific responsibility for the Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard schemes. Following a review of door-to-door transport services in London, we are convinced that a better service to users could be secured at a lower cost to taxpayers and council tax payers if these services were rationalised."
Therefore does the Minister believe that such provision should be in the Bill? I accept that this is a massive Bill. But perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to consider putting such provision again into the Bill in some form.
I am never quite sure—it always occurs when my noble friend Lord Renton speaks—of the wording of the amendment or on what page of the Bill it should be inserted. So I do not say to the Minister, "This is what I want. This is how I want it worded", because the wily and cunning lawyer, my noble friend Lord Renton, will explain to me later how it should be done. But it is the
460
Minister who will have to bring back the matter to the House. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to consider bringing these two matters back at a later stage.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, I am a patron of Greater London Action on Disability and I pay tribute again today to its work in the service of disabled people. While I shall be speaking mainly to Amendment No. 250, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for facilitating this debate.
The purpose of Amendment No. 250 is wholly unexceptionable. It is about ending a very hurtful form of discrimination against disabled and elderly people; namely, their exclusion from transport services of crucial importance to their quality of life. There are between 250,000 and 500,000 disabled and older Londoners who cannot use regular public transport even when it is physically accessible. There are over 200,000 Londoners who cannot walk 100 yards and whose nearest bus stop is more than 100 yards from their home. What use are mainstream bus services to them?
These Londoners need special transport provision such as Taxicard and Dial-a-Ride which now provide 1.5 million trips a year. But these are not provided as a statutory duty. They are partly funded by voluntary contributions from the London boroughs. To ensure the continuation and development of these special transport schemes, Parliament should place a clear duty on Transport for London to make provision for them. We must not leave all discretion to the mayor. The organisations of and for disabled and elderly people feel that the Government recognise their special needs but are content to leave it to others to decide how or whether they are met.
Action to meet their needs ought not to be decided by personal whim but by the political will of Parliament. I hope very much that my noble friend can offer a helpful reply to the amendments. I hope, too, that he is giving very careful consideration to the response of the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People, of which I informed him by letter, to the debate on my amendments on charging. I repeat: these are important amendments. They deserve a positive reply.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I heard him correctly at the beginning of his speech. I may not have done so because, as he knows, I am rather deaf. I thought I heard him say that Amendment No. 250 was unacceptable. Am I right in thinking that he meant acceptable?
Lord Morris of Manchester: I said and meant unexceptionable. The very opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, may have feared.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I heard the noble Lord right; he did say unexceptionable. We on these Benches in general terms support the principle behind these amendments. I am not certain which of the two is the better one. We believe that the facilities which are available to the disabled—there has been discussion on

461
Taxicard and Dial-a-Ride—should certainly become better under the new system and there should not be any danger that they should become worse. From what one has heard in the debate this afternoon, it appears that they may be getting worse in certain places.
When I first saw Amendment No. 250, I worried that it might involve the London Underground possibly being made accessible to wheelchairs. Some figures were calculated once on how much it would cost and it amounted to billions of pounds. It is not only at the bottom of escalators where there are usually steps. There are many stations—particularly on the Piccadilly Line—which have no surface structure where, in order to get to the ticket hall, one has to go down steps and where I suspect it would be quite impossible physically to put in a lift. However, we on these Benches would like to support the principle behind these amendments. I do not know which is the better one of the two, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic response.
Lord Whitty: I do understand the concerns behind these amendments. With regard to Amendment No. 250, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, recognised that it was drafted in such a way that it would run into some of the difficulties which both my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, have mentioned. It would imply a very onerous duty—far greater than on any other public authority—but also one which would override other priorities for TfL. One thinks in particular of the physically difficult problem which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has graphically outlined in relation to 100 year old London Underground stations.
In its present form, we could not accept that amendment. In one sense, the noble Lord was focusing on a much more limited area but one of absolute essential importance for the disabled; namely, their ability to obtain door-to-door transport and the mayor and TfL's responsibility for that. I shall mention that in a moment.
In relation to new Amendment No. 287, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is right that it bears a striking resemblance to Clause 169 of the original Bill. My honourable friend Glenda Jackson removed that clause for two reasons: partly because the other provisions in the Bill gave the mayor and TfL all the necessary duties and powers to ensure that transport issues affecting disabled people could be properly dealt with and will be taken into account in all the relevant details with the authority; and because we felt that the clause as it stood would put all responsibility on the Secretary of State to which by and large there has been some objection in this House. The clause as it stands would require the Secretary of State to issue orders and directions, whereas that ought to be part of the mayor's own responsibilities and, through the mayor, TfL's.
Several noble Lords have mentioned activity which is going on to improve the accessibility of transport to the disabled and others with mobility problems; in particular, the new regulations, which will be coming in over the next few years, affecting trains, buses and taxis and new stations. Clearly that cannot be done
462
overnight and many disabled, elderly and other people with mobility problems will find it difficult if there are not adequate door-to-door services.
Under the present draft, we place the responsibility very clearly on the mayor, who will of course also be bound by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, but with an additional requirement which was passed rather late the evening before last—I seem to spend all my time in this Committee—on Clause 124(2)(a), which requires the mayor's strategy to contain the mayor's proposals for transport which is accessible to those with mobility problems. That leaves some flexibility with the mayor. But it is also important that the mayor has that requirement and that it is also reflected in the fact that the London borough local implementation plans must contain proposals for implementing that strategy. Therefore, this is written in the Bill as it stands both at the GLAffIL and at the London borough level.
This applies in the area of Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard. Dedicated door-to-door services in London are apparently provided by those schemes. Dial-a-Ride is run by six independent companies. Taxicard is a borough-operated scheme covering 29 of the boroughs. Both schemes are very important and need to be developed for disabled people to pre-book door-to-door transport, mainly by telephone. For Dial-a-Ride, transport is provided by small bus. Individual taxis provide services under Taxicard.
As was indicated in our White Paper—I think the noble Lord, Lord Archer, referred to this—responsibility for Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard will transfer to the new authority. Thereafter, we would envisage a progressive transfer of other door-to-door services where this can be shown to be of benefit to the users and with the agreement of the other service providers.
Dial-a-Ride, currently funded by London Transport, will, as an LT responsibility, transfer automatically to Transport for London. Amendment No. 259D, a government amendment, will enable TfL to cont:inue giving grant to the Dial-a-Ride organisations as London Transport now does. The mayor will also be able to take responsibility for Taxicard or operate a similar scheme. However, some flexibility is needed. We acknowledge that Taxicard is not a uniform scheme—indeed that was pointed out—and the mayor will be able to indicate the best development from Taxicard or services similar to it, and the boroughs will have to reflect the mayor's approach in their own local implementation plan as I have indicated.
The mayor will want to consider the benefits of further co-ordination or voluntary integration of other types of door-to-door services. These could include such areas as social services day care transport and indeed transport for children with special needs. It is a big area but it is absolutely clear that Clause 124 places the responsibility on the mayor to provide this kind of transport which is accessible to all of those with mobility problems.
Through that, he therefore will need to decide, among other things, on the exact timing and nature of the transfer of Taxicard and the future development of Taxicard and Dial-a-Ride and to do so in conjunction with the London boroughs.

463
As it stands, Amendment No. 250 would place too wide, too onerous and too expensive a duty on TfL; but the mayor, under provisions which already exist in the Bill and the particular responsibility set out in Clause 124, has responsibility to take account of and develop exactly the kind of services that the noble Lord and noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, were concerned with. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that there is no need for these amendments given the commitments and the implications of the earlier responsibility.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may ask for clarification. Let us suppose that it does not work out and that, heaven forfend, the boroughs do not do what the mayor is saying. The Minister said that under Amendment No. 287 the Secretary of State was obliged to make regulations, but I believe that it states that he "may" make regulations. Would not the amendment be a useful stop-gap if there were any problem?
Lord Whitty: By putting that clause at this point in the Bill it would appear to place responsibility on the Secretary of State. Our provisions would place responsibility on the mayor and that arises in Clause 134. However, if other procedures are observed, that does not prevent the Secretary of State making other directions.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I shall read what the Minister has said, but I believe that it would be a useful stop-gap.
Lord Renton: I must make a correction. I referred to Chapter X. That was a slip of the tongue. I should have referred to Chapter VII because that deals with travel concessions.
Lord Swinfen: I shall leave my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes to decide what she wishes to do with her amendment, Amendment No. 287, when we reach it somewhat later in the debate. However, her suggestion of including in the Bill a definition of a disabled person is useful. The definition in the Disability Discrimination Act may be useful, but let us consider that between now and the next stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Brabazon were right to point out the costs of making the whole Underground system accessible to people with all kinds of disability. That was never what I intended. I realise that it would be impractical and that the costs would be horrific.
I am delighted with the support I have received for the amendments from all sides of the Committee and with the Minister's support for the idea which lies behind them. I should like to read what he and other Members have said and possibly come back with them at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 250ZA:
Page 72, line 11, at end insert—
("() Transport for London may, with the approval of the Mayor and Assembly, borrow money for investing in transport in Greater London.")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment has a history. It was tabled by my honourable friend in another place and supported in Committee by the Conservative Members. Amendment No. 225D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, and my noble friend proposed that the GLA could issue a loan instrument secured on revenue-bringing charges and levies. When we discussed it in Committee on Monday this week, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, suggested that the idea might be better located in this part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord and his noble friends will continue to be broadly supportive of these borrowing powers.
The purpose of Amendment No. 250ZA is straightforward; namely, to give the new functional body, Transport for London, the power to borrow money to invest in transport in London. The new functional body will have large assets and important duties to deliver, or cause to be delivered, over a wide range of transport for the people of the Greater London area.
However, the amendment raises wider issues. In response to the amendment, the Minister in another place said that under the Local Government Act, TfL is enabled to borrow. But we are worried that that will be limited by the existence of short-term borrowings. Perhaps the Minister can respond to that issue.
I should also like to hear in layman's language how the Government see Transport for London's financial autonomy. There are a number of amendments on today's Marshalled List, but I find it difficult to understand how the Government see that particular aspect of Transport for London. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: During our debate on Monday on Amendment No. 225D, I did not realise that the noble Baroness had tabled this amendment relating to Transport for London. I am pleased that we are together on the issue and to be reminded that it was supported by my honourable friends in another place.
We support the idea in principle. Reflecting upon my suggestion that the borrowing should be against revenue streams from congestion and parking charging, I now believe that that would be too restrictive. It should be for the lender to decide how he wants the loan to be secured. Furthermore, it must be made clear that the borrowing must be in the market, so getting away from the public sector borrowing requirement, as happened in the case of local authority airports which are now allowed to borrow outside the PSBR. The Minister said that they were commercial organisations. I hope to goodness that Transport for London will be a commercial organisation, taking over from London Transport which tries its best to be a commercial organisation.

465
I do not intend to speak any longer on this issue. We shall wish to return to it at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the amendment. It follows closely on Amendments Nos. 224F and 225D, which covered the GLA as a whole. However, this amendment relates only to Transport for London.
In Committee on Monday, the Minister said:
"Their expenditure through borrowing increases public expenditure and, ultimately, exposes the Treasury. Our aim is to ensure that borrowing by the GLA is subject to the same system of control as applies in other areas".—[Official Report, 28/6/99: col. 105.]
I hope that the Minister's response to this more limited amendment is more positive. The Government's argument on borrowing powers is wholly circular. Borrowing by Transport for London or the GLA is public borrowing because the Treasury says it is. That argument was used by Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass who said. "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean." It is interesting that the Treasury should be using Humpty Dumpty arguments nowadays.
The fact is that the Government, when they choose, can exclude certain types of borrowing from "public borrowing" under the PSBR. Some regional airports have been excluded, as have the new guaranteed bonds by the Channel tunnel rail link. They are not treated as coming under the PSBR. If the rules were changed, there would be no need for the complicated, expensive and, we believe, ultimately doomed proposals for PPP which we shall discuss later. I hope that the Government will take a more flexible view on the issue and consider the amendment carefully.
Lord Whitty: We covered a great deal of the ground on Monday. The central point is that Amendment No. 250ZA adds nothing to the Bill because the rest of it places TfL, as a local authority body, within the local authority finance regime. The Bill already confers powers to borrow money on TfL. Clause 96(2) makes TfL and the other functional bodies local authorities for the purposes of Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, of which Section 46 provides that as part of the proper management of its affairs the local authority may borrow money for any purpose relevant to its functions. That remains the case in relation to TfL.
Therefore, the power to borrow money is clear. It is a question of the regime under which that borrowing takes place. We have said that TfL will be treated as a local authority. Accepting the amendment would not take TfL out of that system of regulation and, as with other local authorities, TfL's borrowing will be controlled through the issue of credit approvals.
The amount of a body's credit approvals is estimated in the capital spending plan. The assembly has a role in being consulted about that plan. The sources of funding for Transport for London will be diffuse. It will have its own ordinary revenue from fares and the GLA transport grant, which will comprise grants currently given to predecessor bodies, such as London Transport. The mayor can give TfL money from the GLA grant.
466
The revenues from road user charging and workplace parking charges will accrue to TfL and it can borrow in the same way as any other local authority body.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that this is a circular argument. However, this situation applies not only in this country; the Maastricht criteria effectively define borrowing by such a public body as public borrowing in all European Union countries. The PSBR is not a term that we use any more. We use the post-Maastricht terms—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I apologise for interrupting the Minister in full flow. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, made the interesting point that if TfL was allowed to borrow in the market there was no possibility that its borrowing could be considered as contributing to the public sector borrowing requirement. It would be borrowing from the total pool of money available for lenders to lend. It would not be creating a new money source.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I might make that a "double-barrelled" question. Can the Minister explain why the Government are able to exclude from the PSBR those regional airports and, indeed, the Channel tunnel rail link?
Lord Whitty: The Channel tunnel rail link is a complicated matter which I do not propose to go into today. As regards the commercial airports, which are perhaps more directly analogous, they are effectively limited companies owned by the public sector. When I say that they operate as commercial entities, they are totally commercial entities. TfL, as a body, has both commercial and non-commercial aspects. Therefore, it is appropriate to treat it as a public body, as with many other public bodies.
This is not as constraining a regime as noble Lords seem to think. Clearly, the viability of future revenues is one of the considerations to be taken into account if TfL or any other public body applies for credit approval. Credit approval will be assessed with a view to TfL being able to deliver on all the duties imposed on it by the Bill.
The idea that taking it out of the local authority regime would give greater access to resources than the proposals we are putting forward is probably not a logical conclusion. At any rate, the amendment, if passed, would not, of itself, take TfL out of the local authority regime.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept the last point with regard to the way the clause is drafted. At this stage we are exploring the general principles. As his penultimate point, the Minister argued that this type of approach does not add to the sources of borrowing that may be available. However, we are seeking to remove the hurdle of the approval of the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that as it may be valuable for our debate at the next stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised an interesting point. It is really for the lender to express a view—more than a view; a requirement—as to the

467
property to be charged; that is, the assets to which the lender will look in making funds available to TfL as the borrower. Can the Minister comment on the role of the Secretary of State in blocking funds which would otherwise have been made available, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara suggests? It seems to me inappropriate for the Secretary of State to say, "No, you may not borrow. I accept that your lender is satisfied as to the security to be given, but I know better".
Lord Whitty: I am not entirely sure that I follow the question raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I am happy to repeat it.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may study the question and write in detail to the noble Baroness. The issue is not what the lender feels, or whether the lender is the public or private sector. Whoever lends the money, public expenditure by this public body will increase. That is straightforward and logical.
I thought that the noble Baroness was suggesting that the Secretary of State might veto access to private finance. That is not the way the system works. We shall work under the local authority credit approval process. The Secretary of State does not have any other parallel power. Once that process has been gone through, the credit approval is there.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not believe that we shall get much further today with the amendment. We have listened to an interesting series of speeches from both sides of the House. We shall go away and consider them carefully. I suspect that we may well bring this back again at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 133 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Schedule 8 [Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 206, line 13, leave out ("its functions under this Act") and insert ("any of its functions")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 256B, 256E, 258B to 258Z, 259A to 259C, 261A and 265A. These are all relatively technical amendments which tidy up the position relating to TfL.
Amendment No. 250A is a technical amendment to Schedule 8. Paragraph 1(3) allows TfL to do things which will facilitate or are conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions under this Act. However, ill, will have functions under other legislation; for example, highway and traffic functions, and they also need to be covered. Amendment No. 250A makes clear that it can do that.
The rest of this group of amendments are technical improvements to Schedule 9 which deal with the detailed operating powers of TfL. Schedule 9 is very
468
similar to the enacted legislation from which London Regional Transport derives its operating powers; that is, Schedule 2 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.
The amendments do, however, give TfL two powers not previously available to LRT: the power to form joint venture companies and the power to provide transport facilities without having to provide services to them.
Amendment No. 256B amends Clause 136 to give TfL the power to form joint venture companies with private partners for the carrying on of activities which TfL does not have power to carry on. Currently, LRT cannot do that. Although it can form companies with other persons, those companies cannot undertake activities for which LT does not have powers. This has prevented LT from carrying out a number of worthwhile activities, such as the White Card, which is a single ticket allowing entry to a number of London museums. The London Transport Museum has been unable to take part in that initiative because of the lack of London Transport's powers to act in that area.
We believe that such a power will be useful to TfL in that it will be able to undertake innovative projects such as the White Card system, but it will not give TfL carte blanche—excuse the pun—to embark on speculative ventures. The activities of any company formed under this provision must include those activities for which TfL does have power, as well as other activities for which it does not.
Amendments Nos. 258D to 258F make it clear that TfL can provide transport facilities without itself having to provide services to and from those facilities. Although London Transport currently has power to provide incidental facilities (like car parks) it cannot provide "core" transport facilities without running services to and from them. This effectively prevents it from providing such things as river piers without operating services from them. It is entirely possible that TfL will want to provide facilities without services, and this amendment allows it to do just that.
Amendments Nos. 256E, 258H to 258T, 258V, 258X, 258Y and 259A replace references to TfL's "business" with references to "functions". That is because although TfL will be a trading organisation in some ways (for example, its sale of tickets), it will also be a regulatory body in respect of taxi and bus licensing, for example.
Amendment No. 258B, together with 258C, are technical amendments to divide the existing paragraph 3 of Schedule 9. The effect is to create a new paragraph 3A, extending TfL's power to use surplus premises for the storage of goods not carried by TfL. That means that TfL can use any of its surplus premises for that purpose, and not just premises it uses for the storage of goods which TfL carries.
Amendment No. 258G adds the word "or" to paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to make it clear that TfL can provide "professional or technical advice" rather than "professional technical advice". Amendment No 258GA makes clear that TfL can charge for anything done under its powers in paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to provide technical assistance and advice.
Amendment No. 258U brings TfL's compulsory purchase powers into line with those of the London Development Agency, by requiring TfL to obtain the mayor's consent before asking the Secretary of State to confirm a compulsory purchase order. Amendment No. 258W is a typographical correction. It ensures that TfL's powers of compulsory purchase are the same as London Transport's, subject only to the changes necessary to reflect the creation of Tfl, and the GLA.
Amendment No. 258Z removes the need for TfL to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before acquiring any securities of a body corporate for the purposes of discharging its functions. Amendment No. 259B is a minor technical amendment, being a cross-reference. Amendment No. 259C amends paragraph 29 of Schedule 9 so that TfL may do anything necessary for the purposes of fulfilling a contract entered into by any of its predecessor bodies.
I hope the need for these amendments is clear. They tidy up the power; and in some cases extend them in sensible areas beyond those currently held by London Transport and other predecessor bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: Perhaps I can ask my noble friend two short questions. I believe my noble friend said that Amendment No. 258D would enable TfL to build transport facilities but not operate them. Would that include something like rebuilding Victoria coach station without the need to operate coaches to it? I believe the answer is yes, but I shall be grateful for his confirmation.
My second question relates to the word "goods". My ears pricked up as soon as I heard that word. I cannot remember to which amendment it relates because my noble friend was rattling through them nice and quickly. It allows TIL to store goods in places where goods would not normally be stored. Is this the start of a major intermodal facility in London for the transfer of freight from road to rail; or does it relate to Schedule 9, line 37 at page 210,
"Transport for London may also carry luggage and other goods"?
I am not sure what the definition of "goods" is in those two contexts and whether they are the same. I shall be grateful for an explanation from my noble friend.
Lord Whitty: On the latter point, my understanding is—I will correct this in writing if I am wrong—that the reference to luggage and other goods merely relates to goods similar to luggage. In other words, they can carry luggage separately from passengers. If one is travelling with an artist's easel, that could be put in with the luggage, though strictly speaking it is not a case. So it is not creating a new freight company, if that was my noble friend's concern.
In relation to Victoria coach station, conceivably the situation would be covered. I cannot see the circumstances in which it would arise, but it would definitely be covered. In terms of being able to store goods outside its own normal provision, in most cases the situation is probably more limited in that TfL would be able to use its own storage facilities for other
470
people's goods if the storage was surplus to its requirements. It could, however, lead to substantially greater things, as my noble friend implied.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed explanation of this large group of amendments and congratulate him on moving such a large group in one go. We will need to study the amended Bill at the end of Committee stage and we reserve our position until then.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We will also be studying the results of these amendments. I have a small query in relation to Amendment No. 265A where the Minister is proposing to leave out the "Secretary of State" and insert the "Mayor". But, as I read that, if the mayor ended up being chairman of Transport for London, he would effectively be giving consent to himself. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that for me.
Lord Whitty: He would be giving consent to TfL as an organisation rather than to himself. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has a point which needs some explanation and I undertake to write to her.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 250B:
Page 206, line 15, after ("to") insert ("sub-paragraph (1A) and")
The noble Baroness said: These amendments do a number of reasonably simple things. Amendment No. 250C requires the assembly's approval by a simple majority for an appointment made to the TfL board by the mayor. Amendment No. 250B is the paving amendment for that amendment. Amendment No. 251B would allow the assembly a say in the determination of the terms and conditions of TfL board members. Amendment No. 251 C would require the mayor to seek the approval of the assembly by a simple majority for the removal of a TfL member. That refers to the fact that the assembly could approve the appointment. Finally, Amendment No. 252A would allow the assembly a say in the appointment of the chair of Transport for London. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, clearly described the purpose of her amendments. However, I believe that they are based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the mayor and TfL and the mayor and the assembly.
TfL's major role will be to deliver the mayor's transport strategy. TfL is the mayor's executive body, and a vital tool for him or her in delivering the improvements to transport in London which I know we all want to see. It is the mayor who will be accountable to the people of London for his or her performance on transport. The buck will stop with the mayor. The mayor must be able to appoint to the TfL board people whom she or he believes are the best for the job.
It is vital that the key management and leadership roles of chairman and deputy chairman are filled by people in whom the mayor has confidence. As we said

471
in the White Paper, posts will be advertised and selection will be on merit with an independent element in the selection process following normal public service procedure. We have also said that we will expect the mayor, in line with Nolan procedures, to involve an independent element in the appointments process, and that we will provide guidance on that. This will safeguard against the mayor packing the board.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 251B and 252A, if it is the mayor's responsibility to appoint members it must also be for the mayor to decide on what terms and conditions they should be appointed and in what circumstances a member should be removed. If the mayor feels that a member is not up to the job, she or he must be able to do something about it without having to go through a complex and inappropriate procedure.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I heard what the Minister said. However, it is not so much that we do not understand, but rather that there is a fundamental disagreement between us as regards the desirable relative roles of the mayor, the assembly and, indeed, the Secretary of State. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 250C not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 206, line 32, at end insert—
("(3A) The Mayor shall appoint as members of Transport for London—

(a) a person who has personal experience of being a disabled person; and

(b) a person who is an older person.")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 252, 267, 268, 269, 271 and 273. In no way dare I even seek to emulate the performance of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with the number of amendments that he moved in one group; indeed, it was magnificent.
I shall begin with Amendments Nos. 251 and 252, the purpose of which is to ensure that Transport for London, through its board members, is fully and properly informed of the needs, views and wishes of disabled and older Londoners. Schedule 8 to the Bill requires the mayor to,
"have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the … membership of Transport for London represents the interests in relation to transport … of persons who require transport which is accessible to persons with mobility problems".
Older and disabled people, and their organisations, believe that the best way of achieving that is for the TfL board to have members who are older and disabled and that these members should be supported and informed by a forum of organisations of older and disabled people.
The Government's commitment to best value and social inclusion argues that the best advocates for services are the service users themselves. Older and disabled people and their organisations do not feel that
472
it is sufficient for the mayor to appoint as their representatives people who have no democratic mandate and who may know little of the needs of older and disabled people, other than their personal experience.
Amendments Nos. 267, 268, 269 and 273 have the purpose of ensuring that whenever Transport for London proposes to introduce a new local bus service or vary an existing one the impact on older and disabled people is taken into account through consultation. Clause 148 requires TfL to consult various interests when proposing to introduce a new bus service or vary an existing one. These amendments seek to add,
"organisations of older and disabled people",
to the list of statutory consultees, and,
"the effect of the proposal on older and disabled people",
to the list of matters about which consultation must take place.
Disabled and older people are particularly dependent on buses, being usually poorer and less frequently owning cars or having access to cars. Indeed, some 72 per cent of London pensioners do not own a car. Buses are the form of transport that goes closest to people's homes. It is disabled and older people who have more to gain and, more importantly, more to lose from developments in London's transport than other members of the population.
Amendment No. 271, which really needs to run with Amendments Nos. 267, 268, 269 and 273, is designed to ensure that the mayor's guidance on granting permits to run bus services outside the London bus network protects the interests of disabled and older people by identifying the interests of those who must be consulted in the preparation or revision of the guidance. The amendments seek to add the same list of statutory consultees to the mayor's consultation as regards his guidance on the granting of London bus service permits. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: As I have added my name to these amendments, I should like briefly and warmly to support the whole group. It is totally sensible and logical for TfL to have individual members with experience of age and disability, backed up by a forum of organisations with experience; indeed, LATA already exists. Obviously, before any change in a bus service or before granting bus service permits, the relevant organisations should be consulted about the likely impact. The Minister may well say that this is quite unnecessary because they are all so obvious. However, while there is much more awareness about these issues nowadays, things can be overlooked, forgotten or swept aside and the resulting chaos can be difficult and often expensive to put right.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My name has been attached to some of these amendments. I should like to ask the Minister a fairly straightforward question. Can the noble Lord say how the Government, and the Bill, foresee the consultation process with regard to these particular users of transport? The Minister mentioned guidance in relation to the membership of

473
Transport for London. Will that guidance indicate that it would be desirable to have persons who represent disabled or older people on the TfL board?
Lord Whitty: The first of these amendments deals with representation on the TfL board. In one sense, there is no specification as to what organisations people on the board should come from. But under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 8 the mayor will be under the duty to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the membership of TfL represents the interests of those who require accessible transport. We do not believe that we should lay down in the Bill precisely how the interests of those needing accessible transport, including the disabled, should be represented on the TfL board. Indeed, that would cut across the general approach to membership of the board. However, believe that the provision in Schedule 8 meets the requirement in the amendments that people with experience of age and disability should be on the board. If we start specifying such organisations, there may well be more difficult problems.
As regards consultation, with which the remaining amendments deal, there is clearly some concern that what I keep calling the "implication of the Bill" is not for real unless you have an amendment of this nature. I shall try, once again, to indicate where the consultation under the Bill as drafted would meet the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and other Members of the Committee who have spoken. The reference in Clause 27 of the Bill to "voluntary bodies" will, in practice, ensure that consultation occurs with representatives of disabled people.
When drawing up the transport strategy, the mayor must consider consulting those voluntary bodies. Under Clause 124, the strategy must contain the mayor's proposals for transport which is accessible to those with mobility problems. The logic of that is that the mayor has to consult all those with an interest; in other words, he must consult voluntary bodies representing those with mobility problems and the disabled. Admittedly, it is more explicit in relation to the local boroughs in Clause 127 where the local implementation plans must contain a borough's proposal for implementing a strategy in its area. That explicitly provides that boroughs will be under a duty to consult organisations representing disabled people when drawing up their local implementation plans. It is also explicitly stated in the Bill that the London Transport Users' Committee must be consulted in this whole process. The LTUC, like the LRPC, has people to advise it on matters relating to accessibility and mobility. There is no reason why the LTUC should be difficult in this regard.
We contend that the present requirements of the Bill indicate that disabled groups must be consulted through the logic of the interplay of the various clauses. However, I suspect that noble Lords will continue to raise this issue unless it is explicitly spelt out, or they feel after reading Hansard that my words are so explicit that there is no further need to raise the issue. If the Committee will allow me, I shall consult further on the
474
matter of how we meet what is an obvious concern, but one which we feel has already been met in the Bill as drafted.
Lord Avebury: I hope that I may put one more point to the Minister before we finish with this series of amendments. I refer to the membership of Transport for London as opposed to the consultations. The Minister is saying that the point that is raised in the amendment has already been taken care of in paragraph 2(3) to Schedule 8, but that states only that members of Transport for London will represent,
"the interests in relation to transport … of persons who require transport which is accessible to persons with mobility problems".
However, that provision could be satisfied by the appointment, for example, of an official of Age Concern or an official of the Disablement Income Group. It does not mean to say that there is an elderly or a disabled person on TfL. It is important that the membership of TfL should comprise such people. After all, subparagraph (4) states who is specifically excluded from being a member of TfL. There is a long list of people who cannot be appointed in this capacity. Therefore, why should we not have on the face of the Bill a provision which states that the membership shall include members of a particular class? Is that not the best way to ensure that the knowledge and experience of elderly or disabled persons are brought into the counsels of TfL and are not carried there indirectly by someone who merely represents the interests of those persons?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that the amendment would meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, now makes. I am not sure that I agree with his approach. If the interests and the experience he mentioned are represented, they can be represented directly or indirectly. It is a matter of judgment and acceptability as to how they are represented. If we start to prescribe on the face of the Bill precisely how any particular interests should be represented—in this case the interests of the disabled and others with mobility problems—I believe that we shall go down a far too prescriptive channel. One could possibly become more exclusive than inclusive by so doing.
Schedule 8 requires the mayor to,
"have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the … membership of Transport for London represents the interests"
of those who require accessible transport. That leaves some element of flexibility as to how those interests are represented. However, it makes it absolutely clear that they should be represented. While I understand the concern that some provision should be included as regards the consultation side—although I do not think that is necessary—it could be counter-productive in terms of membership if we were to be too prescriptive here.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Am I right in thinking that before the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, he was telling us that he has it in mind to bring a government amendment before the House at the Report

475
stage that will meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and myself among others? I am quite sure he appreciates that all the signatories of these amendments genuinely feel that they have raised a point of real substance, but can we hope that he will bring forward a government amendment at the Report stage to try to meet our concerns?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My noble friend has exaggerated slightly what I said. That is clearly one option, but I said that because I believe that as this matter has been raised two or three times there is obviously concern that what we think is a logical reading of the Bill as it stands is not sufficient to reassure people. I am prepared to consider whether there are other ways in which we can reassure people. That concern may be satisfied by people reading Hansard and feeling that I have made a more explicit commitment. It may be satisfied by means of an amendment to the Bill. All I said was that I would be prepared to consider the matter further. It will obviously be up to the House to decide whether I have taken sufficient action by the next stage of the Bill to meet the concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Swinfen: I thank those from all sides of the Chamber who have supported this group of amendments. I am delighted that the Minister said that he would consult on the matter. I did not hear him give a commitment to bring forward a government amendment. However, he may do so at Report stage; we do not know. If I recall correctly, some years ago at the time of the privatisation of the railways and the privatisation and deregulation of the national bus companies, I had the support of the party opposite for similar amendments that I moved at that time to both those pieces of legislation. Therefore I hope that the Minister will feel that he can move considerably to counter the concerns that I have raised on behalf of disabled and elderly people. It was not my intention to press any of these amendments this evening. I sought to find out the Government's view on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 251A:
Page 206, leave out line 34
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to allow assembly members to be members of Transport for London. It seems too prescriptive to say that no assembly members should be members of TfL. Although I can understand that the Government would not want members of what is supposed to be the scrutiny body to pack the TfL board, there are often advantages in having people who belong to one body at least being represented on another. Although I think it is in the Government's mind that the mayor will choose to be a member of TfL, that will not necessarily occur. There are several examples of cases where the Government have shown that they like such dual membership. I refer
476
to the Secretary of State's recent appointments to RDA boards. It is noticeable that many council leaders, and certainly councillors, have been appointed to those boards.
Further, leading members of authorities have been appointed to hospital boards. I realise the Minister will say that in the examples I have given one body is not scrutinising the other. However, experience shows that people involved in such bodies can bring their experience or expertise to other bodies. It is most unlikely that several assembly members would also be members of the TfL board. However, it seems a shame to exclude from membership of Tit an able assembly member who could contribute his experience when the mayor may choose not to be a member of that body. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Amendment No. 251AA has been included in the group that we are discussing although it addresses a rather different point. I merely want to know why Members of the House of Lords—I should emphasise straightaway that I am not looking for a job for myself—should not be allowed to be appointed members of the TfL board. There are many Members of your Lordships' House, including those on the Government Benches, who have wide experience of all the matters which are listed under Paragraph 2(3) to this schedule; namely, transport, finance and commerce, national and local government, trades unions and so on. We are described as an "amateur" House. Nearly all of us in this House—except, of course, Ministers—also have outside occupations.
I can understand the reasons for not allowing the other people listed under sub-paragraph (4)—the Welsh will be in Wales, the Scots in Scotland and, hopefully, the Northern Irish in Northern Ireland; Members of the European Parliament will be in Strasbourg or Brussels; they will not be residents of London—but I cannot see why Members of the House of Lords should be barred from being members of the board of TfL.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I will speak first to Amendment No. 251A, which would remove the bar on assembly members being appointed to the board of Transport for London. Here we return to the difference between the role of the mayor and the role of the assembly. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, gave the example of the boards of RDAs. Therein lies the difference. In that capacity the board is there to formulate policy; the role of members of the board of TfL is to implement the policy and strategy put forward by the mayor.
The noble Baroness gave an example of an assembly member with ability. That person's contribution in the scrutiny role of the assembly would be vital and extremely valuable, but it is not the role envisaged in her amendment. The TfL board is not intended to include elected political representatives, whether local or national. It has a different role to that of the mayor and that of the assembly. The assembly will have a scrutiny role; it will have to focus the spotlight on the performance of both the mayor and TfL in implementing determined policy. The assembly will also have a role

477
in the approval of the overall GLA budget. It is not for assembly members to get involved in the running of TfL.
We cannot accept Amendment No. 251 AA, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. However, vie have worded the disqualification relating to the House of Lords so that hereditary Peers who cease to be Members of the House of Lords will be eligible for appointment to the TfL board. It is only Members of the House of Lords, rather than Peers in general, who cannot be appointed to the TfL board.
I understand the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to the term "amateur" with regard to membership of the House of Lords. However, to imply that those who serve in other elected bodies—be they in Wales or elsewhere—will be too busy to serve on the TfL board but Members of the House of Lords will not be, is a very difficult proposition to convincingly put to the Whips' Office in the House of Lords.
I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say that I did not understand her last answer about membership of the House of Lords. I cannot see where the conflict of interest would be. I can think of lots of equivalent things that noble Lords do while being Members of the House of Lords; it has nothing to do with whether one is a hereditary Peer or not. I know the noble Baroness put that in as a light remark, but why should someone who knows everything about transport not be on the board just because he is a Member of the House of Lords? Can the noble Baroness explain where is the conflict of interest?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My remark was not a differentiation between hereditary and non-hereditary Peers but a differentiation between those who are Members of the House of Lords and those who in the future may not be Members. It is our view that the process of appcintment should exclude people who are politicians, locally or nationally. Quite clearly that covers this point.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Including Cross-Benchers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My personal view is that it is possible to be political and to fulfil a highly political role without being party political.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment, I really must come back to the Minister on mine. I know that the noble Baroness in her role as a Whip sometimes has difficulty in attracting some of her captains of industry to come to the House to support the Government in the Lobbies. Surely the point is that there are great and good Members of your Lordships' House who would be perfectly able to serve on the board of TfL. If they are able to be chairmen or main board directors of leading
478
plcs in this country, which some of them are, they can just as well be members of TfL. I may very well return to this issue.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has missed the point. If the noble Lord does not remain in the House, he will be able to sit on the board.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is not the point.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That is what I understand the Minister told us. On the other hand, I, who cannot escape from being a Member of your Lordships' House, will not be able to sit on the board. I think that was the point the noble Baroness was making.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: With respect, I was not trying to draw a discrimination between hereditary and life Peers. Obviously if a hereditary Peer is no longer a Member of the House he will be able to be on the board of TfL. My point is, why should not life Peers who have distinguished records outside this House be able to be on the TfL board?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wish to pass on to the Committee the comments, which you did not hear, of my noble friend Lord Avebury. He said that he regretted that Amendment No. 251AA will not be passed because that would secure certainly some elderly and disabled Members who would be able to serve on the board. I would not dare say that myself.
I thank the Minister for her definition of the roles. We on these Benches still cannot accept the extremely sharp divisions the Government wish to make between scrutiny, policy making and so on. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 251AA not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 251B:
Page 206, line 46, after ("Mayor") insert ("and Assembly")
The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple amendment. It seeks to remove the requirement that the mayor be the chair of Transport for London if he or she is a member of Transport for London. Not only do we think that the mayor will have quite enough to do without being chairman of Transport for London but the situation could draw one into unfortunate areas. When one reaches the section on appeals, one could get to the stage where the mayor is referring appeals to himself. We should perhaps look at some of the conflicts of interest which might arise if the mayor was automatically chairman of Transport for London. It does not suit very well the further construction of the parts of the Bill which deal with appeal processes. There may be other parts of the Bill which have the same problems attached to them. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I think that we are slightly out of order. The Deputy Chairman of Committees called Amendment No. 251 B and not Amendment No. 252B, which has just been spoken to. It must be moved formally or withdrawn, as the case may be.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the noble Baroness if we take as read her points regarding Amendment No. 252B.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 251C to 252A not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 252B:
Page 207, leave out lines 8 and 9.
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment a few moments ago. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure whether I understood the noble Baroness correctly, but the objections that she raised in relation to a possible conflict would apply—if they apply at all—to the mayor, whether he or she were Chair or an ordinary board member. As I understand it, this amendment would remove the requirement that the mayor—if he or she so chooses—would have to be Chair.
The post of Chair of TfL is key and we think it is appropriate that the mayor, as the chief executive of London, should have the option of taking that position. If the mayor decides to be a member of the board, he or she should be Chair of the board. There would be an anomalous situation if the mayor were appointed as an ordinary member—or even as Deputy Chair. That would place the mayor in an odd situation whereby he or she would be subordinate to somebody who chaired a body that reported to the mayor. That would blur, rather than reinforce, the lines of responsibility.
I could understand it if the noble Baroness were arguing that the mayor should not be a board member at all—I do not agree with that view, but it is logical. However, if the mayor is a member, we believe that he or she should have the option to be the Chair.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I will look carefully at the Minister's remarks and I shall re-examine the Bill's various references to the mayor's interacting with TfL. I think there are moments when the mayor would interact with himself or herself if he or she were both mayor and the Chair of TfL. For the moment, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 209, line 22, leave out ("not")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak both to this amendment and to Amendment No. 254.
These amendments deal with members' interests and the discussion of contracts. The Bill, as it is presently drafted, allows a member of Transport for London who has an interest to take part in discussions or even vote on any questions unless the mayor so directs. We, on these Benches, do not believe that a member who has an interest should be able to participate in discussions about these contracts or to vote on them.
We believe also that giving the mayor the discretion to allow that to happen could give rise to a clear conflict of interest as far as the mayor is concerned. We believe that the Bill would make for better legislation if we said simply that members of TfL with a special interest should not be able to take part in discussions on contracts. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the Committee if I say that we agree that the current provisions on interests are drawn too widely and must be tightened. We are currently considering our own amendments to the provisions, and will therefore take these amendments away to consider.
It is important to say that these amendments may go a little further than we would wish to go. Therefore, it is not possible to accept them as they stand. There will always be a balance to be struck between ensuring that the board has sufficient experience to be able to make wise decisions and ensuring that it is—and is seen to be—sufficiently impartial to make fair decisions.
There is a variety of different models from which to choose in seeking to achieve that balance. For example, we could follow the Environment Agency model. Members of the EA are prohibited from taking part in deliberation or discussion of any matters in which they have an interest, but the Secretary of State can disapply such a prohibition where the number of members of the agency disabled would be so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business. This could be adapted so that the mayor, rather than the Secretary of State, had the power to disapply the prohibition. We believe that the power to disapply may be important and should be kept in reserve in order to ensure that a wide range of experience is represented on the board, making it most effective.
On the basis of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In view of her local government experience, I am sure that the noble Baroness does not need advice from me. When a person giving permission to someone who has an interest to speak and vote is in close everyday communication with that person and with the body, it would be very different from the Secretary of State disapplying the prohibition in the case of the Environment Agency. The mayor will be in constant communication with the transport people and a quite awkward situation could arise. I am sure that the noble Baroness will look carefully at this matter—and my noble friend will be glad of that. I think there will be a small problem if we do not make a total prohibition.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My recollection of local government—I will, of course, write to the noble

481
Baroness if I am wrong—is that the chief executive advises a member but the decision is taken by the member. Categories of people—for example, local authority tenants—may be excluded from being disbarred by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However. I shall read the noble Baroness's comments carefully.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord responds, I must say how much I welcome the response from the noble Baroness the Minister. There is a small gap in the Bill in the form of what one might call the codes of conduct or codes of probity that normally surround these sorts of bodies. I wonder whether the Government might be encouraged to consider the possibility of issuing guidance or of making secondary legislation—or using any other suitable means of achieving the desired outcome—to establish some guide posts for how the conduct of members of Transport for London should fit into the evolving code of good practice and good conduct for people in public life in general.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to all of those who have taken part in this short discussion—my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I also thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her reply. I am delighted that she has promised to consider my points and produce some amendments, presumably on Report.
We got off to a good start today when I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, that he had added his name to my Amendment No. 294, and now I have gained a concession from the Minister regarding these two amendments. I am delighted about that, and I look forward to the outcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 254 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 134 [Directions etc by the Mayor]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved amendment No. 254A:
Page 72, line 14, after ("Mayor") insert ("and Assembly")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would allow the assembly a say in the issuing of guidance and directions to TfL, currently carried out by the mayor. I know that Ministers feel that there should be a complete separation between the exercise of the powers of the assembly and the exercise of the powers of the mayor. But in other legislation which is either before this House or on its way, the scrutiny power of the assembly is, in other sorts of local authorities, to be allowed to be a prior scrutiny of what is going on. For that reason, we believe that the addition of the assembly to the mayor's role in issuing guidance and direction to Transport for London might fit into the way in which the Government are currently looking at the question of the division between the executive and what is sometimes called the scrutiny part of local government. I reject utterly the term "legislative" when applied to a body such as a local authority or an assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would allow the assembly to take a major role in the
482
day-to-day operations of TfL. We do not think that that is an appropriate role for the assembly. The assembly's role, as voted on by the people of London, is to provide a check on the major through its extensive powers of scrutiny.
The roles to be played by the mayor and the assembly are complementary, but not the same; they should not be confused. The assembly will rightly be consulted on the overall transport strategy; however, the detailed information of the overall strategy is best left to the mayor and TfL. TfL is the mayor's executive transport body. It will be for the mayor to provide political direction to TfL, not the assembly. The assembly's task is to scrutinise the performance of both the mayor and TfL. It would not be able to do that with the necessary degree of independence if it were as closely involved in the running of Tfl, as the amendment envisages. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Avebury: Surely the amendment does not involve the assembly in the day-to-day management of these affairs. I do not know how often the Government envisage guidance being issued by the mayor as to the manner in which TfL exercises its functions. I should have thought that it would be issued at the beginning of the whole operation, and then, once guidance had been issued, TfL would be left to get on with the job, subject to observance of the guidelines that have been laid down. The mayor will not issue a fresh set of guidelines in the following week telling TfL how to conduct its operations in that second week. So to say, as the Minister did, that this involves the assembly in the day-to-day operations of TfL is, frankly, a distortion of what my noble friend is trying to do.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend pre-empted me. I had also intended to point to Clause 134(1)(a):
"guidance as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions",
and to sub-paragraph (b):
"general directions as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions".
My noble friend has made a valuable point about the need not to see scrutiny as simply happening after the event. The Government have made great play of that in their promotion of new models for local government.
The Minister said also that there would be a confusion of roles. But the mayor's role may also be confused: the mayor will be a part of Transport for London and will be issuing guidance to himself.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall consider carefully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is apparent to me that there are two issues: one is the overall strategy plan and policy; the other is the relationship between the mayor and the executive body carrying those out. The amendment as it stands

483
would put the assembly between the mayor and that second part. However, I will consider the points raised.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Baroness for her various replies. I do not accept that the assembly will be between the mayor and Transport for London. On the contrary, the role of the assembly as we envisage it in this amendment would be to assist the mayor in the drafting and creation of the pattern of guidance. However, I shall read the Minister's remarks. At present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 254AA:
Page 72, line 24, leave out ("perform") and insert ("exercise")
The noble Baroness said: This is a short probing amendment. The amendment proposes that in Clause 134(3)(a) the term "perform" should be replaced with the term "exercise". In Clause 134(1)(a), (b) and (c), the term used is "exercise". I am unclear as to whether there is a distinction between subsection (1) and subsection (3) of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I was somewhat puzzled by the intent of this amendment. If it is merely to obtain some lexicographical clarification, I think that I can give it. Normally, one "performs" duties and "exercises" powers. That is the distinction in these clauses. It is the normal terminology.
Baroness Hamwee: I thought we might deal with this matter before the clock indicated one minute! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 254AB:
Page 72, line 28, at end insert ("and if none is nominated then to the chairman, or if the Mayor is chairman then to the deputy chairman.")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 134(4) provides for notification of guidance and issues to an officer who is nominated by Transport for London. I do not believe that it could, or should, be possible for Transport for London to avoid taking notice of guidance and directions by failing to nominate a person to receive them. My amendment, proposing a nominee if none is nominated by the chairman, is designed to add to this "hugely prescriptive" Bill—I have not used that description yet today—a further piece of prescription. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: This additional piece of prescription is unnecessary. As a statutory body corporate, TfL will be under a duty to act reasonably under the law. It could hardly be construed as reasonable for TfL to avoid nominating a person so as to evade formal receipt of a notification. The point is covered.
Baroness Hamwee: I could argue the finer points for some time, but I shall not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 254AC:
Page 72, line 28, at end insert—
("(5) In exercising his powers of direction over Transport for London, the Mayor shall be under a duty to ensure that Transport for London operates in a manner which represents value for money and therefore that Transport for London is not subjected to changes of policy from year to year of such a degree as to disrupt its long-term investment and expenditure planning, save in any case where continuity in policy would be manifestly unreasonable on grounds of economy.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 134 deals with control by the mayor of Transport for London. This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill the need to recognise that the management, direction and control of Transport for London is too significant and important a matter to become a political football. That may seem a strange concept to put on the face of a Bill. However, I move this amendment with some deliberation.
There was a time, back in history and before a large part of what was formerly Essex was taken into London, when political control changed at every election, which was interesting. That began after the Second World War. Following one election a good council took many actions which were promptly reversed as a result of the next election. Of course, in those days, county councils had greater executive control over their affairs than is the custom today. At the next election there was another reversal of power. That situation having persisted for a while, there was a realisation of the futility of what was happening.
There is a danger, in the structure we are creating, that the business of managing London's transport could become a political football. The mayor has almost absolute control and the Minister has said that that is deliberate. The mayor will have the absolute power to determine the membership of Transport for London; he will be able to determine the terms under which Transport for London's members serve. Presumably he will also be able to determine when to terminate their membership. In theory a new mayor could terminate all those serving on Transport for London and install a new board to do his behest.
London's transport is too important for that. I may not have succeeded in what I attempted in this amendment, but that is the reason that I tabled the amendment. We need to recognise the significance of that as an issue. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: This amendment is two-pronged. The amendment would require the mayor to exercise his powers to ensure that TfL operates in such a way as to ensure value for money on the one hand, and not subject to policy changes on the other.
On the first point, it is clear that TfL will be covered by the best value provisions of the Local Government Bill which we shall be discussing in the House shortly. That Bill will require TfL to make arrangements to ensure value for money in the broadest sense.
It would be difficult for us to accept the other point raised by the noble Lord. We are all against political footballs unless we happen to be kicking them ourselves. The whole point of a mayor is that he or she

485
will give some direction and strategy, but at times of elections that strategy may change. A number of putative mayors have been mentioned in Committee and it is conceivable that some of the most frequently mentioned could alternate in the same way as the noble Lord suggests that Essex alternated, no doubt for entirely different reasons. We hope that that does not happen. Nevertheless, if a mayor is elected with a different strategy, ihat will alter the investment priorities which he or she would expect of TfL.
The constraint is that the mayor is required to act reasonably. Therefore, even in regard to a newly endorsed and different manifesto, he or she must act reasonably in dealings with TfL. Transport is, of course, such a central issue—and will be a central issue for many years to come, I suspect, in any election for mayor—that it will not be possible for us to write into the Bill a requirement that the mayor cannot change the direction given to TfL with regard to investment priorities. Perhaps the noble Lord, on reflection, will accept that that, in the relatively crude way expressed in the amendment, is not possible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I had the experience of presiding over a committee of both Houses at Westminster on a Bill connected with roads. The matter was a political football. There had been some 30 days of consideration in Scotland and 17 days of consideration at Westminster, with counsel on both sides. It was a very expensive operation. However, there was an election, the policy changed, and £10 million of ratepayers' money went down the drain because it was a political football.
We all know that democracy can have that effect. Those who have been involved in such matters know the problems. However, I wonder whether the Government could do something to try to avoid what is at the core of my noble friend's argument. As he rightly said, London's transport is too important for there to be constant changes in policy because it suits politicians to swing matters around. Such matters can be expensive.
Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the Government could table an amendment suggesting that policy change should happen only where there is economic justification. At least that would put a brake on the kind of thinking that we all know takes place at election times. Change for the sake of change is dreadful. It actually happened in the case that I have mentioned and it was very damaging. The traffic jams are still there and the money went down the drain, all because of not particularly high-minded local government politics at the time. It happened a long time ago, but it made me realise that waste on a large scale can happen. I wonder whether there is some way in which this matter can be dealt with.
Lord Avebury: There should be some constraints to prevent the sudden disruption of long-term investment and expenditure planning over and above what is represented by the first part of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the mayor will be under the obligation contained in the Local Government Bill to ensure that what he carries out represents value
486
for money. Therefore, if a large investment project were cancelled half way through, as the noble Baroness has suggested may happen in local government, that would be very expensive for the people of London and a contravention of the Local Government Bill, as mentioned by the Minister.
If there is no provision in the Bill, such changes are likely to take place in London. There could be a clean sweep of all the members of TfL. There would be nothing to stop the mayor getting rid of all of them, appointing new members, issuing a new set of general directions and embarking on a totally new investment strategy as long as he can satisfy himself that he is acting within the constraints that the Minister has mentioned.
This point raises great anxieties, particularly when considering the vast needs for investment in the transport system in Greater London, such as the expenditure of huge amounts of money on the Underground system and many other aspects of transport. We need to take such matters into consideration, but I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in framing the amendment, is correct. We need to consider how this problem can be tackled elsewhere in the Bill. I am not sure that this amendment provides the answer.
Baroness Hamwee: I may be a little old-fashioned in this regard, but it seems to me that the conventional constraints of politics, married with the penalties that would be incurred—the compensation that may have to be paid if a major contract were cancelled—are two points that we should leave to be worked through as they are in other areas of government.
I take the Minister's point about political footballs being footballs only when someone else is kicking them. We are all apt to think, "I am right; you are misguided; he or she is completely bonkers." None of that is addressed to any Member of the Committee. But that is politics. If the mayor takes the view that some project to which Transport for London was committed under a previous political regime was the wrong one, I think that, having considered aspects such as compensation which would be payable, the mayor should be able to take a view as to what would be right in all the circumstances. I am sorry to differ from my noble friend on this matter. It may be the result of different experiences. I share the concerns as to what might happen, arising no doubt in part from history. Nevertheless, I believe that democracy needs to have its day.
7 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate. I am grateful particularly for expressions of support for the idea that we should be concerned about this area. I am absolutely satisfied that, if I were to be one putative mayor and the noble Lord the Minister were to be another, there would be no difficulty. Between reasonable people there is never a problem. That is the way of the world. But we should not attempt to anticipate or second-guess politics. Politics can be extremely strange and we need to think about what can happen if the nature of politics changes.

487
I do not apologise for tabling the amendment. The matter was resolved in Essex by an unwritten convention that everyone who achieved executive office would recognise the actions of their predecessors and go on from there. That is essentially the tradition of government. But it is not on the face of the Bill. I shall study with care what the Minister and other Members of the Committee said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Structure of fares and services]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 254B:
Page 72, line 33, after ("level") insert (", affordability")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 254B and Amendment No. 254BA, with which it is grouped, are straightforward amendments to Clause 135, which provides that the mayor shall exercise his powers in order to ensure that certain specified matters are determined. The first matter he is to direct his attention to is,
"the general level and structure of the fares".
We believe that that should be,
"the general level, affordability and structure of the fares".
The second matter is,
"the general structure of routes of such services and the general level of provision to be made with respect to their frequency of operation".
Amendment No. 254BA adds the words "and capacity" after "operation".
While listening with interest to Members of the Committee talking about politics, it occurred to me that the drafting of paragraph (b) is extraordinarily clumsy. I think we could probably get rid of about half the words contained in it. Meanwhile, I beg to move Amendment No. 254B.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the amendment. We need to look not only at absolute levels but also at relative levels. The question of affordability is important in fare structures. We think in particular of the socially excluded and the worst-off in that context. I believe that the addition of the word "affordability" would be valuable here.
As to the addition of the words "and capacity" in subsection 2(b), to consider the question of frequency without considering capacity is rather like saying how many buses go by without saying what type of bus they are. One is talking about total volume and one can only reach that by considering frequency and capacity, not just frequency.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 254B as drafted is ambiguous in relation to what is intended by the word "affordability", which could apply equally to affordability within TfL as to affordability by passengers. Clearly, as part of the overall strategy, affordability, that is the ability of the public to pay—and in particular sections of the public to which the mayor is
488
bound to have regard—will inevitability figure in the mayor's considerations, as will a number of other matters. We have not specified them all on the face of the Bill because the mayor needs to exercise considerable judgment in this area. Clearly, the view that the mayor takes about fare levels will be influenced by affordability, the structure of the market, the relativities between different modes of transport and the need to promote public transport generally, all of which add up to a fares strategy which will have to be made politically and economically acceptable to the travelling public. Affordability is an inevitable aspect of that, but if we simply specified that it would not give a total picture.
With regard to Amendment No. 254BA, capacity and frequency must inevitably go together. Judgments have to be made about whether one has low capacity, highly frequent buses and trains or high capacity, less frequent buses and trains. That depends on the market, the time of day and many other issues. Frequency subsumes the assessment of capacity. It is worth noting that the current duties on London Transport for setting the general level of provision of its services contain no reference to capacity, but capacity, as well as frequency, is obviously taken into account in London Transport's considerations of the size of buses and trains. Technically, we do not need a reference to "capacity". I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I understand his comment that in a sense frequency implies that capacity has been considered. However, I wonder where that is stated in the clause. It seems to me that in talking about volume, numbers of carriages or size of bus, as well as about frequency, one is getting a total volume figure. But it does not seem to me that it is anywhere stated that one is obliged to look at that total picture. There is simply a reference to "frequency". Subsection 2(b) refers to,
"the general level of provision to be made with respect to their frequency".
There is no comma; it is not, "general level of provision of service, with respect to frequency.- It is much more limited than that. It seems to me that that subsection could be much improved, not just in terms of the syntax but by the addition of the words suggested.
Lord Berkeley: I wonder if I can help. I am slightly worried about this clause. I think the problem may be that the clause is general and applies "frequency" to buses, trains and probably other things as well. We have all talked about frequency of trains. It would be lovely to have frequent trains, especially when passengers have to stand like sardines in a cattle truck. To make the trains longer adds capacity, but there may be a problem with the network capability if there are not enough signals, lines or points. I wonder whether we could convince my noble friend the Minister to have another look at the clause to see whether we can find wording

489
that is more applicable to buses, trains and undergrounds. That is only a slight worry and I hope that I have been constructive.
Lord Whitty: I remain somewhat unconvinced that a reference to frequency does not imply making a judgment on capacity. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley says, capacity can apply to the track as well as the vehicle. The situation is complicated and I recognise the concerns. Without making any commitment, I shall see whether we can do anything about it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I can slightly alter what I was going to say. I thank those who have taken part in the debate, particularly the Minister for his last few remarks. When I introduced the amendment I said that subsection (b) was curiously clumsily drafted. It occurred to me—this might be helpful to the Minister if he is considering the matter—that the words could be changed to:
"the general structure of routes of such services and the service levels provided".
"Service level" is often used to encompass the various considerations of frequency, capacity and ability to serve public need. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 254BA not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 254C:
Page 72, line 39, after roperation;") insert—
("() the provision of interchange facilities between different passenger modes and cycling;")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would allow the mayor's guidance and direction to Transport for London to determine that provision is made for interchanges between different modes of transport. It is the first in a series of amendments that try in various ways to tackle the question of interchanges.
If we want an integrated transport system, attention needs to be concentrated on where the different modes of transport meet and whether they work effectively. In the amendments we are particularly concerned that the bicyclist should be able to move his or her bicycle on other forms of public transport, particularly trains, over an entire journey.
Amendment No. 258AZA amends Schedule 9 to include bicycles in the list of things that trains can carry. I am not moving Amendment No. 258AA and I shall leave it to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, to introduce Amendment No. 259EB, which is also in this group and deals with interchanges and the opportunity to take bicycles on an entire journey. I hope that Ministers will take our approach seriously, because these amendments, small though they are, raise an important issue: the ability to make a continuous journey by bicycle and public transport. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: I have my name to the first amendment in the group and I support the noble
490
Baroness, Lady Thomas, but with a slightly different emphasis. Amendment No. 254C deals mainly with parking at interchanges. We have a long way to go to sort out that problem and we need to use various means of persuasion on the companies to encourage them to improve the parking that they provide. The current parking provision, particularly at London stations, is pretty shameful, although it has improved in recent years.
I am not sure whether this is the right place in the Bill to insert the amendment. My Amendment No. 259EB, to which I shall come in a minute, invokes the help of the franchise director. His help may be needed on parking. I should like to give an example, because this is a serious issue. We need to encourage companies to take bicycle parking seriously at stations.
In interviews conducted by the bikerail project—a DETR and Countryside Agency research study—25 per cent of those polled who commuted into London said that they would consider switching from their cars to bicycles for their journey to the station if sufficient, convenient and secure cycle parking was provided. That may appear to relate to stations outside London, but people need to be encouraged by the reassurance that there will be secure and safe custody for their bicycles. It is a matter of the culture of cycling.
Amendment No. 259EB is slightly further on in the Bill, in Clause 137. It might appear slightly ambitious, but I am not trying to change existing contracts. Any change would happen only when new franchise agreements were being negotiated or existing franchises were being renegotiated. I have used the word "commuting" because the aim of the amendment is to make life easier for people who want to commute with their cycles. That is not a tradition in this country. Indeed, the current rules for the companies require them to carry bicycles,
"so far as is reasonably practicable".
In practice that excludes people who want to carry their cycle at commuting times.
I am anticipating what may happen. I hope that the Government will give us some guidance on its thoughts for the future. Large government subsidies will be given on the new franchises. It is not unreasonable to ask for some account to be taken of the interests of cyclists. I hope that the Government will respond on that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have one slight concern about the amendment on the interchange facilities, which relates to the carriage of bicycles on the Underground. I have seen a little map at our local station that shows on which services and at which times of day it is allowed to carry a bicycle on the Underground. It is possible only on the sub-surface lines, not the tube lines. Occasionally one sees someone bringing a bicycle on to a tube line. It is extremely inconvenient for the other passengers when the train is crowded. It is also potentially dangerous, particularly on escalators. I hope that the amendment does not push too far.
Lord Berkeley: In general, I agree that cycling should be encouraged. This morning I took my bicycle

491
on the train from Oxford and pedalled here. By chance, I met the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who is not in his place this evening—he wrote to me to say that he could not be here tonight—adjacent to the new pedestrian crossing and gates leading into Hyde Park which were opened yesterday by the Minister for Transport in London, Glenda Jackson, in a flurry of publicity. The gates were locked at 10 o'clock this morning. Perhaps my noble friend can assist as to whether, and to what extent, the regulations apply to the royal parks, which appear to have a mind of their own. The cycle lane that I followed until Hyde Park Corner stopped there. That is a very difficult area to cross on a bicycle. To leave gates like that locked does not seem to be a very good way of encouraging cycling in London.
The provision of interchange facilities is terribly important. I suspect that it is much easier to encourage people to do that than to take bicycles on trains, especially in the rush hour. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is absolutely right: to take bicycles on the Underground is very difficult. Train operators will say that it is also difficult to do that on surface lines because one bicycle may take up five or six seats and someone must pay for that lost revenue. I suggest that an alternative is to encourage the parking of bicycles at stations in London in a secure environment and also at other stations where people get on and off the train.
Some of the stations in London have the facility to hire out bicycles for the day. I am informed that when the company concerned (whose name I do not know) tried to launch the idea at Victoria station neither the train operators nor Railtrack would give it any publicity in the timetables or anywhere else. Some encouragement for parking at stations and other interchanges, and perhaps coach stations as well, is very important. I support provision on the lines of the various amendments that have been tabled by noble Lords.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords who have spoken for the opportunity to reiterate our position on cycling. We are in no doubt that cycling is within the term "transport" and that the provision of transport facilities includes the provision of facilitates for cycles. I repeat what my noble friend said at the previous sitting of the Committee on Monday night:
"If we were to include a reference to cycling as an additional matter, as distinct from all other modes of transport, it would cast doubt on whether the term 'transport facilities' elsewhere in the Bill included cycling".—[Official Report, 28/6/99; col. 146.]
I go further. If we add "cycling" specifically to any part of the Bill we risk calling into question the general understanding in transport legislation that "transport" includes cycling.
I am fully supportive of the promotion of cycling by the noble Baroness and others as a healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transport. I understand why they raise this issue. I should like to refer to one other matter which it is important to place on record. On Monday of this week the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, said (at col. 145 of Hansard) that the Minister for Transport in London, Glenda Jackson, had
492
undertaken to report back to the Committee in another place to confirm whether "transport facilities" included cycling. I take this opportunity to say that colleagues in another place confirmed that understanding. The Minister for London, Nick Raynsford, did this during the seventh sitting of the Committee in another place on 9th March.
I turn to the amendments before the Committee. We fully support the idea behind the amendments, but I should like to speak to each in some detail. Our view is that they are unnecessary in view of the duties and powers that the Bill already gives to the mayor and TfL. Amendment No. 254C expands Clause 135(2), which relates to the mayor's duties in relation to the general level and structure of public transport fares and the routes and frequency of those services. An amendment that requires the provision of interchange facilities for cycling would not be appropriate here. The Bill gives TfL wide powers to provide incidental amenities and facilities, such as cycle parking. They can apply at any kind of transport interchange and are not limited to such provision at railway and Underground stations.
Amendment No. 258AZA would add the words "including bicycles" to the power of Transport for London to carry luggage and other goods. The formulation "luggage and other goods" is the same as that used in the provisions set out in the operating powers of London Transport. The exact reference is paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2 to the London Regional Transport Act 1984. There is absolutely no doubt that London Transport can carry bicycles on its services. I hope the noble Baroness agrees that there is no doubt that Transport for London will be able to carry bicycles.
I understand that Amendment No. 258AA is not to be moved. Amendment No. 259EB in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, would impose a requirement for agreements between the Franchising Director and Transport for London to include at the time of negotiating new or extended franchises provisions to allow the carriage of cycles with London commuters. Her Majesty's Government have made clear to the Franchising Director that they are keen to promote the use of bicycles including, so far as possible, the provision of facilities at stations and suitable space on new rolling stock. There is a standard clause in franchise agreements which requires operators to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable and subject to the availability of appropriate space on its rolling stock, that facilities for the transport of bicycles on trains are made available to any passengers who use passenger services.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the royal parks. We are discussing how to ensure that royal parks have regard to the mayor's strategy, and we hope to be able to report to my noble friend later. That will include the encouragement of cycling.
In view of all that I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I apologise to Members of the Committee for dealing with this matter at length, but it is important to place on record the details that noble Lords have sought.
Lord Avebury: The Minister has said that the Bill gives TfL powers to provide interchange facilities, albeit

493
in another clause and not the one now being discussed. We are talking here about something different: the power of the mayor to issue guidance to TfL on what it should do. It seems to me that to place on the face of the Bill the right of the mayor to give guidance on the provision of interchange facilities, to which my noble friend has referred, is very desirable. In that way one would tell the mayor that he had a specific right to give guidance on the provision of interchange facilities. If there is already power given to TfL elsewhere to provide such facilities, why should not the mayor have the right to give guidance on how Transport for London should do it?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that the mayor has the duty to provide a strategy for public transport and the responsibility to ensure that that is carried out. The terminology of the Bill includes provision for cycling.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank those Members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate and added some interesting thoughts and contributions which have greatly increased the validity of at least part of the first amendment. The Minister has suggested that because bicycles are subsumed in "transport" there is no need to keep mentioning them. However, the main point of the first amendment is the provision of interchange facilities. Nowhere in the provisions of Clause 135 is there any mention of interchange facilities. Suppose one were to leave out the words "and cycling" and simply insist that the mayor, when he gives his guidance, should emphasise the importance of interchange between different passenger modes. It seems to me that in those circumstances we would still be adding precisely what we want to add and that it might be more acceptable to the noble Baroness the Minister.
I return to the first point that I made. If we are talking about integrated transport systems, the places where those systems interconnect are among the most important areas to which attention should be paid. I shall withdraw my amendment at the present time. The Minister is going to respond. I shall allow her to respond.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may save the Committee some time at some stage if I repeat that the mayor has the right to give guidance and directions to TfL on any matter. The Bill gives TfL powers to provide the amenities which the noble Baroness seeks.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I understood that aspect of what the Minister said in her original answer. However, my contention is that in the section to which we are referring we are selecting aspects of passenger services which are particularly important and to which the mayor should direct TfL to turn its attention. It is for that reason that I am suggesting that we may wish to come back at a later stage to the idea of the provision of interchange. In order to avoid argument, we do not need to mention the word "cycling". However, my view
494
is that we may wish to come back to the important issue of interchange facilities. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 254D not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 72, line 41, at end insert—
("(3) In exercising his powers under section 133(1) above to determine the matters specified in subsection (2)(a) above, the Mayor shall ensure that the general level of fares to be charged for public passenger transport services by Transport for London at any time after this Act comes into force is no more than the general level 12 months previous to that time increased by a percentage equal to the control rate.
(4) In subsection (3) above the control rate shall be at any time the number of percentage points by which the most recently available figure for the retail prices index has increased on the retail prices index for the month 12 months previous to that figure, less the factor X.
(5) In subsection 4 above—

(a) "the retail prices index" is the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics, and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the provisions of this section then this section shall be construed as referring to any substitute index or index figures published by that Office; and

(b) "the factor X" shall, prior to 1 April 2(02, be equivalent to two percentage points, and on or after 1 April 2002 shall be equivalent to four percentage points.")

The noble Lord said: There is a misprint in the amendment. The first line should refer to section 134(1) rather than "section 133(1)". I think that that is obvious.
This amendment seeks to place an annual ceiling on the general level of fares charged by Transport for London and to ensure that this level falls year on year. Transport for London clearly is a public utility. In future, it could become a privatised utility. Parts of it are run at the moment by the private sector. Other parts of it are going to be subject to public/private partnerships.
It is now established that significant utilities, whether public or private, should be subject to a regulator, one of whose functions is to protect the interests of the consumer by ensuring efficiency through a ceiling on costs. I do not believe that anyone would doubt that the major incentive for the vastly improved provision of utilities which began in the 1980s was the use of this price ceiling, particularly in gas, electricity, telecommunications, airport charges, and even the privatisation of rail, where we have seen the regulator imposing fare increase ceilings.
In this Bill, the mayor stands in relation to Transport for London as their regulator. Why then, when the Government would not dare to remove the consumers' price ceiling on other utilities, should not Transport for London be subject to regulation on a similar basis'? This amendment seeks only to cap the general fare level overall. The Bill as drafted refers to a "general level of fares", and we adopt the principle. It is clearly right that premium services, such as those for tourists, should be able to cross-subsidise other services.
I should point out that the figures of factor X in the last section of this amendment may or may not be the right ones. I have put those in merely as a suggestion. It could be that other figures would be better, but the principle remains the same. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: In rising to support this amendment in spirit, let me first confess in advance to blatant plagiarism. I and others on these Benches liked some aspects of this amendment so much that we turned it into a specific amendment for the London Underground under Amendment No. 280WA, to which we will be speaking later. This, of course, is much broader than that, dealing right across the board with Transport for London. We on these Benches treat it in the spirit of a probing amendment. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is treating it in very much the same spirit. It is very important that we know what the underlying assumptions are as regards fare levels. There are limits on this which are used by Transport for London.
I shall at a later stage go in some detail regarding our own amendments into Ministerial statements on this subject and the failure to publish the Price Waterhouse work underlying the PPP proposals. I also wish to go into some confusion that seems to be evidenced by Ministers as to precisely what assumptions are being made about fare levels, in terms of whether or not the assumptions are for a 1 per cent above RPI rise or whether it is purely according to the rate of inflation. There seem to have been some rather contradictory statements made on this matter. All this lack of transparency points strongly to a need for robust pricing controls.
These amendments are, of course, based on the RPI minus X formula which is used by the privatised utilities. Whether X should be 2 per cent or 4 per cent at any particular time is, of course, a moot question. I hope, however, that the Government will give careful consideration to this amendment. I believe that it points to a very valuable way forward.
Lord Berkeley: On the face of it, this amendment is a good idea. However, if one looks back 20 years, I wonder whether it would have been a good thing if this amendment had been introduced in the London Transport legislation. It is my perception from 18 years of the last government trying to run the Underground that fares used to go up with monotonous regularity. If that is coupled with an inability to borrow without getting Government approval—and the grants will probably go down because these things happen—one will end up with a worse service, increasing breakdowns and no Circle Line, just as we have today, which is a consequence of 20 years of that policy.
I believe that it would be much better if the mayor and Transport for London were allowed some freedom to do what they like in relation to this matter. I certainly
496
do not believe that they will wish to suddenly charge tourists double the fare that they charge us for sitting on the Circle Line.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment would greatly restrict the mayor's control over the affairs of Transport for London's public transport services. The amendment would set a limit of RPI minus 2 per cent in the year on year increase in any fare on public transport in London until April 2002, and RPI minus 4 per cent thereafter.
The mayor is to define the GLA strategies, including the integrated transport strategy; and the mayor is to set the framework on important matters such as fares. To curtail the mayor's freedom in this area would be out of keeping with the general principle that the mayor should have the powers that he or she needs to make sensible decisions on how the transport strategy can be delivered.
The amendment would also undermine the relationship between the mayor and Transport for London, in that it would limit the mayor's ability to give directions and guidance to Transport for London. But TfL is the mayor's executive body, whose main role is to deliver the mayor's transport strategy. Clause 135 makes it clear that the general levels of fares, the route structure and the frequencies are to be the mayor's responsibility. A mayor might well want to set efficiency targets for reducing costs relative to inflation, but it would be difficult for the mayor to design an innovative transport strategy if major issues such as this are determined on the face of the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister did not deal with some of the underlying assumptions about fare structures, in particular as regards PPP. I understand her remark about not wishing to restrict the mayor's ability to decide fares, but the essence of the amendment is to have an understanding of the kind of fares projected for the future and the economics of the PPP stretching into the future.
With reference to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, if one is caught between the hammer of price regulations and an inability to borrow, that is unsatisfactory. But from these Benches we argue strongly that Transport for London should be entitled to borrow.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if he believed that I did not answer his point. I understood that the noble Lord would raise those issues when speaking later to a similar amendment. Therefore I did not make a detailed note. However, if at that stage I am able to reply to some of the points he raised, I shall do so.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister, and look forward with great anticipation to Amendment No. 280WA.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the matter. I look forward to the later amendment.

497
I knew that I had made a mistake when I put "two percentage points" and "four percentage points" in paragraph (b) of the amendment. The Minister picked that up immediately and used it as a major plank in her argument for not supporting the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are right. We, too, support the idea that TfL should be allowed to borrow. That would get round one of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
The other objection is that the Bill simply fails to recognise what has happened in the utility sector in the past 18 years. We have seen enormous advantages to consumers of gas, electricity, and so on. The price of water—in which there has had to be a heavy investment programme—has been allowed to rise at more than the rate of inflation. As regards TfL, where there has to be a huge investment, perhaps that would be a case in point.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we need to know roughly what we shall have to pay. We need discipline placed upon the management of TfL so that in the future it behaves like the other utilities—even the privatized rail companies which I understand are restricted to the RPI for their fare increases.
I can see that I shall get no further with the amendment today. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 135 agrees to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255A:
Transpose Clause 135 to after Clause 143
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 256A, 256C, 256D, 259F, 259G and 265B.
These amendments are editorial in nature. Their effect is to restructure Chapter II of Part IV, the chapter which provides for Transport for London's general functions and create a new chapter dealing specifically with TfL's public transport functions. The amendments therefore provide for the creation of a new chapter into which will go by way of the new clause in Amendment No. 263B those provisions of Chapter II dealing with public passenger transport, and the additional functions which are the subject of some of the other government amendments to be considered later.
The effect of the amendment is to set out TfL's functions in a more logical way. I commend it to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Perhaps I may also inform the House that no Northern Ireland business will be taken tonight.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.44 to 8.30 p.m.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 256:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause—
INTRODUCTION OF SINGLE TICKET FOR JOURNEYS IN GREATER LONDON
(" .—(1) With effect from the appointed day, Transport for London shall introduce, or procure or facilitate the introduction of, a means by which passengers shall be able to make journeys in Greater London using more than one public passenger transport service having purchased only a single ticket; such ticket shall be a voucher or an electronic card or such other system as appears to Transport for London to be the most reliable, economic and efficient means to effect such journeys.
(2) The Mayor may issue regulations under this subsection as to the day on which subsection (1) above shall come into effect, provided that the appointed day within that subsection shall be no later than the fifth anniversary of this Act coming into force.")
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. It requires the mayor to issue regulations for the introduction of single ticket journeys in Greater London. I know that we have the Travelcard and various other schemes but there is a demand for the ability to buy one ticket to go across the whole of Greater London. The Bill is a great opportunity to meet that requirement. We have given the mayor five years—a reasonable length of time—to bring it into effect. It would do a great deal to encourage people to use public transport. It would make life a great deal more convenient for many people.
Lord Whitty: We all understand what lies behind the amendment and clearly it would be a desirable move. Such ticketing arrangements already exist in the form of a Travelcard. As those who travel frequently on public transport know, a Travelcard is a very popular and successful product. Many thousands of people use it every day. It is not a statutory scheme. It is underpinned by a voluntary agreement between LRT and the train operating companies. TfL will inherit London Transport's obligations under that agreement and will thus continue to offer the benefits of the Travelcarcl to those visiting, living and working in London. It is inconceivable that any mayor would want to risk losing the benefits of such a popular and effective means of promoting public transport. It is more likely the mayor would want to build on it and develop the advantages. There is no need to require the mayor to do that because the whole thrust of Part IV of the Bill is that London Transport should be improved and integrated.
Clause 123 plainly states:
"The Mayor shall develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport".
The Travelcard and similar products will be a vital component in helping the mayor to discharge that duty. It is difficult to see how any move to reduce or remove the benefits of the Travelcard could be consistent with the duty. Not only is it clear that the mayor can do this already in the Bill as drafted but moves in that direction would be beneficial in terms of fulfilling his duties on integrated transport. However, the precise form of such a scheme is best left to the mayor.

499
I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord can withdraw his prescriptive amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I hope the mayor heeds his wise words and, for that matter, my wise words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 136 [General powers]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): If Amendment No. 256A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 256AA.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 256A:
Page 72, line 43, leave out subsection (1)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 256AA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 256B:
Page 73, line 4, at end insert ("or
() carrying on such activities together with activities which Transport for London does not have power to carry on.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 256BA:
Page 73, line 8, leave out ("for the provision by that person") and insert ("with respect to the provision or financing")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 258A, 265BA and 265C. These provisions have the effect of reproducing existing functions exercised by or in relation to London local authorities and LRT. These amendments were announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Transport on 4th May in another place as part of a package of amendments to the railway provisions of the Bill. The other railway amendments will be dealt with later. These amendments are effectively transposing existing powers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 256C is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 256CA.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 256C:
Page 73, line 30, leave out subsection (6)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Since a betting person would not take any bets on this amendment being rejected, I take the opportunity to make the general point which would have been encompassed in the later amendment were we able to move it. Efficiency and economy are referred to and we understand the Government have included the term "effectiveness" in other legislation. Efficiency and effectiveness are different things. We are persuaded of that, among other matters, in the Local Government Bill now going through your Lordships' House. We hope that, as well as being efficient, economical and safe, transport services in
500
London will be effective and achieve what they set out to do, which after all is the meaning of "effectiveness".
Lord Whitty: If the amendment which I have formally moved is carried, the noble Baroness cannot move her amendment. However, I am conscious of the point she raised earlier in the debate and I shall consider it in relation to the legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 256CA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 256D and 256E:
Page 74, line 11, leave out ("subsection (6) above or section") and insert ("section (Provision of public passenger transport)(1) or")
Page 74, line 29, leave out ("exercise and performance of its functions under this Act") and insert ("discharge by Transport for London of any of its functions")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 74, line 31, at end insert—
("() Transport for London may not acquire any interest in a company whose shares are quoted on a recognised stock exchange (within the meaning of section 841 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) or traded on any public market (any such company being in this section a "quoted company").
() Where Transport for London acquires an interest in a company which subsequently becomes a quoted company then it shall be permitted such period of time as is reasonable in all the circumstances (being a period not exceeding 2 years beginning on the day when such company first becomes a quoted company) to dispose of such holding for the best price as may be obtainable, and during such period such company shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Part as a company in which Transport for London holds an interest.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to discover what the Government believe Transport for London might do. It will enter into financial arrangements with private companies and so forth, as provided in the Bill. We propose that it should not invest in stock market quoted companies and therefore we provide for a prohibition on the direct investment in listed shares.
We hope that Transport for London will have better things to do than to speculate in the Stock Exchange. At the same time, we realise that under PPP arrangements it could acquire shares in a quoted company; for example, if they were exchanged for assets. In our amendment to Schedule 9, we give it the opportunity to do that; it is required to sell them at a point in the future. That amendment also replaces the Secretary of State with the mayor because we believe that it is an issue of subsidiarity, an argument which we have used before in the Bill. We believe that the mayor should be able to make the decision.
These are probing amendments to try to discover what kind of interests the Government believe Transport for London might find with the private sector and how they might work. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments would curtail the commercial land operational flexibility of Transport for London by preventing it from acquiring any interest in a publicly quoted company.
On a general point, I should make it clear here that we want the mayor and TfL to have sufficient flexibility to discharge their transport duties in a way which best delivers the improvements to transport in London, which we all want to see. Accordingly, Transport for London should not be prevented from acquiring interests in publicly quoted companies, if that helps to implement the mayor's transport strategy. To do so would place a restriction on TfL to which London Regional Transport is not currently subject, under legislation introduced by a Conservative government.
However, I should stress that the Bill is not designed to facilitate the taking back into public ownership of, for example, privately operated bus companies. What the Bill is about is giving the mayor and Transport for London similar flexibility to that of London Transport.
Although I cannot accept these amendments, I am pleased to say that I am able to agree with one small part of Amendment No. 259. As you will see from Amendment No. 258Z, we also intend to remove the need for the Secretary of State to give consent to the acquisition of shares by TfL. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to replace it with mayoral consent. The mayor has wide powers of direction over TfL and can direct TfL to seek mayoral consent if he or she so chooses.
I therefore request the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister for her fir al comment about removing the Secretary of State. It is good news and I count it as a little victory. As regards the main point, I need to examine the Minister's reply in more detail. However, it seems that it would be possible for Transport for London to renationalise Railtrack, for example. It would not have the money to do so, but, theoretically, it would be able to make an offer for Railtrack. I do not believe that that would be desirable, not least as a resident of London and a ratepayer.
I must consider what the Minister said and I reserve the right to return to the issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 258A:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF MAYOR TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
(" .—(1) For the purpose of enabling any person to carry on any activities for which provision is made by an agreement under section 136(3) or (4) above, the Mayor may by order provide for any functions of Transport for London under any statutory provision to be exercisable by that person (whether to the exclusion of or concurrently with Transport for London).
(2) An order under this section may—

(a) provide for the functions to cease to be so exercisable when the activities cease to be carried on by that person (whether by reason of the expiry or termination of the agreement or otherwise); and

(b) make such supplementary, incidental and consequential provision as the Mayor considers expedient.

(3) The power of the Mayor to make an order under this section includes a power exercisable by order to revoke, amend or re-enact any such order.
(4) An order made by the Mayor under this section shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(5) This section does not apply to any function of Transport for London under this Act or any other statutory provision specifically amended by any provision of this Act.
(6) Any reference in this section to Transport for London includes a reference to a subsidiary of Transport for London.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Operating powers of Transport for London]:
[Amendments Nos. 258AZA and 258AA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 258B to 258N:
Page 211, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert—
("3A.")
Page 211, line 7, leave out from ("the") to ("may") in line 8 and insert ("purpose of discharging that or any other function of Transport for London are not required for that purpose, Transport for London")
Page 211, line 15, leave out from ("using") to end of line 16 and insert—

("(a) any services or facilities provided by Transport for London, by any subsidiary of Transport for London, or by any other person in pursuance of any agreement entered into by Transport for London by virtue of section 136(3) or (4)(a) of this Act; or

(b) any other London passenger services or London connecting services.")

Page 211, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
Page 211, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert ("any services falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above.")
Page 212, line 28, at end insert ("or")
Page 212, line 34, at end insert—
("() Transport for London may make such charges as it thinks fit in respect of anything done in exercise of its powers under this paragraph.")
Page 213, line 9, leave out ("business of Transport for London") and insert ("discharge by Transport for London of any of its functions")
Page 213, line 16, leave out ("Transport for London's business") and insert ("the discharge by Transport for London of any of its functions")

503
Page 213, line 18, leave out ("Transport for London's business") and insert ("the discharge by Transport for London of any of its functions")
Page 213, line 27, leave out ("Transport for London's business") and insert ("the discharge by Transport for London of any of its functions")
Page 213, line 29, leave out ("its business") and insert ("the discharge by Transport for London of any of its functions")
Page 213, line 36, leave out ("its business") and insert ("discharging any of its functions")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 258NA:
Page 213, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Transport for London may purchase or lease land for the purpose of securing freight-related intermodal facilities adjacent to rail or waterways where it believes there is a strategic need.")
The noble Lord said: This part of Schedule 9 concerns the acquisition, disposal and development of land. I found it interesting that paragraph 14(2) provides that:
"Transport for London may … develop for use by other persons land belonging to Transport for London which is not required for the purposes of Transport for London's business; and … where the use of Transport for London's land for the purposes of its business can be combined with its use by other persons, develop the land by constructing or adapting buildings".
It may be interesting to see whether an additional clause can be added enabling TfL to purchase or lease land for the purpose of freight-related, inter-modal facilities such as transferring between water, rail and road for purposes such as concreting aggregates, waste disposal or supermarket goods. There is always a problem with such terminals because the rate of return in the freight business is so low that city centre prices are unaffordable.
After drafting the amendment, I wondered whether TfL was able to develop land for passenger transport businesses which it did not operate, such as coach stations. My noble friend the Minister may wish to consider that before the next stage of the Bill because I can see benefits in TfL owning a land bank for such facilities which might be required in 10 or 15 years' time. That land could be used for something else in the interim and when the time came develop it for transport related purposes.
If transport, passenger or freight, especially rail, does not have sites for interchanges, be they stations or freight yards or whatever, it will never fulfil the needs which it could realise. This is an important matter which I hope my noble friend will be able to consider. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for drawing attention to that point. His amendment would enable TfL to purchase or lease land for the purpose of securing freight related intermodal facilities adjacent to rail or waterways or where there is a strategic need.
Schedule 9 already contains a number of powers for TfL in respect of the provision of transport facilities and the acquisition and development of land. However, we need to consider carefully whether those powers extend to the sort of cases envisaged in my noble friend's amendment and in the speech he has just made. With
504
the leave of the Committee and the understanding of my noble friend, perhaps I may be able to consider this issue and return to it at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 258Z I must inform the House that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 259 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 258P to 258Z:
Page 213, line 40, leave out ("its business") and insert ("discharging any of its functions")
Page 213, line 42, leave out ("Transport for London's business") and insert ("discharging any of its functions")
Page 213, line 46, leave out ("its business") and insert ("discharging any of its functions")
Page 213, line 49, leave out ("for the purposes of its business")
Page 214, line 8, leave out from ("which") to the end of line 9 and insert ("is required by Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London for the purposes of the discharge of any function.")
Page 214, line 11, at end insert—
("() Transport for London shall not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above submit to the Secretary of State a compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition of any land in accordance with section 2(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 unless the Mayor has given his consent.")
Page 214, line 13, leave out from ("treated") to end of line 14 and insert ("for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above as the discharge by Transport for London of any of its functions")
Page 214, line 17, leave out ("17(2) or (3)") and insert ("17(3) or (4)")
Page 215, line 20, leave out ("its business") and insert ("discharging any of its functions")
Page 215, line 22, leave out ("its business") and insert ("discharging any of its functions")
Page 215, line 22, leave out (", with the consent of the Secretary of State,")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 259A to 259C:
Page 216, line 19, leave out ("proper carrying on of its business; or to secure") and insert ("discharge by it of any of its functions, including the securing of')
Page 216, line 20, leave out ("section 136(3) or (4)") and insert ("section 136")
Page 216, line 23, after (" 233") insert ("or 324")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 9 states:
"Transport for London may enter into arrangements with any person providing passenger transport services by air for the provision of such services between places in Greater London or between such places and places outside Greater London".
Can the Minister enlighten me and the Committee as to what kind of services by air Transport for London might consider arranging within the London area? It seems a fairly remote possibility.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in detail. I assume that this covers helicopters and other forms of air travel within London or between London and the London airport; and the possibility of TfL entering into partnerships to gain intermodal transfer with those means of transport. However, if it is significantly wider than that, I shall inform the noble Lord.
Lord Berkeley: I believe it to be a good idea for air to be included in this schedule. As the Committee will be aware, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has tabled an amendment to exclude noise from the air from the environmental study. It is good that air transport is included in the schedule, whether it be helicopters, fixed-wing planes, or whatever.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 259D:
Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BY TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
("—(1) Transport for London may give financial assistance to any body or person in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that body or person in doing anything which in the opinion of Transport for London is conducive to the provision of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities or services to, from or within Greater London.
(2) Financial assistance may be given under this section by way of grant. loan or other payment.
(3) The financial assistance that may be given to any London authority under this section includes in particular assistance in respect of any expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the authority in discharging any function of a highway authority or traffic authority.
(4) In deciding whether to give financial assistance to a London authority under this section, and if so the amount or nature of any such assistance, the matters to which Transport for London may have regard include—

(a) any financial assistance or financial authorisation previously given to the authority by any body or person, and

(b) the use made by the authority of such assistance or authorisation.

(5) In subsection (4) above, "financial authorisation" means authorisation allowing the authority to incur financial obligations.
(6) Financial assistance under this section may be given subject to such conditions as Transport for London considers appropriate, including (in the case of a grant) conditions for repayment in whole or in part in specified circumstances.
(7) In this section—

"highway authority" has the same meaning as in the Highways
Act 1980 (see in particular sections 1 to 9 of that Act);

"London authority" Weans any London borough council or the Common Council; and

"traffic authority" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 121A and 142(1) of that Act).

(8) In section 88(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (list of "defined councils" to which transport grants are payable by the Secretary of State under section 87 of that Act)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (aa) there shall be inserted "and"; and

(b) paragraphs (c) and (d) (which include in the list of "defined councils" the London borough councils and the Common Council) shall cease to have effect.

(9) This section is without prejudice to any other power of Transport for London.")
The noble Lord said: These amendments would give Transport for London the power to make grants to other bodies and persons, and the power to provide and to procure guarantees. They extend the power to procure guarantees to London Regional Transport.
Amendment No. 259D allows TfL to pay money from GLA transport grant for transport purposes to other bodies. These include those who would previously have received direct grants from the Secretary of State, such as the borough councils. It will also allow TfL to pay grants to voluntary organisations to provide transport services to meet the needs of disabled people resident in London; for example, as we discussed earlier this evening, Dial-a-Ride. It repeals the power by which the Secretary of State currently makes grants to the boroughs under TPP, because the equivalent funding for boroughs will in future come via Transport for London.
I know that there has been some concern that because GLA transport grant is paid to TfL the boroughs will lose out. There may also be some concern that TfL, a non-elected body, is allocating grants to the boroughs. I do not believe that this should cause such concern. The mayor will have wide-ranging powers of direction over TfL. I would expect the mayor to make arrangements for TfL to submit its proposals for the making of grants to him or her for approval, thus ensuring that the mayor's democratic mandate is given oversight of the process. Amendment No. 259H provides for the amount and recipients of grants to be included in TfL's published annual report, thus ensuring transparency.
At present, if a council fails to spend up to its estimate on the basis of which grant was assessed and paid, the Secretary of State can reduce the grant in ensuing years to make allowance for the overpayment. For example, some boroughs have had large amounts of TPP support for projects whose scope was subsequently reduced. Subsections (4) and (5) enable Transport for London to make similar adjustments.
Amendment No. 259E gives TfL the power to give guarantees to its subsidiaries or to any person with which it has an agreement under Section 136(3) or (4) of the Bill. London Transport has such powers to give guarantees. The amendment extends this power to allow TfL to procure guarantees from a third party, for example from a bank or insurance company, and to indemnify the person who gives the guarantee.
Amendment No. 265AA gives London Regional Transport the same powers as TfL with regard to procuring guarantees. Amendment No. 259H would

507
require TfL to include in its published annual report details of any guarantees or indemnities as well as grants that have been given. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the omission of the word "passenger" in sub-paragraph (1) of the new clause in Amendment No. 259D means that Transport for London could give financial assistance to persons or organisations concerned with freight transport. This has a bearing on the amendment we heard about a few moments ago from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He spoke of freight interchange within Greater London. Let us suppose that the Minister comes back with a clause similar to the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Would it he broad enough to allow Transport for London, for example, to grant financial assistance to organisations concerned with the interchange of freight throughout the area of the capital?
Lord Whitty: The answer is broadly yes. Under this amendment, grants could be given by TfL for anything which it believes is conducive to the provision of integrated transport. Therefore, it would cover both freight and the intermodal aspects. In effect, this gives TfL the same scope as the mayor's overall strategy.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I also have a question for the Minister concerning Amendment No. 259D. Would this clause give TfL the power to make grants for environmental purposes? The technical development going on within the motor industry means that it is producing ever more fuel-efficient and less environmentally-offensive vehicles. However, the ultimate pollution-free car is only just a few steps down the road. I refer to fuel cell powered cars, which will be non-polluting. When we reach a point where they are hydrogen-powered they become totally and absolutely non-polluting, with no emissions other than water.
I raise this point at this stage for two reasons: first, as of now these vehicles are expensive and experimental. However, there will be 25 running within Los Angeles within about 18 months. Part of the problem of introducing new technologies is to install the necessary fuel infrastructure on the ground. It is no good having a vehicle that produces no pollution if one cannot obtain fuel for it. It occurs to me that that ought to be an area on which either the mayor or Transport for London ought to take a view. Non-pollution is equally valid for all forms of transport, it could be valid for someone running a bus company. After I had read the clause I was not clear whether it would permit the mayor to pay grants, either to help bring forward the new systems or, more importantly, to help to develop the necessary infrastructure that would assist in making them viable.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord raises an interesting area. Clearly we are concerned with developing alternative fuels or better use of conventional fuels for environmental purposes. From the national level, this
508
week I announced an increase in the amount of resources we are giving to Powershift to try to assist public and private authorities to change their fleets in that direction.
The position within the Bill is that integrated transport has an environmental dimension. As long as it comes under the integrated transport heading, then Transport for London can provide environmental grants, either of the sort referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, or to borough councils as highway or traffic authorities. That can include mitigation work on noise and air quality.
For environmental measures outside the transport field, Transport for London is limited. But, for the bulk of activities to which the noble Lord is referring, the answer is "Yes".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 259E:
Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
GUARANTEES
(" .—(1) Transport for London may guarantee to discharge any financial obligation of—

(a) a subsidiary of Transport for London; or

(b) any person (other than such a subsidiary) with whom Transport for London has entered into an agreement by virtue of section 136(3) or (4) above. where the guarantee is given for the purpose of enabling that person to carry out the agreement.

(2) Transport for London may, for the purposes of discharging any of its functions, guarantee to discharge any financial obligation incurred or to be incurred by any person for the purposes of—

(a) an undertaking carried on by him; or

(b) where the person is a body corporate, an undertaking carried on by a subsidiary of that body corporate.

(3) A guarantee under this section may be subject to such conditions as Transport for London considers appropriate.
(4) Transport for London may enter into arrangements with another person under which that person gives a guarantee which Transport for London has power to give under this section.
(5) Where Transport for London enters into arrangements by virtue of subsection (4) above, the arrangements may provide for Transport for London to indemnify the person who gives the guarantee.
(6) This section is without prejudice to any other power of Transport for London.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137 [Co-operation with the Franchising Director]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 259EA:
Page 74, line 46, leave out ("reasonably")
The noble Baroness said: It may seem unreasonable of us to propose to take out the word "reasonably" in connection with the provision of information between Transport for London and the franchising director. Of course, we support co-operation between the two, and understand, sadly, that sometimes one has to direct people and organisations to co-operate with one another.
However, I wondered about limiting the information as to that which was "reasonably required". My anxiety arose from thinking about how one or other of the bodies would enforce the provisions of this section. One can see that if the recipient of a request for information was reluctant, for a variety of reasons, to provide it, then there would be an easy answer in saying that the request simply

509
was not reasonable. I accept that one then has to go into what is and is not reasonable, but how is it enforced? One would have to go to court.
I wondered what it might be reasonable for one to withhold from the other, apart from commercially confidential information. If that is the only category of information which it would be reasonable to withhold, I would be much happier to see that spelt out. The purpose of this amendment is to probe what the Government have in mind in providing this exception. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The use of the word "reasonably" in provisions such as this is simply designed to discourage frivolous or trivial requests for information. I am not sure about this amendment. Given that we are talking about co-operation between two named authorities, its absence may not make any material difference and thereby avoid possible litigation, as the noble Baroness says. However, it would differ from the previous legislation based on Section 2(3) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and therefore I would be slightly reluctant to remove it. However, I will undertake to take further advice as to whether or not its removal would materially affect the situation, and, if so, in which direction.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps the Minister could let us know, when he comes back to the Chamber, whether there have been any cases under Section 2(3) of the London Regional Transport Act where an authority has contended that it would be unreasonable to demand the information concerned and has refused to provide it.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister. He has taken my point that with two public bodies the tests that may apply may be rather different from those applying to individuals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 259EB not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 259F:
Transpose Clause 137 to after Clause 143
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 138 [Co-operation with other persons]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 259G:
Transpose Clause 138 to after Clause 143
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Annual report]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 259H:
Page 75, line 37, at end insert—
("() any financial assistance given under section (Financial assistance by Transport for London) above;
() any guarantees given under section (Guarantees)(1) or (2) above;
() any arrangemmts entered into under section (Guarantees)(4) above; and
() any indemnities given by virtue of section (Guarantees) (5) above.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 75, line 37, at end insert—
("(c) the externally audited accounts required under subsection (3) below, and
(d) the projected budget for the next financial year, including the proposals of Transport for London for ensuring that public debt remains at a stable and prudent level.")
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 261 to 263. All of these amendments concentrate on the same theme: namely, that the accounts of TfL should be externally audited, as accounts of plcs are, and that a number of matters should be looked at during that time. The first amendment provides that the "projected budget" for the next financial year should be looked at, whereas the following amendment provides that the financial statements and statistics relating to the "efficiency and reliability" of the discharge of the functions of TfL be considered—for example, the number of days on which passenger transport services are disrupted by industrial action, the number of cancellations, the number of formerly operated routes which have been closed, the remuneration of senior staff and a number of issues which one would expect of any company whose shares are listed on the Stock Exchange.
We also believe that the report should be available to the public at no charge and published via the Internet, which is the modern procedure. Amendment No. 262 suggests that in public session the assembly should "discuss and vote on" the report submitted by TfL and that, if the report does not receive the support of two-thirds of the members of the assembly, its funds for the following year should not be authorised.
Finally, we suggest that the assembly should have the duty to appoint and fix the remuneration of the external auditors of TfL which, again, is very analogous to corporate governance principles. From what was said when we discussed earlier amendments, we believe that TfL should be treated very much as a commercial company and that it should have to meet the same kind of requirements for external audit, and so on, as apply to any major plc. Indeed, the company will have a large turnover and should be subject to such requirements. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: Generally, I think that the intention of these amendments is good. However, on the analogy that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, talked of in terms of reporting requirements—namely, that TfL should be seen in the light of a commercial company—I find some difficulty with the timing involved. Yes, TfL should produce an annual report at the appropriate time when the accounts have been audited, but I do not agree with the suggestion as regards the budget for the year in which the company will already be when the report is submitted. For example, if the year end is 31st December, the external auditors will probably produce their audit about March or April and TfL will already be in the next financial year. Therefore, putting the budget in that annual report is not particularly useful. Indeed, it would be far more useful

511
to publish it three months or so before the beginning of the next financial year when people can actually debate the content of the budget.
Similarly, it is a little difficult to understand quite how Amendment No. 262 would work in view of the fact that TfL would already be in the financial year. Therefore, it would be rather hypothetical to prevent the company receiving funding for the year in which it would already be working. So, although we recognise that reporting requirements need to be robust and in line with those of a commercial operator, we have some problems with the timing and the precise details of the amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendments deal with the contents of the annual reports of Transport for London, and some of the procedures for dealing with its budget and annual audit. I hope that I shall be able to persuade Members of the Committee that they are unnecessary and, indeed, that they could even be unhelpful.
The Bill already ensures that TfL will be covered by the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996. Under Regulation 9, TfL will have to publish its accounts,
"as soon as reasonably possible after conclusion of an audit, or nine months from the day following the end of the period to which the accounts in question relate".
TfL is also covered by provisions in Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, which require it to make its accounts and all supporting documents open to the public.
I turn now to the budget. The mayor is already required to publish the budget for TfL for the year. The Audit Commission Act 1998 and the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996 lay down requirements which TfL will have to follow on what it must include in its published accounts. There is provision laying down the rights of local government electors for the area of a body subject to audit to inspect the accounts and supporting documents.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, TfL will also be covered by the best value provisions of the Local Government Bill which the Chamber has recently been considering. We think that this is the best way of setting targets for TfL rather than through separate primary legislation in this Bill. Following the process in the best value legislation means that users of TfL services, London taxpayers and London's businesses will have a say in improving TfL's performance.
Amendment No. 262 would require the assembly to approve the report by a two-thirds majority. Until the authority did this it would be unlawful for the authority to approve a budget for TfL for the following year which was higher than the year to which the report related. The amendment would cause great uncertainty about TfL's budget. The GLA consolidated budget, of which TfL forms part, must be agreed by the end of February each year. The annual report cannot be published until after the financial year ends on 31st March, and in reality is unlikely to be ready until June or July. So the assembly would have to set TfL's
512
budget in February at a level no more than the previous year and then revisit the budget later on after the financial year in question had started. We do not think that this would enable TfL to manage its financial affairs properly. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, drew attention to that point.
Clause 118 adds the functional bodies, including Transport for London, to the list of public bodies which under the 1998 Audit Commission Act are required to make up accounts annually. It also adds TfL to the list of bodies which must be audited by an auditor or auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. This means that TfL, like the GLA and the other functional bodies, will be covered by the same audit system as applies to other organisations within the local government finance system. Not only is this tried and tested but it also prevents the assembly becoming bogged down in routine appointment procedures. The assembly's role, should it so choose, is rather to scrutinise and challenge the contents of the audit. I hope therefore that the amendment will be withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The Minister has covered most of the areas dealt with in the speech of the noble Lord who proposed the amendment. However, she left out one important point. She said that Transport for London will have to publish its accounts which will be open to the public and that local government electors will have the same right to inspect the accounts and supporting documents as they would the accounts of similar bodies. The noble Baroness did not say anything about the proposal of the noble Lord that the reports required under the subsection should be available to the public at no charge and should be published in an electronic form capable of access by members of the public.
There is a major difference between saying that a local government elector is entitled to go into a town hall and look at the accounts and supporting documents—if he can find the relevant documents that he wishes to inspect—and saying that they will be available on the Internet where they are open to the inspection of anyone who wishes to see them, not just the local government electors in the area of Greater London. There may well be people who are not local government electors who would have a locus in the matter and would want to see the accounts. For example, commuters who come into London from outside may well have an interest in some of the matters covered in the accounts or in the supporting documents.
While the noble Baroness may have satisfied the Committee that the accounts will be well and truly audited and that the documents will be available for public inspection, she did not deal with the important point that they should be available on the Internet.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is my understanding that that would be a matter for decision by TfL. Should the situation be otherwise, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful, I think, for the response of the noble Baroness but I shall need to

513
read what she said with some care. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the way I have drafted the amendments. I agree that there may be difficulties with them which the noble Baroness pointed out. However, I do not think that the noble Baroness has satisfactorily answered the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is all very well saying that TfL may publish the documents on the Internet, but we in this Committee are in a position to insist, if we wish, that that is done. The noble Lord made a good point in that regard. I may wish to return to that particular part of the issue at the next stage.
Generally speaking, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's response; I shall read it with care. I hope that when I do so I shall find that most of the points I made will be satisfactorily dealt with under the proposed arrangements. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 261 A:
Page 75, line 41, at end insert—
("() Transport for London shall publish any report made under this section.
() A copy of any report made under this section shall be kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.
() A copy of any report made under this section, or any part of any such report, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.
() In this section "rte appropriate period" in the case of a report under this section is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of the report pursuant to this section.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 263 not moved.]
Clause 140 [Distribution of Property].
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 263ZA:
Page 76, line 5, at enc insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall, before making an order bringing into effect the provisions of this Act relating to Transport for London, publish a list of the property, rights and liabilities that will be held by Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London.")
The noble Baroness said: We consider that this amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends to be of considerable importance in the Bill. It was the subject of a rather irritable debate in Standing Committee A in another place in February of this year. I do not propose to go through all the arguments displayed on that particular occasion. It is the broad thrust of the amendment that is important.
The clauses concern the disposal of property, and the disposal of land in particular. In a series of amendments to be moved by the Minister there is a slight relaxation of the definitions of the kind of land that can be dealt with, how it can be dealt with and
514
whose permission needs to be asked before it can be disposed of. That series of amendments begins with Amendment No. 264A.
I wish to make a straightforward point. Before one starts disposing of what was publicly owned land it would be desirable to have a list of the properties of the organisations which have contributed and have now been taken over by Transport for London. In the debate, the Minister in another place said that asking for the list was asking for the impossible; that it would take forever to make a list of all the widgets, spanners and other property of which TfL was possessed.
I hope that the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. We are talking about the major assets of this company. We know quite a lot about these major assets. A Ministerial Answer, which gave a response as to the assets on 31st March 1998, stated that if one takes tunnels, railway carriages, tracks, bridges, drainage pumps, underground stations, escalators and lifts, power stations, sub-stations, bus stations and stands and bus shelters—which are all substantial pieces of property; it is relatively easy to know where they are—one comes to a very large total indeed of objects and lengths of track. Subsequently, in a Written Answer on 20th April, it was stated that the total value of the infrastructure and assets is £6 billion. We are talking about very large sums of money.
I will not go into the whole argument about the privatisation of rail services and Railtrack. However, one really cannot argue with the fact that, as a result of that process, there has been a considerable sell-off—some people have called it asset stripping, but I will be as calm and unaggressive as possible in moving this amendment—of property that was formerly publicly owned and publicly funded. I will not say that one should never allow a company such as TfL to sell any property. However, I believe that we should have transparency about what that property is, when it is sold, why it is being sold and who sanctions the sale. I contend that we cannot do that unless we have a list of the major properties owned by Transport for London. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: Operational land and non-operational land is dealt with in the next group of amendments. I have some sympathy with this amendment, but I understand that there must be a minimum property size or value below which it would be unreasonable to ask for a list.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has said, there has been a long history of deception—that is almost what I would call it—from the British Railways Board over the years. Many people, including me, have campaigned for the board to publish a list of its land holdings before they were sold. My noble friend the Minister has kindly managed to secure a list of the properties that the board has sold in the past year—which seems to be against the spirit of the White Paper—but we still do not have a list of the land that has not been sold. It does not really matter whether British Rail is continuing to sell land.

515
The fact remains that, whereas I believe that my noble friend and his colleagues are doing their best to get this right, the history of the past 20 years has created an enormous backlog of suspicion. A list would certainly give people comfort that we are starting from a position of reasonable transparency. I support the principles behind the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: As my noble friend Lady Thomas said, this is an important amendment. Under the terms of the Bill—and following assurances given in the White Paper and by Ministers—the assets of London Underground will be kept in public ownership. I note that the amendment will change that to the operating assets of London Underground.
For instance, Clause 141 puts restrictions on the disposal of land owned by Transport for London. We strongly support these obligations and commitments. However, in order to ensure that Transport for London is complying with these obligations, we need to know what assets it owns—whether it is land, fixtures and fittings or rolling stock. Furthermore, when the leasing agreements with the PPP companies are drawn up, it will be important to ensure that all the assets to be leased are identified clearly in the agreements.
In this light, the amendment is surely eminently practical and reasonable. If the Government do not accept it, does that mean that they have not drawn up an asset register for Transport for London for the future? If they have not, is it because they see no prospect of the PPP agreements proceeding in reality?
Lord Whitty: I understand the arguments behind the amendment, but this clause is to do with something entirely different. It is about ensuring that the GLA will be able to transfer the legal ownership of property, rights and liabilities between itself, TfL and TfL subsidiaries in the course of setting up TfL. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a list—which even the supporters of the amendment recognise would be an extremely complicated and difficult list—before making any orders that would bring into effect provisions relating to TfL.
Clauses 319 and 320 allow a Minister of the Crown to transfer property, rights and liabilities from predecessor bodies, such as LRT, to successor bodies, such as TfL. The powers allow Ministers to make those transfers either by order or by administrative transfer scheme. In the case of TfL, it is likely that the vast majority of property rights relating to the relevant functions of the predecessor bodies concerned will transfer to it. The working assumption is that this will be done by exclusion. That means that the orders dealt with under the powers in this clause would list the general classes of rights, property and liabilities which are to transfer between each relevant predecessor body and those individual rights, items of property and liabilities which are not to transfer. Producing a comprehensive list before bringing in the orders would be a hugely time-consuming and expensive undertaking. I certainly do not see that it is justifiable in this context.
516
I understand the concerns that are being expressed. I do not believe that engaging in this listing process would be justifiable in any case, but it certainly would not be justifiable to require that list to be produced prior to any powers under this clause being operated. Otherwise the whole allocation of assets to TfL, the demarcation between TfL and its subsidiaries and the wrapping up of the property of the predecessor companies could not take place.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: Can the Minister expand on his comments in terms of the listing of assets? He referred to the transfer of assets being by way of exclusion between successor bodies and so on. But, when it comes to a PPP agreement, surely those assets will have to be detailed in a positive fashion. When London Underground is being split into three parts it will not be good enough to do it by exclusion. That will not be possible. There will have to be detail for each of the different PPP companies.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps the Minister will excuse me if I add a comment at this stage. When I said that I wanted to go with the spirit of the amendment, I should have added that I acknowledge that it has been put in the wrong place. We were mistakenly advised about that. It would have been more appropriate in the following clause, which deals with the disposal of assets as opposed to the transfer of assets. Does the Minister recognise that there is a real worry about what would happen in the event that, for understandable reasons, the new organisation wished to dispose of its assets? With the backlog of history, that would cause a good deal of suspicion. I have brought forward the amendments to achieve clarity and openness. Will the Minister consider the amendments in the light of the sale, rather than disposal and rearrangement, of the property?
Lord Whitty: By making it conditional on the powers under the clause, it would be a major inhibition on organising all the successor bodies. Therefore, for that reason as well, the amendment is in the wrong place. Even if I were to accept that there was a case for looking at this list, it would be an enormously complex, time-consuming and difficult task. It is not necessary for the PPP process because we will be dealing with PPP on the basis of classes of asset. I suspect that there may well be exclusions there, and the exclusions could be listed. But, in general, the PPP would be looking after the classes of infrastructure which related to particular lines. Therefore, it would not be necessary to list every individual asset where the assets of London Underground pertain to the sub-surface lines or the other groups which will be listed in the PPP. It is accordingly not necessary for PPP purposes.
It might optimally be necessary to make sure that there was no privatisation by stealth in the sense suggested by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. But, even for that purpose, this would be an enormous task. I doubt whether it is worth it. I do not necessarily wish to

517
register any encouragement to the noble Baroness that, were she to introduce this amendment in the right place, we should look favourably on it. It is an enormous administrative task for all the bodies involved.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps the list of assets could be confined to land assets, and not the installations on the land. I can understand that, if an inventory had to be taken of every signal, switch-box and so on, that could be an enormous undertaking. But the disposal of these assets could take place only if the land on which they were placed were also sold. Therefore, simply to list the land holdings would go a long way to meeting the wishes of my noble friend. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, in considering this matter, would take into account the size of the task if it were limited simply to the land holdings of the organisations concerned.
Lord Whitty: On the face of it—although I am not sure that I shall have any support from my colleagues—that sounds a sightly more reasonable request. Nevertheless, even to do that is extremely complex. The land on which, for example, London Underground's assets operate is under various different forms of tenure, not always the freehold of London Underground. So even that is pretty complex; however, I will examine the matter.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister has, as ever, been friendly and gracious in his responses. I am grateful for his answers and I shall read them carefully. However, we may return to this subject at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 263A:
Page 76, line 7, leave out ("disposal of an interest in land where the disposal") and insert ("transfer of an interest in land to the Authority where the transfer")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 263B to 263J, 264A to 264C, and 265A.
Clause 141 and parts of Clause 140 place restrictions on TfL's ability to dispose of operational railway and tramway land. The clause is designed to prevent the permanent sale of key operational assets, primarily Underground and Docklands Light Railway lines and stations. TfL is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to such disposals.
However, as currently drafted, the Bill requires TfL to obtain the Secretaty of State's consent to any disposal of operational ralway or tramway land. We acknowledge that that formulation could be unduly restrictive. If unamended, it could potentially mean that TfL would have to seek consent to all land disposals, instead of just those involving Underground and DLR lines and stations. These amendments therefore give effect to the undertaking given earlier in the passage of the Bill by my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London that the restrictions on disposal of land would be refined to give TfL some operational flexibility over its property portfolio. At the same time,
518
we have also taken the opportunity to plug one or two gaps in the current clause so that the restrictions cannot be circumvented.
Amendment No. 264C changes the definition of operational land so that the Secretary of State's consent to disposal would not be required where the land in question is comparable to land in general, rather than land used for railway purposes. The wording of the revised definition is similar to that used in the Town and Country Planning Act.
Amendment No. 264A provides that, where Underground or DLR lines or stations cease to be used for railway purposes, disposal would not be permitted without the Secretary of State's consent for a period of five years, or such other period as the Secretary of State may determine.
Amendment No. 264B enables the Secretary of State to issue a consent authorising the disposal of land falling within a specified description.
Amendments Nos. 263B and 263H place restrictions on the disposal of TfL subsidiaries, so that the GLA/TfL cannot form a company, either as a subsidiary or as a joint venture, vest it with operational land and then sell it off—indirectly as a way of circumventing the other restrictions on the sale of land.
The remaining amendments are technical changes. They tidy up the effect of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I believe that the Minister has tried hard to rationalise and to clarify the comments made at earlier stages of the Bill. Congratulations are due.
I refer to Amendment No. 264C and the problem of the definition of operational land. In the days of British Rail, it had some operational land at a place called Mistley Quay in Essex, a quay beside the river. That had been closed for years and someone had decided to develop the land. However, as British Rail had not bothered to register the land, someone else had registered it for themselves at the Land Registry. There was a dispute about ownership, but British Rail said that it could not afford the legal fees to sort out the matter. In other words, any person with land adjacent to the railways could register such land and might get away with it if British Rail decided not to fight. That happened several years ago, but there is a suspicion there.
There is no problem with land that is currently operational, but there is a concern over land that was operational 25 years ago, or even 10 years ago. I am thinking of the railway line from Broad Street up to Dalston, which was closed when the Broadgate development began. There is now a proposal by Railtrack to re-open that line. In my view, that is operational land, but it would not have survived Amendment No. 264A because after five years it might have been sold off.
I am also unhappy about paragraphs (a) and (b) in Amendment No. 264C which mention that if the land is by its nature more general that is all right. I wonder whether the Minister could consider the question of land

519
adjacent to operational land which could have been used for other transport purposes, as discussed in connection with a previous amendment.
In the past two weeks we have talked about Railtrack taking over the sub-surface routes and integrating services. I suspect that there will be many parcels of land, where the tracks are together or slightly separate, which could be useful for integrated services. Again, I worry that, under this clause, such land may have been sold off.
Turning to Amendment No. 264A, the amendment mentions "at least five years". I believe that is an inadequate period. I would like to see a period of 25, 50 or even 100 years. Twenty-five years ago we would not have dreamt of today's situation and considering expanding public transport. It is impossible to say what will be needed in 25 years' time. I believe that to sell off old railway lines would be a serious mistake, especially in London, as they may be of use in the future.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In speaking to this group of amendments I also want to speak to Amendment No. 264 and to my Motion that Clause 141 shall not stand part of the Bill.
The purpose of Amendment No. 264 is to leave out the whole of subsection (3), which would have allowed non-operational land to be sold. Therefore, I am happy to the extent that the Minister in his Amendment No. 264A has gone some way to meeting my suggestion by putting a time limit of five years on the matter. I cannot go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. One simply cannot freeze this land for ever. He quoted the figure of 100 years. One must be able to realise the assets. The money could be spent on better transport rather than lying idle.
I welcome the amendments, which go some way to meeting the concerns that lay behind my amendment.
Lord Berkeley: Before the noble Lord sits down, under his definition the Thameslink line would have been sold 15 years ago. It is now running at such capacity that Railtrack is thinking of expanding it, at a cost of several hundred million pounds. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that railway rights of way should be sold after five years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure that I gave a definition that would have resulted in Thameslink being sold. I take it that the noble Lord means that it was not operational for more than five years. Five years is the Minister's timescale, not mine. I would have allowed the sale of non-operational land. The noble Lord gives one example. There may be many others in which land has been sold off and put to useful purposes, generating revenue for public transport that would not otherwise been made available.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that he would be opposing the Motion that Clause 141 stand part of the Bill. He mentioned the Motion in his opening remarks.
520
I understand some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, but I also accept what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, says. Some flexibility is required to allow TfL some commercial and operational freedom. It would be nonsensical if the sale of any strip of non-operational land that TfL owns required the Secretary of State's permission. In at least some of the examples to which my noble friend referred, the land would have been classified as railway land. I am not sure that all his anxieties are as well placed as he seems to think. The Bill gives TfL freedom over non-railway and non-transport use land, but we are also closing loopholes in other provisions. We have moved to some extent in his direction by providing a way round Transport for London selling public land to the detriment of future transport use. There is a bit of give and take and I hope that we have got the balance right. It would not be sensible to remove the clause, but it is currently a bit unwieldy and places rather onerous requirements on TfL which we would like to relax a little.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that I said—or at least I meant to say—that I was not going to oppose the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 263B to 263E:
Page 76, line 9, at end insert—
("() The Mayor shall not, without the consent of the Secretary of State, make a scheme or series of schemes providing for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the Authority, the result of which would be that a company would cease to be a subsidiary of Transport for London, if the consent of the Secretary of State would be required—

(a) under section 141 below, or

(b) under section (Restrictions on contracting out certain services) below,

had the scheme or series of schemes been a transaction or series of transactions entered into by Transport for London.")
Page 76, line 10, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section")
Page 76, line 12, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section")
Transpose Clause 140 to after Clause 142
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 141 [Restrictions on the disposal of land]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 263F and 263G:
Page 76, line 14, leave out ("Transport for London shall not") and insert ("Neither Transport for London nor the Authority shall")
Page 76, line 16, after ("in") insert ("any land which is or has been")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 263GA:
Page 76, line 19, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Mayor and Assembly")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 263GA would require TfL to obtain the consent of the mayor and assembly rather than the Secretary of State before disposing of operational land or granting a lease of more than 50 years. We have touched on this issue to an extent in the Government's Amendment No. 265, where perhaps they concede that the mayor should not be in a position where he appears to grant something to himself. Amendment No. 263GA includes the assembly and provides the safeguard that we believe is required in this situation. I shall not move Amendments Nos. 263K, 264BA and 264BB. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The amendments just agreed to would provide greater flexibility and freedom to TfL, but we believe that the Secretary of State needs to retain some reserve powers in this area. Therefore, any significant disposals of operational or railway land need to be referred to the Secretary of State. We are not in favour of substituting in this context the mayor, who, as the noble Baroness acknowledges, may find himself in a dual position in these circumstances, or the authority as a whole. We believe that in this area the Secretary of State needs to retain powers.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the Minister will not think me overly critical or carping. He has said he thinks that what the Government have drafted is correct but has not told the Committee why. It may be that he considers this activity to be so serious that the Secretary of State needs to be involved, but he has not told the Committee why the Government think what they think.
Lord Whitty: When the new authority is established, the Secretary of State will retain certain national powers to ensure that, in view of the commitment that has been given, these assets remain in public hands and cannot be eaten away at the edges. That is a commitment by national government, and therefore the Secretary of State should retain the power. I hope that that is good enough for the noble Baroness. At the moment, I cannot do any better.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Donner: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read carefully his response to the previous amendment, in which the Government propose to substitute the mayor for the Secretary of State, and try to understand why that is not appropriate in this particular case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 263H and 263J:
Page 76, line 19, at end insert—
("() Where an estate or interest in, or right over, any land which is or has been operational land is vested in a company which is a subsidiary of Transport for London, Transport for London shall not, without the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into any transaction or series of transactions the result of which would be that the company would cease to be a subsidiary of Transport for London.")
Page 76, line 20, leave out subsection (2)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos, 263K and 264 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 264A:
Page 76, line 25, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Consent is not required under this section by reason of any land having been operational land if a period of at least five years has elapsed since the land was last operational land.
(3A) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (3) above by substituting a different period for that for the time being there specified.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 264B:
Page 76, line 27, at end insert—
("() Any consent of the Secretary of State under this section—

(a) may be given in relation to any particular transaction or description of transactions; and

(b) may be given subject to conditions.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 264BA and 264BB not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 264C:
Page 76, line 31, at end insert—
("() In this section—
"operational land" means—

(a) land which is used for the purpose of carrying on any railway or tramway undertaking of Transport for London's or of a subsidiary of Transport for London's; and

(b) land in which an interest is held for that purpose; but paragraphs (a) and (b) above do not include land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of a railway or tramway undertaking; "railway" and "tramway" shall be construed in accordance with section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.

() For the purposes of this section, Land—

(a) which has at any time been used, or

(b) in which an interest has at any time been held, for the purpose of carrying on a railway or tramway undertaking of London Regional Transport's, or of a subsidiary of London Regional Transport's, shall be treated as if that undertaking had at that time been an undertaking of Transport for London's or of a subsidiary of Transport for London's (and any question whether the land was, or had ceased to be, operational land at any time shall be determined accordingly).")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 141, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 26.5:
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause—
PUBLIC ACCESS OFFICES
(" .—(1) Transport for London shall have the duty to maintain at least one office (referred to in this section as a "public access office") in each London borough where members of the public shall be able to obtain information concerning transport facilities to, from and within Greater London.
(2) The information available at a public access office shall include, but shall not be limited to

(a) the frequency of services within the London bus network,

(b) the location of stopping places in Greater London,

(c) the frequency of railway services within Greater London,

(d) the location of railway stations in Greater London, and

(e) information allowing passengers to transit from one public passenger transport service to another.

(3) Each public access office shall be open for at least twelve hours each day of the week (including Sundays and bank holidays).
(4) Transport for London shall ensure that members of the public are able to contact any public access office by means of a telephone call at no cost to the public, or by telephone facsimile.
(5) Transport for London shall also ensure that the information available at any public access office is also published electronically in a form capable of access by members of the general public.
(6) Transport for London shall ensure that each public access office is capable of easy access and exit by people with any disability.
(7) In this section "London bus network" and "stopping place" have the meanings given them in Chapter IV of this Part.")
The noble Lord said: We now move on to something a little different. This amendment proposes that Transport for London should have a duty to maintain at least one public access office in each borough from which members of the public will be able to obtain information about transport in London. In our view, it highlights the co-ordinating role that TfL ought to be playing instead of the centralising control mentality that is found in the Bill.
If we are to encourage people to use public transport, it is essential that the maximum amount of information is available to the public to know which services and interchange facilities are available, and so on. It is our contention that all this information should be available in the offices, that the offices should be open at least 12 hours per day on each day of the week, including Sundays and Bank Holidays, and that the information should be published electronically on the Internet in order to make it accessible to members of the general public.
I hope that the Minister can assure me that, even if my amendment is unnecessary because these things will indeed be publicised, at least some of the things that I have outlined in the amendment will in fact take place. If we are to encourage people to use public transport, it is essential that the information should be made available to the public. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I remind the Committee and the noble Lords that a number of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has referred are already in place or are being developed by London Transport. Clearly, TfL will take over those responsibilities and those assets. As part of the service to Londoners and visitors to London, we want the kind of comprehensive, integrated and accessible information service to which he has referred. London Transport is well on their way to producing that.
However, I am afraid that I cannot accept Amendment No. 265 as it stands. It would place significantly more onerous and specifically prescriptive requirements on TfL than does the present situation with London Transport. In addition, it would not necessarily deliver the most accessible, effective and value for money system of the kind to which the noble Lord referred. It is possible, however, that we can in another way achieve the objective sought by the noble Lord, by in effect placing a general duty on London Transport to provide information to passengers about public transport services of all kinds in London.
524
With the leave of the Committee and the understanding of the noble Lord, perhaps I can consider that matter further after the next stage of these proceedings.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am once again encouraged by the noble Lord the Minister's reply. I must admit that I did not expect him to accept the amendment as it stood. It is possible that the placing of an office in every borough may be a little onerous on Transport for London, and indeed rather costly. However, I am encouraged and I shall look forward to what the Minister has to say at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 142 [Control of subsidiaries]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 76, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State,") and insert ("Mayor,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 265AZA not moved.]
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 265AA
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT TO GIVE GUARANTEES
(" .—(1) Section 17 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (power of London Regional Transport to give financial assistance to subsidiaries and other bodies or persons) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) London Regional Transport may enter into arrangements with another person under which that person gives a guarantee which London Regional Transport has power to give under this section.
(3B) Where London Regional Transport enters into arrangements by virtue of subsection (3A) above, the arrangements may provide for London Regional Transport to indemnify the person who gives the guarantee.'"').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 265B and 265BA:
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT
(" .—(1) Transport for London may provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services to, from or within Greater London.
(2) Without prejudice to section 138 below, any agreement entered into by Transport for London by virtue of section 136(3) or (4)(a) above may in particular provide for—

(a) combined services for the through carriage of passengers or goods to be provided by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries and any other party to the agreement,

525
the quoting of through rates and the pooling of receipts and expenses in respect of such services;

(b) securing efficiency, economy and safety of operation in the provision of any public passenger transport services in pursuance of the agreement;

(c) the exercise by Transport for London, in accordance with the agreement, of control over fares in respect of any such services and their routes and frequency of operation and over charges in respect of any other facilities provided in pursuance of the agreement; and

(d) the making of payments by Transport for London to any other party to the agreement.")

After Clause 143, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF EXTRA PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES AND FACILITIES
(" .—(l) The council of a London borough and the Common Council shall each have power to enter into and carry out agreements with—

(a) Transport for London,

(b) the Franchising Director, or

(c) any person who is the holder of a passenger licence, a network licence or a station licence, with respect to the provision or retention, and financing, of public passenger transport services and facilities which would not be available apart from any such agreement.

(2) Transport for London and the Franchising Director shall each have power to enter into and carry out agreements with the council of a London borough or the Common Council with respect to the matters specified in subsection (1) above.
(3) The terms of an agreement entered into under this section shall be such as may be agreed between the parties to the agreement.
(4) Expressions used in this section and in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 have the sun:: meaning in this section as in that Part.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 265C:
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause—
INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY ABOUT PLANS AS TO SERVICES AND FARES
(" .—(1) Transport for London shall in each year inform the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) below of its current plans with respect to—

(a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by Transport for London, any subsidiary of Transport for London or any other person in pursuance of an agreement entered into by virtue of section 136(3) or (4)(a) above;

(b) the general structure of routes of such services;

(c) the general level and structure of fares to be charged for such services; and

(d) the general level of charges to be made for such facilities.

(2) The bodies are—

(a) the London borough councils;

(b) the Common Council;

(c) the council of any county or district any part of whose area appears to Transport for London to be affected significantly by any plans falling within subsection (1) above; and

(d) the London Transport Users' Committee.

(3) Transport for London shall cause particulars of the general level and structure of the fares falling within subsection (1)(c) above as they apply for the time being to be published in such manner as it thinks fit.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Provision of London local services]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 77, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) This section shall be interpreted subject to section 150 below.")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 266 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 272 which is grouped with it.
According to the Bill a London local service is a service with one or more stopping places in Greater London. According to my interpretation, therefore, as drafted someone running a bus service from, say, Land's End to John o'Groat's making a single stop anywhere within Greater London—for example, somewhere on the M.25 for Heathrow—falls under TfL regulations and TfL can make it illegal. As TfL is under a duty to put London first under Clause 136 arguably it could be obliged to close down such a service.
The amendment attempts to protect bus operators which are only incidentally connected with Greater London by allowing them the opportunity to demonstrate that to be the case. I hope that the Minister can give me a reason why there is no need for the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I cannot accept Amendments No. 266 and 272. Clause 150 requires that a London local service (essentially a bus service with stopping places less than 15 miles apart), which is not provided by, or on behalf of, TfL, can only he provided by the holder of a London service permit issued by the mayor.
The amendment risks leaving the door open to wholly unregulated bus operations in London. As such it would lead to additional traffic congestion, would scarcely be helpful to the passengers and would hence make it harder for the mayor to achieve his or her strategic aims. This amendment is entirely at variance with government policy for buses in London.
Our buses "daughter" document to the Integrated Transport White Paper, "From Workhorse to Thoroughbred" set out our intention to deal with matters in the deregulated regime outside London by strengthening powers of the traffic commissioners and by means of quality partnerships and quality contracts to enable local authorities to plan and control bus services in a fully integrated manner.
For London this Bill contains provisions which will broadly give continuity to the planning of a London bus network and provide opportunities for additional services which the mayor may authorise by means of his permit.

527
This amendment is not necessary, nor is it conducive to the promotion of integrated public transport for London. I therefore urge the noble Lords to withdraw it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister for the reply. I am not certain that it took fully on board the point I made in my amendment. I did not seek to propose that deregulated bus services should return to London. I think that they were last there in the 1930s. It appeared to me that if there were a long distance bus service with just one stop in Greater London it would be caught by the provisions of the Bill. However, I shall read with care what the noble Baroness has said. Having done so, I hope that I shall be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [The London bus network]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 266ZA:
Page 78, line 3, after ("providing") insert ("environmentally sustainable,")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 266ZA in the names of my noble friends. The amendment seeks to provide that TfL should determine which services are required to provide environmentally sustainable transport services. The Government may feel that this is an unnecessary addition. I turn to what the clause actually provides in terms of what the buses should be like. Nowhere does it state, "They shall not be dirty, smelling and polluting". That is the reputation of buses historically and, although the Government are taking steps, as are bus operators, to clean up the service, sadly economic transport does sometimes mean running stock that is less state-of-the-art in terms of providing clean transport.
I thought some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the speed of developments in cleaner technology make the inclusion of the phrase "environmentally sustainable", as we have in the amendment here, even more important. The buses that we have now might provide everything in Clause 144(1) but, without "environmentally sustainable", we could have a fleet of buses which were many years behind the times.
Lord Whitty: I understand the intention behind the clause and clearly it is part of our concern—indeed, TfL's duty is to promote progressive improvements in the environmental impact of all of its public transport, including its bus fleet. However, to insert "environmentally sustainable" immediately in front of "bus services" could lead to serious legal challenge. It takes a very long time to replace a bus fleet. To say that any bus running on conventional fuel at the moment did not comply with that requirement in that it was dependent on fossil fuel, or that the degree of emission was outwith the general power on a particular bus or a particular route, would have grave difficulty in meeting the other objectives of accessibility and an adequate bus service. It will take many years to replace the existing
528
fleet and, even if we engage in some improvement of the existing fleet engines, they will not entirely meet the sustainable criteria by themselves.
We explained at earlier stages that transport strategy would have to take account of the mayor's environmental strategy, and part of that no doubt would be to speed up the degree of environmental improvement by public transport and other vehicles. However, to put the adjectives immediately in front of that could lead to some difficulties of interpretation and to legal challenge which would not be helpful. I therefore hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I was grateful when the Minister said earlier this evening that he was considering the point I made on Monday about the inclusion of the term "effective" along with the other two "Es". This clause also deals with efficient and economic service—the words get moved around a little. On this occasion, we have "integrated" as well as "safe" and one would not quarrel with either of those. The Minister has already confirmed today that Transport for London is subject to the best value duty. The Government's argument on the local government Bill when we sought to include a specific reference to environmental sustainability was that the term was actually within "efficient, effective and economic"—I think I have them the wrong way round.
Will the Minister bear in mind the combination of points when considering the possible use of the term "effective", because we should be reassured about the cohesive approach to environmental sustainability?
Lord Avebury: I can see the argument for saying that there could be a challenge to particular services because they were not environmentally sustainable. However, if the term used by my noble friend is interpreted as being the maximum possibly environmentally sustainable, why should not the other terms in subsection (1) be interpreted in the same way? Could there not be a challenge to a service which is claimed by TfL to be safe on the grounds that not everything had been done to avoid every conceivable accident?
Perhaps I may give an example. At bus stops there should be warning signs telling cyclists coming along behind the bus to be careful to indicate as they pass so that cars do not tip them off their bicycles. One can always think of aspects which would add to safety and efficiency or make services more economic. No one is suggesting that there will be a challenge to TfL because in some respect the services offered by it fall short of absolute perfection.
My noble friend is suggesting that at least TfL should aim at providing services which are as environmentally friendly as possible and not that they should achieve the absolute perfection which may be realised when vehicles of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are in common use. Cannot the Minister agree that we should write into the subsection the phrase

529
"environmentally friendly" or something similar, in the same way as all the other criteria, without suggesting that perfection be attained in the immediate future?
Lord Whitty: I was making a different point and I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly. We do not expect maximum environmental, safe or economic working, but of course we are striving on all of those fronts. The point that I made about buses was that while TfL may be required as part of its overall environmental duties to deliver an integrated transport policy which is environmentally sustainable as far as possible, a bus may be environmentally damaging as a bus but in replacing 20 cars may contribute to the broader environmental objectives. If people objected to it as a bus service or its route because of those adjectives, that misses the point of the strategic approach.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but we shall need to press the point further. Environmental sustainability, when it is difficult to deliver, is frequently the poor relation. That is why we are not good at delivering it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 146 agreed to
Clause 147 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 148 [Addition or variation of a network service]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 79, line 1leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 266A and the amendments grouped with it are all straightforward and simply amend references to London local authorities in this chapter so that they include the City of London, which had been inadvertently excluded. The amendments put that right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 266B:
Page 79, line 1, at end insert—
("() the holder of the London local service agreement to which the proposal relates,")
The noble Baroness said: The first amendment in this group concerns the need to consult when network services are being changed, varied, and so on. The Bill gives a long list of consultees, followed by the words,
"and any other person whom Transport for London considers it appropriate to consult".
Curiously enough, the only person who does not have to be consulted about the decision or the wish to change a service is the holder of a London local service agreement, to which the proposal relates. That seems to us a little strange.
I shall not move Amendment No. 267A. However, I shall be moving Amendment No. 268ZA, which is correctly placed in the clause. The clause lists a number
530
of subjects on which consultation has to take place. Again, curiously enough, the service level required under the service agreement is one of the items not included. We believe it should be. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 266B is unnecessary. If TfL wishes to vary a service it would have to vary the agreement under which the service was operating. In other words, it would have to involve the operator directly. In the case of an addition to a network there would not be an operator so designated. It would not therefore be workable.
As regards Amendment No. 268ZA, clearly, we would expect TfL and the mayor to consult rather more widely on aspects of bus service provision. Earlier in the day the noble Baroness mentioned the term, "level of service". That has certain attractions but is also potentially ambiguous. It conceivably requires TfL to go out to consultation every time even a minor change in a route or frequency is contemplated. That would be inefficient and unnecessary. Nevertheless we consider it important that the Bill gives a signal about consultation which on the face of the Bill is a minimum requirement. We would expect TfL to go somewhat wider in practice. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment as drafted.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hear what the noble Lord says. However, subsection (3), to which my amendment adds the words, "and the service level", states that it is necessary to consult about,

"(a) the route,

(b) the terminal points,

(c) the points at which passengers may or may not be taken up and set down, and

(d) the place at which, or street by the use of which, vehicles used for the service may turn at a terminal point".

There are therefore many matters, for instance,
"the place at which, or street by the use of which, vehicles used for the service may turn at a terminal point"—
which may be thought to be of less importance than the service level; for example, the frequency, the capacity and the timing—more in the morning or more in the afternoon. Those are matters of intense importance to the users of the service. It seems very strange that "the level of service" is not one of the points on which consultation need take place. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 267 to 268ZA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 268A:
Page 79, line 14, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 268B:
Page 79, line 15, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 268C:
Page 79, line 17, at end insert—
("() Where a place or street mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (3) above is situated in the area of a local authority other than a London authority, Transport for London is also required under subsection (2) above to consult that local authority about the matter specified in that paragraph.")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 268C requires TfL to consult local authorities outside London if a new network service or a variation of an existing one affects a place or street within their areas. Although the Bill makes provision for TfL to consult widely on bus provision, it is sensible to set a minimum requirement for consulting local authorities outside London on network bus services in the light of local highway authority responsibilities. This amendment ensures that local authorities outside London are consulted about new network services or changes to existing network services. We expect TfL routinely to consult local authorities outside London on a range of bus issues, as London Transport already does. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 268D:
Page 79, line 24, at end insert—
("(6) For the purposes of this Chapter a London authority is any London borough council or the Common Council.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 149 [Discontinuance of a network service]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 268E:
Page 79, line 31, at end insert—
("except where Transport for London proposes that a service replacing the London local service in question and equivalent to it will be provided (whether by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries, or pursuant to a London local service agreement).")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 268E provides that if a network service is being discontinued but is being replaced by another which is equivalent to it, TfL does not have to consult on the change. It seems a sensible piece of flexibility. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 268F:
Page 79, line 34, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 269A:
Page 79. line 38, leave out ('local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 269B:
Page 79, line 39, leave out ("local") and insert ("the London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 79, line 40, at end insert ("or any local service which is provided or procured in whole, or in part, by a London borough council or a London health authority")
The noble Lord said: The Bill is silent as to what happens with jointly-run services if TfL were unilaterally to pull out of the arrangement it had made. Potentially such services—for example, for schools and hospitals—become illegal. That is a defect. The amendment protects such services from being criminalised and shut down. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 270 seeks to extend the requirement to consult local authorities on the discontinuance of a network service. As drafted, it would have the effect of requiring TfL to consult any local authority which has within its area local services which are provided or procured, in whole or in part, by a London borough council or a London health authority. This requirement to consult would apply regardless of whether the discontinued route in question was within a local authority's area. So, if a local authority had local bus services run by local authorities or local health authorities within its area, it would be consulted on every proposal to discontinue to network a bus service in London.
Further, it is not clear what is meant by the term "local service". Local and health authorities have powers to provide or secure transport for certain specified groups, such as disabled people, with the exception of services using school buses which can be provided by LEAs. They cannot provide "local bus services" as defined in Clause 144 of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, which I shall obviously have to study in Hansard. However, I suspect that my questions have been answered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 150 [London service permits]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 270A:
Page 80, line 3, leave out ("prepare and adopt") and insert ("consult the Assembly before preparing and adopting")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27OB, 273FA, 273GA to 273GD and 273HA. The first of this group of amendments, which concerns London service permits, seeks to provide that the mayor shall consult the assembly "before preparing and adopting" the guidance document for considering applications for such permits. This is consistent with our continuing argument that this type of activity is not out of line with the assembly's scrutiny role in the terms that we have been discussing. However, I can probably anticipate the Minister's reply and shall not, therefore, spend any particular time on this amendment. The next amendment would provide that the mayor should consult the assembly before revising the guidance, and the same points apply.
One of the more important amendments in the group is Amendment No. 273FA, which relates to appeals against the refusal to issue a London service permit. If the mayor is a member of TfL, we consider that such appeals should be made elsewhere because of the potential conflict of interest. We suggest that these

533
appeals be made to the assembly The next four amendments are consequential. Amendment No. 273HA provides that the mayor shall not be a member of an appeal panel.
The question of conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest, which is as important, is material. Dealing with appeals against the refusal to grant such permits is, I believe one could say, a quasi-judicial activity. For example, local authorities have a licensing role and great care is taken in that respect to deal with the matter with evident and overt propriety. The mayor could be the chair of TfL and although, in this case, he would not be judge and jury, he would be defendant and judge if he were involved in dealing with a dissatisfied applicant. I am aware that an applicant could apply to the courts if he or she felt that the appeal has not been dealt with properly, but that seems to me to be a very cumbersome remedy and an unnecessary one, as the potential for conflict of interest can be dealt with by disqualifying the mayor in the circumstances we propose. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We cannot accept Amendments Nos. 270A and 270B. However, I share the noble Baroness's assessment that consultation and openness in this matter are important. But these amendments call for another layer which I believe it is not necessary to prescribe on the face of the Bill. The assembly already has a general duty by virtue of Clause 49(1) to keep under review the mayor's exercise of statutory functions.
Furthermore, the Committee will see that Clauses 156 and 157 specify in some detail arrangements for appropriate consultation exercises. Through these arrangements, assembly members will have every opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the mayor's policy in these areas. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw these amendments.
Nor can we accept Amendments Nos. 273FA, 273GA, 273GB, 273GC. 273GD and 273HA. These amendments would require appeals to be made to the assembly in the event that the mayor was a member of TfL. There is no reason to suppose that the mayor, if he or she were a member of TfL, would treat appeals any differently. The mayor will not have the time, nor we suspect the inclination, to become involved in the day to day decisions of TfL. Bus services operated under London service permits will represent only a small fraction of his overall responsibilities.
The mayor will be able to refer appeals to an independent appeal panel for consideration and recommendation. Assembly members, GLA staff, TfL staff and members—and due to our Amendment No. 273J, TfL subsidiary directors and staff—will all be disqualified from sitting on that panel. Appellants can have confidence that their appeals will be heard in an impartial and unbiased way.
We are also bringing forward Amendments Nos. 273D, 273E, 273F, 273G and 277A to allow permit holders to appeal against TfL's decisions to attach conditions to permits or to revoke or suspend
534
permits. I hope therefore that I have assured the Committee that the Government believe it is important that the legitimate interests of permit holders should be safeguarded and that we have brought amendments to achieve this. However, the noble Baroness's Amendments Nos. 273FA, 273GA, 273GB, 273GC, 273GD—it begins to sound like the football results!—and 273HA are disproportionate to the issue and unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness speaks as if the appointment of the independent panel is automatic. However, as I read Clause 152, the mayor has the power to entertain an appeal himself or herself and the reference to the panel would be a discretionary matter. He does not have to refer to the panel. My noble friend is thinking of the circumstances in which the mayor himself or herself deals with the appeal and there is not an independent panel appointed for the purpose.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is a discretionary power but we have no reason to believe that it could or would be the subject of such detailed consideration by the mayor as the noble Lord fears.
Lord Avebury: In that case why does not Clause 152 state that the mayor shall,
"refer the matter to a panel of persons appointed by him for the purposes of hearing such an appeal"?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Presumably he could do so in other circumstances apart from that. The noble Lord is obviously not satisfied with the answer I have given and I shall take the opportunity to write to him if he remains concerned about this matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I remain concerned, too, I regret to say. I think the amendments are disproportionate only in the numbering that has been allocated to them.
I have spoken before about the need for trust between the different spheres of government. This is an occasion where trust is becoming complacency. That is not directed at the noble Baroness, as I am sure she will understand. The need for complete impartiality is extremely important at every level of government. I know that the Government will agree with that.
Perhaps I can put the point in a different way. Will the Government consider providing for this situation in the guidance on ethical standards? Can we have an assurance not only that the mayor has an opportunity to take the steps which the noble Baroness explained but that there will be something more; that there will be guidance to the mayor about how to behave in such circumstances?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We will give very careful consideration to that. Of course, extensive provisions are made in Clauses 156 and 157 for consultation on the guidance document. For example, the mayor will be required to publish the document and revisions to it and to put notices in newspapers where appropriate. The assembly therefore will have every

535
opportunity to comment. It seems inconceivable that the assembly will not take that opportunity. I understand the depth of concern being expressed by noble Lords and I undertake to give the matter consideration, without any commitment to the points raised.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 270B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 271 and 272 not moved.]
Clause 150 agreed to.
Clause 151 [Grant of London service permits].
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 272A:
Page 80, line 25, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273A:
Page 80, line 32, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 273AA:
Page 80, line 32, after ("affected") insert (", the London Transport Users' Committee")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment concerns Clause 151, which deals with the grant of London service permits. The clause states that a large number of people are to be consulted before Transport for London grants the service permit. Those people include the local authorities which are affected, the commissioner or commissioners of police who are affected, the London Transport Users Committee and any other person and so on.
However, when Transport for London grants the permit most of the consultees are informed, except for the London Transport Users' Committee. Our amendment simply adds the name of the London Transport Users' Committee to the list of those who have to be informed when the grant is given. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We do not feel able to accept the amendment. Notice of granting permits is not a mirror image of the consultation process. When permits are granted it is important that local authorities and the police, who may be affected by the traffic implications, are made aware of the situation. We are confident that the appropriate information will be disseminated to other interested parties such as LTUC. However, as with all the points that were raised, we are prepared to give consideration to the noble Baroness's strength of feeling about the issue. With that commitment, we will consider the matter further if she is prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am grateful for the Minister's response. The Committee will come
536
presently to the clauses that deal with London Transport. It is intended to be an important player on behalf of the users of transport in London—and particularly public transport in London. That is one of the issues that we will discuss. That is why I moved the amendment, but in light of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273B:
Page 80, line 34, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273C:
Page 80, line 35, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 152 [Appeals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273D:
Page 81, line 2, leave out ("refusal") and insert ("decision to do so")
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 273E to 273F, Amendment No. 273G and Amendment No. 277A. These amendments are intended to allow further appeals by London service permit holders, as trailed by my noble friend. As currently drafted, the Bill allows applicants for London service permits whose applications have been refused to appeal against the decision. The appeal provisions were discussed in another place, and, after reflecting upon those discussions, we have concluded that it is appropriate to provide further safeguards.
The amendments will allow holders of London service permits also to appeal against TfL's decision to attach conditions to a permit or to revoke or suspend a permit. Appeals must be made within 28 days of the notice of that decision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 273E and 273F:
Page 81, line 5, leave out ("against the refusal")
Page 81, line 5, at end insert ("against the decision in relation to which the notice was issued")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 273FA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273G:
Page 81, line 5, at end insert—

("(2A) Where Transport for London—

(a) attaches any condition to a London service permit, or alters or removes any condition so attached; or

(b) revokes or suspends a London service permit,
it must issue a notice to the holder of the permit stating the reasons for the decision to do so.

(2B) A holder of a London service permit to whom a notice has been issued under subsection (2A) above may appeal to the Mayor against the decision in relation to which the notice was issued.

537

(2C) An appeal under this section against a decision of Transport for London must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of issue of the notice relating to the decision.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 273GA to 273GD not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273H:
Page 81, line 11, at end insert—
("(3A) The Mayor may charge a person making an appeal under this section such reasonable fee as the Mayor considers appropriate having regard to any expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the Mayor in respect of the appeal.")
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 274A. These amendments allow the mayor to charge a reasonable fee to anyone making an appeal. Amendment No. 274B allows the appeal panel to recommend that the fee is repaid in full or in part. These appeal provisions were discussed in another place and, after reflecting on those discussions, we have concluded that it is appropriate to provide further safeguards.
The amendments allow the mayor to charge a fee to anyone making an appeal. However, the fee must be reasonable to avoid its being set at a level that would act as a deterrent to potential appellants. Furthermore, the independent appeal panel can recommend that a fee be repaid in full or in part. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 273HA not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273J:
Page 81, line 16, at end insert (", or
() a director of a subsidiary of Transport for London or a member of staff of such a subsidiary.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment prevents a director of a TfL subsidiary or a member of staff of a TfL subsidiary from sitting on the independent appeal panel. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 81, line 16, at end insert (", or
(d) any officer or employee or member of a company having business with the Authority or with Transport for London, or any company in which Transport for London has an interest, which generates revenue in any twelve month period (measured according to generally accepted principles of accounting) in excess of £10,000, or any officer or employee of any company under the control of such a company or which is controlled by a company which also controls such a company")
The noble Lord said: This amendment adds another person to the list of people who should be disqualified. The Minister has just added one more category. I should like to add people who have a financial interest in a company having business with the authority or with Transport for London. They might be working for a company competing with the company that is appealing. Therefore, I do not think that they should be allowed to sit on the appeal panel. I have set a figure of £10,000. That is not necessarily the right figure. I am perfectly
538
open to suggestions as to what the right figure might be. The Bill sets out who cannot sit on the appeal panel. I just wonder who will sit on the appeal panel. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that I cannot accept Amendment No. 274. Clause 152 deals with arrangements for an appeal to the mayor in the event of TfL refusing to grant a permit. The mayor may appoint a panel to consider the appeal and to make recommendations.
Amendment No. 274 seeks to disqualify from being appointed members of such a panel the officers and employees of companies which have some commercial involvement with TfL. We believe that that is unnecessarily restrictive and quite disproportionate to the issue. It would also be extremely difficult to enforce as it would be almost impossible to determine at any given time who is disqualified from sitting as a panel member.
However, we can see the value of adding the subsidiaries of TfL to the list of organisations in Clause 152(4)(c) whose staff and members are excluded from membership of the appeal panel. We are bringing forward an amendment, Amendment No. 273J, to achieve that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: I can see that the amendment as drafted is an extremely wide one, but it occurs to me that one could go part of the way towards meeting it by reference to Clause 136(4), which deals with arrangements that may be entered into by Transport for London with a contractor to carry on activities which Transport for London has not the power to do. Those are specific agreements that are made by Transport for London with companies which will be known. It does not extend as far as the noble Lord's amendment, which appears to cover anyone who does business with Transport for London. That set of companies would be easily definable and identifiable. I suggest that the directors of those companies who might well have an interest in the subject matter of the appeal should be disqualified from sitting on the panel.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his suggestion. I still think that there is a point in this amendment. I may not have the drafting right—I probably have not—but there is a point in that there could be conflict of interest. The noble Baroness has not answered my question about who will be on the appeal panel. We know who cannot be on the appeal panel. I want to know who can be on it. The noble Baroness mentioned Amendment No. 273J. We have just passed that amendment so that is in the Bill. That is helpful to my amendment as it goes some of the way towards satisfying me. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to comment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise to the noble Lord for my reference to an amendment as if it were to be debated when it had already been passed.

539
It was good to receive his thanks for "things received" as opposed to "things to come". He did raise the issue of independent experts. Those would be independent people with relevant experience, but not anyone who might be perceived as biased or people with certain posts in the GLA, as already referred to in the Bill. I hope that that answers the point. I note the strength with which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the case in support, at least in part, of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall consider what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 274A and 274B:
Page 81, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("requests") in line 21 and insert ("making the appeal")
Page 81, line 25, at end insert—
("() A recommendation under subsection (7) above may include a recommendation that Transport for London pay to the person who made the appeal a sum equivalent to all or part of any fee paid to the Mayor by virtue of subsection (3A) above.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 274C:
Transpose Clause 152 to after Clause 155
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 276B and 277H. The first two amendments are simply editorial changes. They change the position of the two clauses within the chapter. Amendment No. 277H adds a definition of "the guidance document" to Clause 160, the interpretation clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 153 [Conditions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 81, line 30, at end insert ("provided that no condition shall be operated if it contains or requires features which are neither essential nor reasonably incidental to the purpose of providing a safe, economic and efficient bus service for passengers")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 276 and 277. All these amendments seek to prevent Transport for London imposing unnecessary and possibly biased conditions as to who can, or cannot, provide a service. The amendment states that no condition shall be operated,
"if it contains or requires features which are neither essential nor reasonably incidental to the purpose of providing a safe, economic and efficient bus service for passengers".
I claim that those are the main necessities in the provision of a service. These amendments would prevent operators being driven out for non-transport reasons, whatever they might be. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that my
540
amendments are unnecessary and that no such person would be prevented from operating a service. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 153 carries forward into current legislation certain provisions which are made for attaching conditions to London local service licences. It applies equivalent conditions to London service permits. TfL will be able to attach such conditions only for reasonable purposes.
Conditions may refer to the suitability of the route, the location of stopping places, and may also be used to promote the safety and convenience of the public, including persons with mobility problems.
Amendment No. 277, in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 275 and 276, seeks to limit the imposition of such conditions, with the result that TfL will no longer be able to take account of matters such as traffic and parking conditions in determining whether to grant a permit. That could compromise the implementation of the mayor's transport strategy and thus represents an approach to which we cannot agree.
However, the Government have brought forward Amendment No. 273G, which will give permit holders a right of appeal against the imposition of conditions by TfL and a right of appeal against the revocation or suspension of their permit for the contravention of those conditions. That should provide appropriate safeguards against the imposition of such unreasonable conditions as the noble Lord rightly referred to. I hope that he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. From what she said, my Amendment No. 277 goes a little further than I had intended. The detail of Amendment No. 273G had not caught my attention in the way in which the noble Baroness would have wished. I believe it goes some way towards answering my apprehensions. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 275A:
Page 81, line 41, at end insert ("other than a requirement to provide concessionary fares to particular groups of people")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 275A amends subsection (3) of Clause 153. The subsection says:
"No condition as to fares shall be attached…to a London service permit".
Our amendment would permit exceptions to that if the condition was a requirement to provide concessionary fares.
This matter was debated in another place. The Minister argued that the services we are talking about would be commercial services and that operators should decide whether to offer concessionary fares. That was one line of discussion. On the other hand, the boroughs

541
would have powers to make arrangements for concessionary fares in regard to the services.
It seems rather odd to say that the boroughs can make arrangements with the permit holders who run commercial services, which is what happens all the time in the ordinary granting of contracts with bus providers, but that TfL cannot do so. Can the Minister explain this rather odd situation? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 275A gives the mayor the power to require the operators of permit services to provide concessionary fares. As those ate commercial services, it would be wrong to allow TIL to attach fares conditions of any sort, including concessionary fares. L will be for the operators of those services to decide whether or not to offer travel concessions to particular groups of people.
If, on the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, is thinking that those services should be incorporated in the London concessionary fares scheme, I should explain that the London boroughs, whose scheme it is, will have the power to make arrangements with permit operators to provide travel concessions if they so wish. As they pay for the scheme, it is right that they, and not the mayor, should make that decision.
I hope, and I am sure from my knowledge of her judgement that it will be the case, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am happy with the Minister's explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 276 not moved.]
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clause 154 [Duration]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 276A:
Page 82, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 25 and insert ("an application has been made for the grant of a new London service permit in substitution for it and—

(a) Transport for London has neither granted nor refused to grant the London service permit applied for,

(b) Transport for London has refused to grant the London service permit applied for but an appeal against the refusal has been made under section 152 above and not disposed of, or

(c) Transport for London has granted the London service permit applied for but an appeal against a decision to attach a condition to the permit has been made under section 152 above and not disposed of, subsection (2A) below shall apply.

(2A) Where this subsection applies, the existing London service permit shall continue in force—

(a) in a case falling within subsection (2)(a) above, until Transport for London grants or refuses to grant the London service permit applied for, or

(b) in a case falling within subsection (2)(b) or (c) above, until the appeal has been disposed of.

542
(2B) Where subsection (2A)(a) above applies, if Transport for London—

(a) refuses to grant the London service permit applied for, or

(b) grants the London service permit applied for but at the time of the grant attaches any condition to the permit, the existing London service permit shall continue in force until any appeal which is made under section 152 above against the decision in question has been disposed of.

(3) This section")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 276A deals with London service permits and allows services to continue under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are: if a permit holder makes an application to renew a permit for a service which is about to expire, the service can continue until the application has been disposed of; or if a permit holder appeals against a decision by TfL to impose conditions on a permit or to revoke or suspend a permit, the service in question can continue until the appeal is disposed of. The amendment thus safeguards the commercial interests of a permit holder because he or she can continue to operate in the circumstances described until matters are resolved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 276B:
Transpose Clause 154 to after Clause 155
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 155 [Revocation]
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 277A and 277B:
Page 82, line 33, after ("be") insert ("revoked or")
Page 82, line 36, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 155, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 156 [Consultation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment 277C:
Page 83, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) each London authority,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 156, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 157 [Publication]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 277D:
Page 83, line 22, leave out from ("document") to end of line 24
The noble Lord said: The clauses require the mayor to do two things: he or she must make the guidance document and any revisions to it available for inspection free of charge for an appropriate period; and he or she must also supply on request a copy of the guidance document and any revisions to it for a reasonable fee for an appropriate period. That appropriate period is defined as six years from the publication of the document or any revisions of it. The relevant change to the drafting of the original clause is the reference to the appropriate period and its definition. That ensures that

543
anyone who is interested in seeing or obtaining a copy of the guidance document or any revisions to it will be able to do so up to six years from the date of publication. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment Nos. 277E to 277G:
Page 83, line 26, leave out from ("revised") to end of line 27
Page 83, line 27, at end insert—
("() In this Act, references to the guidance document include, except where the context otherwise requires, a reference to the guidance document as revised.")
Page 83, line 31, at end insert—
("() A copy of the guidance document shall be kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.
() A copy of the guidance document, or any part of it, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.
() In this section "the appropriate period" in the case of the guidance document is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of that document pursuant to this section.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 157, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 158 and 159 agreed to.
Clause 160 [Interpretation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment Nos. 277H and 277J:
Page 84, line 22, at end insert—
(""the guidance document" shall be construed in accordance with section 150(2) above,")
Page 84, line 22, at end insert—
("London authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 148(6) above,")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 160, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 161 [Power of Authority to give guidance to the Franchising Director]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 277JA:
Page 85, line 3, after ("may") insert (", after consultation with the London Transport Users' Committee,")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would require the authority to consult the London Transport Users Committee before it gave guidance to the franchising director. If the Government amendments that are coming up are passed, as I have no doubt that they will be, we shall have directions to the franchising director rather than merely guidance. That makes it even more important that the LTUC should be consulted. If there is no requirement it appears that the onus is always on the LTUC to make its concerns known.
In another place the Minister argued that this amendment was unnecessary as the LTUC had the opportunity to present its concerns to the mayor. But when we begin to consider railways and the relationship
544
between the authority and franchising director we believe that this very important watchdog should be brought in. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment would require the mayor to consult the LTUC before issuing guidance to the franchising director. The LTUC is the new representative body for transport users that we intend to establish under this Bill. We shall debate it later. We want the LTUC to play an active role in representing the interests of transport users, and that is why it will be able to make recommendations to the assembly, the mayor and Transport for London about the exercise of their respective functions. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to require the mayor to consult the users' committee before issuing guidance to the franchising director. It will be open to the mayor to do so if he or she wishes, but we believe that that should be a matter of good practice rather than a heavy-handed legal requirement.
In addition, to impose a requirement on the mayor to consult the LTUC would prevent the mayor from taking swift action when necessary if he or she wished to issue urgent guidance to the franchising director. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am a little disappointed by the Minister's reply. The Bill makes the very broad-brush statement that,
"The Authority may give guidance"—
it is to be an instruction—
"to the Franchising Director in relation to the provision of railway services in Greater London".
I would have thought that, when the authority was thinking about what guidance to give, the most important group of people to be consulted would be representatives of the users of that transport system. I understand from the Minister's reply that she is not prepared to concede the strength of my argument. For the time being, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, we may need to return to this matter later, possibly by amending the provisions that create the London Transport Users' Committee or in some other way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 277K:
Page 85, line 3, after ("give") insert ("instructions or")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 277K, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 277L to 277T, 278A, 279U to 279X and 279VA to 279ZA. I shall need to deal with this group of amendments in a little more detail. The amendments give effect to a very important part of the Bill and the undertaking given in the other place earlier in the passage of the Bill by my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London. She then committed the Government to bringing forward measures more fully to define the relationship between the mayor and the

545
franchising director, which we anticipate will eventually be between the mayor and the proposed strategic rail authority.
The Committee will be aware that we are committed to giving the mayor a strong voice in rail, but that the mayor's powers should not detract from the wider strategic responsibilities of the franchising director and the strategic rail authority. We have taken careful note of the numerous points made on this issue and believe that the amendments that we have tabled will help to create the right framework.
Amendment No. 279XA places the franchising director under a duly to consult the mayor over proposed changes to service levels and fares on rail services. It is a very similar power to the franchising director's existing duty under Section 31A of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which requires him to consult London Regional Transport. However, the new clause expands that duty so that the franchising director must consult the mayor about fares and services to, from and within London, rather than services wholly within London. The widening of the franchising director's duty reflects the fact that the mayor has a general transport duty under Clause 123 in respect of transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London.
Amendment 277S gives clarification of the position where there is a conflict between the mayor's instructions and guidance to the franchising director and those issued by the Secretary of State. Under these amendments, the franchising director will have to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance unless to do so will "prevent or seriously hinder him" complying with the Secretary of State's guidance. This is intended to more precisely ensure that whilst the mayor should, rightly, be able to influence the operation of London rail services, his instructions and guidance should not undermine or be inconsistent with national policy objectives as set out in the Secretary of State's instructions and guidance. The amendment preserves that principle but gives the mayor more flexibility than was available to him or her under the original wording.
The amendment allows the mayor's instructions and guidance to differ from the Secretary of State's in some respects. In some circumstances, the franchising director would have to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance even if it conflicted with the Secretary of State's, as long as implementation did not "prevent or seriously hinder" the implementation of the Secretary of State's instructions and guidance. For example, the mayor's instructions and guidance might require the franchising director to ensure that certain stations were staffed at all times of the day, whereas the Secretary of State's instructions and guidance might specify less stringent minimum requirements. Although, on the face of it, the two sets of instructions and guidance would conflict, implementing the mayor's instructions would not prevent or seriously hinder compliance with the Secretary of State's objectives.
Amendments Nos. 277K to 277M, 277P to 277R, 277T, 278A, 279UA and 279VA allow the mayor to issue "instructions" as well as "guidance" to the
546
franchising director. This is a technical amendment designed to harmonise the wording in the Bill with that of the Railways Act 1993.
Amendment No. 277N provides that the franchising director is to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance "in the manner best calculated to give effect to the instructions and guidance", rather than simply to implement them. Again, this reflects the similar wording in the Railways Act 1993.
Amendment No. 279YA restricts TfL's ability to enter into direct agreements with franchised train operators. The effect is that any instructions in respect of additional railway services will have to be included in the mayor's instructions and guidance to the franchising director. The franchising director will then procure the services on behalf of the mayor. The franchising director will only be able to refuse the mayor's requests if the constraints in subsection (5) are triggered.
We have taken this approach on additional services in acknowledgement of the fact that London's rail network is uniquely complex and very heavily used. The franchising director is best placed to make decisions about the allocation of scarce track capacity and to advise the mayor on how his or her requirements for additional services can best be met; otherwise there is a risk that additional services procured on an ad hoc basis could result in a sub-optimal use of the network. The franchising director, and eventually the SRA, will be able to take a strategic view on the best way of providing those services so as to ensure best use of the scarce capacity, and advise the mayor accordingly.
However, the clause does allow TfL to enter into indirect agreements with train operators, where these are through the franchising director or through a London local authority. The local authority exception is designed to allow for local agreements covering transport facilities provided jointly by TfL, the local authority, and a train operator.
Amendment No. 279ZA places the Secretary of State under a duty to consult the mayor if the Secretary of State proposes to vary the amount of penalty fares payable on heavy rail services.
I should mention here that, in addition to those tabled, there is one other measure which my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London announced and which is not included here. It relates to a power for the mayor to bring forward proposals for new investment in the rail infrastructure by promoting local Bills in Parliament and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
We intend to bring forward such proposals. We are working on them now, and we shall bring them forward at a later stage. The amendments I propose give the mayor a strong voice in rail, as promised in the White Paper, and strike the right balance between the mayor's powers and the wider strategic transport interest.
Baroness Hamwee: We welcome the amendments. They go a long way to meet points made by my honourable friends in another place, in particular those dealing with instructions, and so on. We had proposed that "guidance" be changed to "direction". However, we

547
appreciate that the Government have moved. We were also concerned about the matter which is now reflected in Amendment No. 279XA.
Perhaps the Minister can help me. We welcome the strengthening of the provisions. I listened to his explanation which I shall read carefully. Nevertheless, the franchising director still does not have to take any notice in view of the provisions of Clause 161(6) which is not amended by this group of amendments. The subsection states:
"If the Franchising Director decides not to implement any guidance"
—it may not be termed that now—
"whether generally or in a particular case, he shall give the Authority notification of the decision and his reasons for it".
Can the Minister confirm that there is still a block on the implementation of the authority's instructions?
Lord Whitty: Clause 161 makes clear that the franchising director has to consider that the mayor's instructions would cause adverse impact on the rest of the rail network. He would have to act reasonably. But it is for the franchising director to decide whether there would be an adverse impact on the remainder of the network.
Baroness Hamwee: That is Clause 161(5). If the Minister says that Clause 161(6) has to be read in the light of Clause 161(5) then it would be useful to have confirmation. I appreciate that it is somewhat late. I also appreciate the importance of the clause, so I would not press the Minister to give an answer if he feels he needs some time to consider it. I should welcome clarification.
Lord Whitty: I may need to clarify the point in writing. However, my reading of the Bill is that Clause 161(6) refers to the franchising director deciding not to implement under the terms of the immediately preceding clause. If there is anything different to communicate, I shall let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. It is an important point. If the Minister revises his view, we should find an opportunity to read that on to the record. This relationship is important.
Lord Whitty: I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 277KA:
Page 85, line 4, after ("provision") insert (", addition and variation")
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 277KB, 277TA and 278B. The amendment provides that in connection with the instructions given with regard to the provision of railway services Clause 161 shall apply also to the addition and variation of any railway services and to services that operate and serve stations predominantly within the Greater London area but also those extending for up to 15 miles outside it and to Stansted and Luton airports, given the importance of those two London
548
airports to London and the operation of transport services between them and London. The other two London airports are not referred to specifically because they are within the 15 mile radius.
Amendment No. 277TA takes us back to Clause 161(5) which the Minister and I have just been discussing. The franchising director is not to give effect to instructions if he believes, among other matters, that implementing them will have an adverse effect on the provision of services or railway passengers outside Greater London.
We are proposing that he should only be able to exercise his power under this provision if implementation would have a significant—that is the new term—adverse effect. For example, if the service were to stop at an extra station adding perhaps another two minutes onto a passenger's journey, we do not believe that the franchising director should be able to use his power to intervene. We also believe that the term could usefully be included in Clause 161(5)(c) under which he can refuse to give effect to instructions if he believes they will increase the amount of payments to which this subsection refers. We propose that this should only be the case if they were to increase insignificantly.
We have taken note of the Minister's comments in another place. My recollection is that she noted the use of the term "significant" when my honourable friends raised issues around these points. I hope that the Minister will either be able to accept these words or something like them, or assure us that they are implicit in any event within the wording of the section. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: In the light of what we have passed already, these amendments are unnecessary or could unbalance the relationship which we are trying to achieve by the former batch of amendments. Amendment No. 277KA indicates that the mayor can issue guidance to the franchising director in respect of the addition and variation of railway services in London as well as the provision. The addition is unnecessary because the term "provision" includes "addition or variation". If the noble Baroness is interested, I can give her precedent for that interpretation in transport legislation.
Amendment No. 277KB extends the area in respect of which the mayor can give guidance to the franchising directors, so that would also cover services up to 15 miles outside and to Stansted and Luton Airports. Clause 161 already provides for the mayor to issue guidance which affects services outside London as long as the guidance does not fall foul of the constraints in subsection (5) of the clause.
One of the constraints requires that the franchising director will not implement the mayor's guidance if that would have an adverse impact on rail services outside London. Amendment No. 277TA would require the adverse impact to be "significant" in order for the franchising director not to implement it.
It may be helpful if I set out how a franchising director will decide whether the mayor's guidance will have adverse impact; and it is important to differentiate here between the mayor's strategy and his or her guidance to the franchising director. Where the mayor's strategy, which of course covers all major transport, is inconsistent

549
with the national policy in a way which is detrimental to any area outside Greater London, then the Secretary of State will have a reserve power. The franchising director is not involved.
Turning to subsection (5), there has been some debate to which the noble Baroness referred as to how the term "adverse impact" should be defined. It was suggested that if the mayor were to use the guidance it would be open to the franchising director to regard an additional stop between Waterloo and Basingstoke as having an adverse impact.
It might or it might not. Clause 161 makes clear that it is for the franchising director to decide what constitutes an adverse impact, but he is under an obligation to take a reasonable approach. If the impact were trivial he would not be taking a reasonable approach. However, it is conceivable that an additional stop could have an adverse effect on other services and if we inserted an undefined term, "significant", it could reduce the flexibility of the franchising director. We do not regard that as particularly helpful.
Amendment No. 278B would mean that the franchising director could refuse to implement the mayor's directions only if to do so would significantly increase the payments from his budget to franchise operators. I fear that the noble Baroness may have misunderstood the purpose of subsection (5)(c). We made clear in the White Paper that the mayor will have to pay for any additional rail services or facilities he or she secures through guidance to the franchising director. Subsection (5)(c) is designed to achieve that. It may be that there are cases where the effect on the franchising director's budget is so small that it can be disregarded. Again, we believe it right that the franchising director should have that flexibility. The amendment would mean that taxpayers outside London were footing the bill for London rail services ordered by the mayor. I am sure that that was not the intention of the amendment. I hope that in the light of those concerns the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Hantwee: I prefer an undefined "significantly" to an unstated "reasonably". The Minister's answer deserves reading properly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 277KB not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 277L to 277T:
Page 85, line 5, after ("giving") insert ("instructions or")
Page 85, line 6, after ("the") insert ("instructions or")
Page 85, line 8, leave out ("so as") and insert ("in the manner best calculated")
Page 85, line 9, after ("any") insert ("instructions or")
Page 85, line 11, after ("any") insert ("instructions or")
Page 85, line 12, at end insert ("implementing the instructions or guidance will")
Page 85, line 13, leave out ("the guidance conflicts") and insert ("prevent or seriously hinder him from complying")
Page 85, line 16, leave out ("implementing the guidance will")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 277TA not moved.]
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 277U:
Page 85, line 17, after ("passengers") insert ("and freight")
The noble Lord said: As we debated earlier, the amendment is concerned with the franchising director failing to give effect to instructions or guidance from the authority if he believes that it may have an adverse effect on passenger train services outside Greater London.
The franchising director will be busy because he also has a duty to promote rail freight. It would be unreasonable if implementing the guidelines had an adverse effect on rail freight as well as on rail passengers. The amendment would confine the adverse effect to outside Greater London. On reflection, there should be separate provision applying to outside and within Greater London. Freight must come into Greater London bringing concreting aggregates. If that were prevented because an extra passenger train had been instructed by the authority, all the aggregate would come in by road, which would be undesirable.
The drafting of the amendment may not be correct, but I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider whether there should be a reference to freight in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My noble friend is quite right to raise the issue of freight, although I hope he will understand that we cannot accept his amendment. At present, the statutory responsibilities of the franchising director are concerned with the provision of passenger rail services and do not extend to freight. While it is true that the objectives, instructions and guidance issued by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister to the franchising director require him to take account of the effect on freight services of his other functions, it would not be appropriate to widen the franchising director's statutory responsibilities by way of the amendment. It would be a rather indirect and bizarre way to do it. We will have the opportunity to address this point in due course when we consider the legislation which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister intends to present which will formally establish the strategic rail authority, whose responsibilities will include rail freight. In the meantime, I should be grateful if my noble friend could withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I shall read it carefully and consider it. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 85, line 18, after ("London") insert ("and he can demonstrate that the benefit for railway passengers travelling inside or through Greater London is less than such adverse effect")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 279. These are two probing amendments which may in part have been answered already by what the Minister said in re-drafting his Bill, and also in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on an earlier amendment.
As drafted, the Bill obliges the franchising director to ignore the GLA where there is any adverse effect outside London. I wonder whether the Government really mean that. These amendments would allow for the GLA requirement to go ahead where there is an overall net benefit to Londoners. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can explain what appears to me to be an inconsistency in the Bill. It also puts the onus of proof on the franchising director and strengthens the position of the GLA. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These two amendments would place an express duty on the franchising director to demonstrate why he should not, in certain circumstances, implement the mayor's guidance in respect of rail services. Amendment No. 278 would place an express duty on the franchising director to demonstrate that implementing the mayor's guidance would have an adverse impact outside London greater than the benefit to passengers travelling within or through London.
Clause 161(6) already requires the franchising director to notify the mayor if he decides not to implement guidance and to give his reasons. It would be open to the mayor to seek a judicial review of the decision if he thinks it unlawful, but we think it much more likely that instead of rejecting the mayor's guidance out of hand, the franchising director will want to work with the mayor and with TfL to work out how the guidance can be framed so that it reflects the mayor's requirements within the constraints imposed by the Bill. The duty of co-operation is imposed on the franchising director and on TfL by Clause 137.
Moreover, the franchising director's decisions on whether implementing the guidance will have an adverse impact outside London will inevitably involve making judgments, or, if so trivial, dismissing it as de minimis. The amendments would remove that flexibility. We do not believe that it would be helpful to either the franchising director or the mayor to be so rigidly prescriptive on how the franchising director should advise the mayor on how his or her requirements can best be catered for.
Amendment No. 279 would place an express duty on the franchising director to demonstrate that the benefits for railway passengers travelling inside or through Greater London and implementing the mayor's guidance do not justify increased budget payments to train operators from the franchising director's budgets.
I fear that the amendment may be based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of Clause 161(5)(c). The purpose of that provision is to give effect to the commitment in the White Paper that it is to be the mayor and not the franchising director who meets any net costs incurred by train operating companies as a result of the implementation by the franchising director of the mayor's guidance. Again, the franchising director will no doubt advise the mayor as to the most cost-effective
552
way in which his or her requirements can be made. I hope with that explanation that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I shall read carefully what has been said. I suspect that he meets the points that I made in my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 278A:
Page 85, line 19, leave out ("implementing the guidance will")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 278B and 279 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 279UA, 279VA and 279WA:
Page 85, line 22, after ("any") insert ("instructions or")
Page 85, line 25, after ("which") insert ("instructions or")
Page 85, line 26, leave out ("5(1)") and insert ("5(1)(a)")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 161, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 279XA:
After Clause 161, insert the following new clause—
FRANCHISING DIRECTOR TO CONSULT MAYOR AS TO FARES, SERVICES ETC
(" .—(1) The Franchising Director shall from time to time consult the Mayor as to—

(a) the general level and structure of the fares to be charged for the carriage of passengers by railway on services to which this section applies; and

(b) the general level of the provision to be made for such services.

(2) The services to which this section applies are services to, from or within Greater London—

(a) which are, or are to be, provided under franchise agreements: or

(b) whose provision the Franchising Director is under a duty to secure, by virtue of section 30, 37 or 38 of the Railways Act 1993 (which relate to the failure to secure a subsequent franchise agreement and the proposed discontinuance of services).")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 162 and 163 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 279YA:
After Clause 163, insert the following new clause—
TRANSPORT FOR LONDON: CONTRACTS REQUIRING PASSENGER LICENCES
(" .—(1) Transport for London may not by virtue of any provision of this Act or any other enactment enter into or carry out any agreement with respect to the provision or retention, or financing, of public passenger transport services if the agreement—

(a) is one which involves the holding of a passenger licence: and

(b) is not an excepted agreement.

(2) An agreement "involves the holding of a passenger licence" for the purposes of this section if it involves the doing by any person, whether or not a party to the agreement, of anything which, by virtue of section 6 of the Railways Act 1993 (prohibition on unauthorised operators of railway assets), that person may not do without the authorisation of a passenger licence.
(3) An agreement is an "excepted agreement" for the purposes of this section if it is—

(a) an agreement with the Franchising Director; or

(b) an agreement under section (Provision of extra passenger transport services and facilities) above, other than one falling within subsection (4) below.

(4) An agreement falls within this subsection if, in pursuance of the agreement. Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London is to enter into a further agreement which involves the holding of a passenger licence.
(5) Expressions used in this section and in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in this section as in that Part.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 164 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 279YAZA:
After Clause 164, insert the following new clause—
ARRANGEMENTS WITH FRANCHISE OPERATORS
(" .—(1) Without prejudice to their general duty under section 123 of this Act, it shall be the special duty of Transport for London—

(a) to review as soon as may be, and subsequently keep under review, the railway passenger services provided by franchise operators for meeting the needs of persons travelling between places in London or between places in London and places outside that area but within fifteen miles from the GLA boundary; and

(b) to enter into such agreements with franchise operators and the Franchising Director as the Mayor may approve for securing that the franchise operators and the Franchising Director provide such railway passenger services as the Mayor decides to be necessary to ensure that such services make a proper contribution towards the provision for London of such a system of transport as is referred to in section 123(1) of this Act.

(2) The franchise operators and Franchising Director shall furnish Transport for London with any information which Transport for London may reasonably require for the purposes of the discharge of its functions under subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Any agreement under this section may include provision for the making of payments by Transport for London to franchise operators in respect of the railway passenger services provided by franchise operators in pursuance of the agreement.
(4) Before entering any agreement under this section, Transport for London shall send a copy of the proposed agreement to the Minister; but a failure to comply with this subsection shall not affect the validity of the agreement.
(5) If any dispute arises between Transport for London, the Franchising Director and the franchise operators in connection with the provision of subsections (1) or (2) of this section, any of them may require the dispute to be referred to the Minister for determination, and any agreement under the said subsection (1) may include provision for any dispute in connection with the agreement to be so referred, and where any dispute is referred to the Minister under or by virtue of this subsection, the Minister may give such directions to Transport for London, the Franchising Director and the franchise operators with respect to the dispute as he thinks fit.
(6) The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury and in any particular case he considers it proper to do so, make grants to Transport for London towards any expenditure incurred by Transport for London by reason of any agreement entered into under subsection (1)(b) of this section.")
The noble Baroness said: We tabled this amendment in the form of a new clause which gives a specific duty to Transport for London. I am bound to say that I did not grasp every word said by the Ministers in the preceding hour and it may be that everything we are asking for is in some way subsumed in what they have
554
already done. I apologise if that is the case, but I am sure they will understand that it is not always easy to grasp the relationship of one provision with another.
The context of this amendment is the enormous importance of rail transport in London and therefore its importance to the authority and to Transport for London—the active part of the delegated body for transport matters. The clause requires Transport for London to keep under review passenger rail services in London and 15 miles around London. It also enables Transport for London to enter into agreements with franchise operators and the franchising director, with the approval of the mayor, for securing railway services.
The agreements that are made to secure such services can involve provision for the making of payments by Transport for London to franchise operators, and the Minister may,
"with the approval of the Treasury and in any particular case he considers it proper to do so, make grants to Transport for London towards any expenditure incurred".
There are some further elements to the amendment. For instance,
"The franchise operators and Franchising Director shall furnish Transport for London with any information which Transport for London may reasonably require … If any dispute arises between Transport for London, the Franchising Director and the franchise operators",
anyone can refer that dispute to the Minister and it will be so referred.
I believe that the objectives of this amendment are very clear. They are to give TfL a direct influence and power to intervene in the provision of rail services in London and in the area immediately adjacent. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I, too, hope that I will be able to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that this amendment is unnecessary because these issues are already provided for in the Bill. Subsection (1)(a) of the amendment places a special duty on TfL to review the operation of franchise passenger rail services in London and, as the noble Baroness said, within 15 miles of the Greater London boundary. That would be in addition to the mayor's general transport duty under Clause 123. However, the mayor's general duty in that clause effectively includes the rail duty envisaged by this subsection. Including this subsection might also call into question the mayor's duty in respect of other transport modes which are not similarly specified.
Subsection (1)(b) places a duty on TfL to enter into agreements approved by the mayor with rail franchisees and the franchising director for the provision of rail services which will contribute to the discharge of the mayor's general transport duty. This is unnecessary because other provisions of the Bill effectively place such a duty on the mayor and give TfL powers to enter into such agreements.
Clause 136(3), for example, provides that TfL, may enter into agreements with other persons for the provision of public passenger transport services. Clause 136(6) provides that such agreements may include provisions for combined services for the through

555
carriage of passengers or goods and for TfL to be able to make payments to the other party. In addition, Clause 137, which deals with co-operation with the franchising director, gives TfL and the franchising director the power to enter into agreements with one another by virtue of subsection (2).
It may be helpful if I mention that TfL's ability to procure additional rail services from franchisees is qualified by Amendment No. 279YA, standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Whitty, so that TfL must procure those services through the franchising director. There are good reasons for that, but the principle that TfL will have a mechanism to enter into agreements still holds good.
Subsection (2) of the amendment places a duty on the franchising director and franchisees to provide TfL with any information that it may require for the purposes of subsection (1). The franchising director is already under such an obligation by virtue of Clause 137, but there are a number of other ways in which local authorities and TfL can obtain information from the franchising director and franchise operators. If the noble Baroness would like me to, I can write to her in greater detail on that aspect.
Subsection (3) of the amendment provides that TfL can make payments to franchise operators. The Bill already provides for this. Agreements between TfL and the franchising director will rest on the powers in Clauses 136 and 137, which were previously described. Agreements involve the performance of obligations by the parties, the most common of which is the payment of money. In addition, it is clear from Amendment No. 279YA, which deals with contracts requiring passenger licences, that agreements for the financing of passenger services are contemplated. So there is no reason here for an additional specific power to pay being included.
Subsection (4) of the amendment would put TfL under a duty to provide the Minister with a copy of any agreement with the franchisee which TfL proposes to enter into. But he is already able to be informed of such proposals because TfL will enter into such agreements through the franchising director by virtue of Amendment No. 279YA. The Railways Act 1993 provides for the franchising director to provide the Secretary of State with such information.
As the London White Paper made clear regarding the power of the Minister to settle disputes, we envisage a co-operative relationship between TfL and the franchising director which is why we have provided each of them—by virtue of Clause 137—with a duty to co-operate. In addition, Amendment No. 279XA places a duty on the franchising director to consult the mayor over fare and service levels on London rail services. So we do not see a need for a direct statutory role for the Secretary of State. We see the Secretary of State having a minimum involvement.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London made clear earlier in the passage of the Bill, should there be a difference it is open to the Secretary of State to intervene. I believe that I have answered the points raised. I apologise to the Committee for the
556
detail. However, I am absolutely convinced that on reading the detail it will become apparent that further amendments at later stages in the passage of this Bill will not be necessary.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: We surrender!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 165 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 279YAA:
After Clause 165, insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURE FOR CLOSURE OF CERTAIN RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES
(" .—(1) The Railways Act 1993 shall have effect as if any railway passenger services provided under or by virtue of this Act by Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London (in relation to which section 37 of that Act does not have effect, in consequence of amendments made by section 162 above) were designated by order under section 49(3) of that Act as railway passenger services in relation to which Schedule 5 to that Act (alternative closure procedure) is to have effect.
(2) Schedule 5 to the Railways Act 1993 shall be amended as follows.
(3) After paragraph 5 there shall be inserted—
"Qualifying services in and around Greater London
5A.—(1) This paragraph applies to any qualifying services—

(a) which are provided by Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London; or

(b) which do not fall within paragraph (a) above but—

(i) are provided wholly within Greater London; and

(ii) are services, or services of a class or description, designated in an order made by the Secretary of State as services in relation to which this paragraph is to apply; and in the following provisions of this paragraph any such services are referred to as "qualifying London services".

(2) In the application of the other paragraphs of this Schedule in relation to qualifying London services, for any reference to the Secretary of State there shall be substituted a reference to the Mayor of London.
(3) Where the Mayor of London has given consent under paragraph 3(2)(b) above in respect of services provided wholly or partly outside Greater London, any person aggrieved by the decision to give consent may refer that decision to the Secretary of State.
(4) A referral under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be made by giving notice to the Secretary of State.
(5) Any notice under sub-paragraph (4) above must be given not later than 4 weeks after the date of the decision referred.
(6) On a reference under sub-paragraph (3) above, the Secretary of State may—

(a) confirm the decision to give consent;

(b) in the case of a decision to give consent subject to conditions, confirm the decision to give consent but modify the conditions; or

(c) substitute his decision for that of the Mayor of London.

(7) Any person who refers a decision to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (3) above shall provide, with his notice under sub-paragraph (4) above, a statement of the reasons why he is aggrieved by the decision.
(8) On disposing of any reference under sub-paragraph (3) above, the Secretary of State shall give notice of his decision to—

(a) the Mayor of London;

(b) the appropriate consultative committee;

(c) the operator concerned; and

(d) the person who referred the decision to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (3) above (if not falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) above).

(9) Before the expiration of the period of six weeks following the making of his decision on a reference under sub-paragraph (3) above, the Secretary of State shall publish notice of his decision—

(a) in two successive weeks in two local newspapers circulating in the area affected; and

(b) in such other manner as appears to him appropriate.'"').

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to carry forward the existing procedure for discontinuance of Underground and DLR services and those to be operated on the Croydon Tramlink. I must stress that while it is sometimes necessary temporarily to discontinue services for maintenance or refurbishment purposes, permanent closures are an infrequent occurrence. However, it is right that the Bill should provide for them in keeping with our commitment in the London White Paper that the mayor and TfL will inherit LT's current responsibilities.
The only significant change which the amendment makes to the current procedures is that it will be the mayor who takes decisions on closures rather than the Secretary of State with the proviso that for TfL services wholly or partly outside London those aggrieved by a mayoral decision will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. In those cases the Secretary of State will have the power to confirm the mayor's decision, with or without conditions, or substitute his own decision.
This amendment applies the new procedure directly to services provided by TfL. However, it will be necessary to apply the procedure by order of the Secretary of State if the relevant service is not directly provided by TfL, such as Croydon Tramlink and, of course, the Docklands Light Railway. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 166 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 279ZA:
After Clause 166, insert the following new clause—
SECRETARY OF STATE TO CONSULT MAYOR BEFORE CHANGING AMOUNT OF PENALTY FARE
(" .—(1) Section 130 of the Railways Act 1993 (penalty fares) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
"(9A) Before making any regulations which have the effect of varying the amount, or the greatest amount, which a person within, or travelling to or from, Greater London may be charged by way of penalty fare, the Secretary of State must consult the Mayor of London.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 279A:
After Clause 166, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRACTING OUT CERTAIN SERVICES
(" .—(1) For the purposes of this section, the services which are "reserved services" are those whose provision by a person would involve that person in performing or securing the performance, for the purposes of any TfL passenger rail service, of—

(a) any station-operating function; or

(b) any train-operating function.

(2) Transport for London shall not, without the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into or carry out any agreement under which an outside contractor is to provide or secure the provision of a reserved service for Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London.
(3) Where a company which is a subsidiary of Transport for London provides or is to provide, or secures or is to secure the provision of, a reserved service for Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, Transport for London shall not, without the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into any transaction or series of transactions the result of which would be that the company—

(a) would cease to be a subsidiary of Transport for London; but

(b) would nevertheless provide or continue to provide, or secure or continue to secure the provision of, the reserved service.

(4) Nothing in this section applies in relation to a contract of employment between an individual and Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide exceptions from subsection (2) or (3) above.
(6) Any consent of the Secretary of State under this section must be in writing and—

(a) may be given in relation to any particular transaction or description of transactions; and

(b) may be given subject to conditions.

(7) For the purposes of this section—
"station-operating function" means any of the following functions—

(a) the sale or collection of tickets at stations;

(b) the inspection of tickets, or the imposing of penalty fares, at or in the vicinity of a station, but otherwise than on a train;

(c) the making of oral public announcements at stations;

(d) the provision of information orally to members of the public at stations, otherwise than by means of public announcements;

(e) any duties of staff employed on platforms at stations;

(f) any duties of staff employed at a place from which the operation of the whole or part of a station is controlled (whether or not the operation of trains is also controlled from that place);

(g) any other function involved in the management or operation of a station;

"train-operating function" means any of the following functions—

(a) the driving of passenger trains otherwise than within a depot;

(b) any duties of guards on passenger trains;

(c) the sale, collection or inspection of tickets, or the imposing of penalty fares, on passenger trains;

(d) the operation of signals for controlling the movement of passenger trains otherwise than within a depot;

(e) the exercise of control over the movement of passenger trams otherwise than within a depot;

(f) any other function involved in the operation of passenger trains otherwise than within a depot.

(8) In this section—
"contract of employment" means any contract of service or apprenticeship;
"outside contractor" means a person other than Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London;
"passenger train" means a train which is being, has just been, or is about to be, used for the provision of a TfL passenger rail service;
"premises" includes any land, building or structure;
"railway" has the meaning given in section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992;
"reserved service" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above;
"station" means any land or other property which consists of premises used as, or for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, a railway passenger station or railway passenger terminal (including any approaches, forecourt, cycle store or car park), whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes;
"TfL passenger rail service" means any public service for the carriage of passengers by railway which is under the control of Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London;
"ticket" includes any other authority to travel or to be present in a part of a station where such an authority is required.
(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section for the purpose of varying the meaning in this section of any of the following expressions—

(a) "train-operating function";

(b) "station-operating function";

(c) "outside contractor"; or

(d) "TfL passenger rail service".")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that the Underground trains and stations continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground. That is in line with a commitment that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave on 15th June.
We believe it is entirely right and clearly in the best interests of those using this key component of London Transport that the public face of the Underground should remain accountable to the people who use it. But the new clause also recognises the reality that many of the non-core activities which are needed to support the operation of the Underground are carried out by the private sector, normally under contract to London Underground Limited. Of course, the services of the Docklands Light Railway are, or will be, provided by concessionaires. It is not our intention to change those arrangements, although it will be open to the mayor to do so if he or she wishes if and when the current commercial arrangements end.
The new clause places restrictions on TfL's ability to franchise or contract out London Underground services which impinge directly on the travelling public. The clause provides that TfL must not, without the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into agreements with outside contractors for specified reserve services; that is, certain station and train operating functions. These functions are specified in subsection (7) of the new clause.
Subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State, by order subject to the negative procedure, to make exceptions to these restrictions. Subsection (9) of the new clause enables the Secretary of State to redefine the meaning of particular terms. This will be done by negative procedure in order to give some flexibility to the process. Subsection (6) provides that the Secretary of State's consent to franchising-in and contracting-out be given administratively and will be able to be given in respect of classes of activity as well as individual cases. The Secretary of State's consent must also be obtained if TfL wishes to dispose of a TfL subsidiary which carries out any of the restricted functions. Subsection (3) provides for that. Subsection (4) excludes contracts of employment from the restrictions so that TfL is free to employ staff directly to carry out the train and station operating functions.
We think that the new clause offers reassurance to the travelling public that key Underground functions will continue to operate in a spirit of public service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 167 [PPP agreements]:
[Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
Clause 167 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 280VA:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
VALUE FOR MONEY ASSESSMENT
(" . Before any PPP agreement is, entered into the Authority shall be required to have carried out and published an economic assessment in respect of the life of the agreement which demonstrates that such PPP agreement represents value for money at least comparable to that which would have been available through a publicly financed arrangement.")
The noble Lord said: The reasons for this amendment are twofold. The first is the reluctance of the Government to reveal the detail of the modelling underlying the PPP scheme that they are adopting. The Government are proposing contracts which should last for 30 years, yet they are withholding vital information, principally that contained in the original Price Waterhouse report, for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
In Committee in another place, the Minister for Transport in London said:
"We have thought carefully about releasing the information … To be of any use we would need to release a large amount of material, much of which would be helpful to bidders. That would prejudice London Underground's negotiating position in the PPP competition, so we shall not release that modelling".
But the authors of the LSE papers in June last year and in March this year said:
"neither Parliament nor the general public has any means of assessing the nature of the risks they are being asked to take on".
The only response to that position is to ensure that other control mechanisms are included in the Bill to at least ensure that the economics of the PPP are transparent.
Secondly, in the bidding process the Government are duty bound to ensure "best value". The Government

561
recognised this in their response to the Select Committee report on London Underground. They said:
"Clearly, it is only possible conclusively to demonstrate that the current proposals represent best value once bids have been received. At that stage we will need to satisfy ourselves that the deal is really right".
In the same paragraph the Government commit themselves to developing a comparator against conventional public sector funding.
"This will help to assess the bids and ensure that we actually obtain the value for money we expect".
The Minister for Transport in London made an even clearer statement to the Standing Committee in another place on 25th February. She said:
" … the public sector—namely London Underground, which will remain in the publicsector, as it is now—will be the benchmark against which all private bids will be measured … we will not be awarding contracts irrespective of the value of the bid. Best value will be the watchword".
This amendment is designed to ensure that the Government live up to that pledge and that the economics of the PPP proposals are completely transparent. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I do not think that there is a difference of principle in this amendment. The amendment requires the GLA to carry out a public sector comparator exercise before any PPP contracts are signed to show that the contracts are at least comparable on value-for-money grounds with the Underground remaining within the public sector, We have no intention of proceeding with any aspect of the PPP unless we are convinced that the contracts offer best value for passengers and taxpayers.
However, to ask the GLA to undertake this exercise would be inconsistent with the Government's intention—this has been made known throughout our statements—to see through the PPP negotiations before transferring the Underground to TfL.
In those circumstances, the terms of the noble Lord's amendment are not appropriate. I therefore ask him not to pursue it.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before doing that, I must ask the Minister: if the TfL were to ensure: that the public sector comparator was in place, would that be acceptable to the Government?
Lord Whitty: No. My point is that the comparator for the PPP would be established by the Secretary of State before the PPF' handed over either to the mayor or to TfL. Therefore, the Secretary of State would carry out the comparator exercise.
Lord Clement-Jones: In that case, my question remains the same, except I substitute the Secretary of State for Transport for London. If the Minister were to commit to conducting a public sector comparator in the name of the Secretary of State in those terms and were to agree that that should be in the primary legislation, it would be most satisfactory.
Lord Whitty: We are committed to conducting a public sector comparator exercise. As for publishing the
562
details of that exercise, it depends when the noble Lord suggests that that should occur. If they were published before contracts were signed—I think that is the intention—there would be a problem. The tenderers would clearly not have much of an incentive to go as low as they might because they would simply have to beat the public service comparator. Therefore, we would not publish at that stage. However, once the competition is concluded, the full details will be made available through the National Audit Office in the usual way.
Lord Clement-Jones: I think that I can see some chinks of daylight in the Minister's comments. The issue may revolve largely around timing, but I suspect that it revolves also around the Government's commitment to conducting the exercise and putting it in the Bill in a concrete fashion. At this stage in the proceedings, the best thing for me and my colleagues on these Benches to do is to read what the Minister has said to see whether we can return with something slightly more satisfactory at Report stage.
I do not think that we are a million miles apart. I can understand the Minister's reasons for saying that the Government would not necessarily want to publish before contracts were concluded. On the other hand, that might be the point when the Government were perfectly able to say, "This is the PPP company we wish to proceed with and these are our reasons for doing so".
I am not sure that I fully understand the Minister's reasons, but we will consider over the next few days what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 280WA:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL LEVEL OF FARES UNDER PPP AGREEMENT
(" .—(1) In exercising his powers under section 134(l) to determine the matters specified in section 135(2)(a), the Mayor shall ensure that the general level of fares to be charged by Transport for London for railway services in respect of which a PPP agreement has been entered into is no more than the general level 12 months previous to that time increased by a percentage equal to the control rate.
(2) In subsection (1) above the control rate shall be at any lime the number of percentage points by which the most recently available figure for the retail prices index has increased on the retail prices index for the month 12 months previous to that figure less the factor X.
(3) In subsection (2) above—

(a) "the retail prices index" is the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office of National Statistics, and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the provisions of this section then this section shall be construed as referring to any substitute index or index figures published by that Office; and

(b) "the factor X" shall, prior to 1st April 2002, be equivalent to two percentage points, and on or after 1st April 2002 shall be equivalent to one percentage point.")

The noble Lord said: In the financial structuring of the PPP, it appears that the pay-back provisions to the private contractors will depend heavily on significant annual profits being earned by London Underground.

563
The authors of the LSE papers that I mentioned earlier estimate those to be approximately £450 million per year. However, in a recent paper they make the point that, while London Underground has generated significant growth in operating revenues of £210 million in 1996–97 and £264.7 million in 1997–98, those have been notably lower than the figure they estimate will be required in any future repayment schedule for the PPP.
The requirements to make this level of profit will apply during each year of the 30 years of the contract. So how will those levels of profit be made? In its assumptions about PPP, London Underground seems to have assumed that passenger numbers will continue to grow and that fares will rise by 1 per cent above inflation in each year for a number of years. The need for real fare increases of this size has been affirmed first of all and then denied by the Minister for Transport in London in the Standing Committee in another place. But, in response to the Select Committee, the Government said:
"It is not our policy to see large increases in public transport fares. Our proposals are not based on such increases. The PPP will not be dependent on significant increases in fares".
However, that at least some real fare increases will be needed is the only conclusion that one can draw.
Chantrey Vellacott, the chartered accountants, have produced a briefing note which concludes that fares may have to rise by as much as 30 per cent, which would clearly be unacceptable. It follows that the Government seem confused about what the necessary subsidy will be. For instance, in their response to the Select Committee report on London Underground, they have stated that there are no provisions in their plans for central government subsidy after the year 2000. Yet at the Committee stage in another place the Minister for Transport in London seems to have conceded that, if it represents good value for money, part of the central government grant to TfL could go to the PPP contractor.
What is the true position? As the noble Lord can see, this amendment on pricing is designed as a probing amendment. What is the true position; or, as I should say, what is today's position? What real underlying assumptions are the Government using? I hope that the Minister can shed some light on all these aspects. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I rise to support the principle of the amendment, as it follows closely an amendment standing in my name which we debated earlier and which covered the whole of TfL rather than just the London Underground. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is being slightly more generous to TfL in factor x. But from what was said previously, I think it would be unwise to put figures in that paragraph. One would probably want to see what the books looked like before one put that in. The noble Lord is right to say that the accountants' report
564
suggested that fare increases of 30 per cent would be necessary to finance the PPP. I, too, shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to that.
Lord Whitty: The Chantrey Vellacott report, never mind the somewhat scaremongering headlines which emanated from it, is based on a misapprehension; that misapprehension primarily arising from the notion that the whole of the £7 billion of additional investment that one wants in the underground network would come from up-front borrowing. Clearly, some of it would come from the income of London Underground in normal circumstances and from efficiency savings contributing to that. There is not a presumption that all of that would be raised from the market. That is what led to the differential fares implication being drawn by Chantrey Vellacott but it was based on a serious misapprehension.
The amendment would run counter to our giving the flexibility to the mayor to decide what the wholly appropriate levels of fares should be. It offers a very prescriptive indication of fare levels, increasing them by RPI minus 2 per cent until 2002, and by RPI minus 1 per cent thereafter. The mayor must have some flexibility in this regard, and TfL may well want to vary the rate at which fares are increased, or indeed the frequency with which they are increased. This kind of provision is therefore not very sensible.
As to the more general speculation, irrespective of Chantrey Vellacott, that the cost of the PPP would be loaded onto fares, that is completely the wrong impression. It is based on a misconception that fares will have to increase substantially to cover the costs identified in the report and in some of the newspaper coverage.
The substantial savings which London Underground will be able to make through having stable long-term investment programmes that it has not hitherto been able to make when it has had to compete with other public sector demands will be a major contribution to a stable fares situation. That is not achieved by prescription from above, because the mayor will need to make a judgment, based on TfL's corporate planning, as to what the level of fare increase or fare structures should be. That responsibility should rest with the mayor.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that response. However, this probing amendment is an attempt to get to the nub of the Government's assumptions in regard to the PPP. That is why I tabled the amendment specifically in relation to the relevant PPP clause.
A great deal of confusion seems to have been raised in the minds of Members in Committee about the Government's assumptions, and the assumptions of London Underground, about the fare rises which were anticipated and which formed the basis of the assumptions about the success or otherwise of the PPP. At one stage, the Minister for Transport in London said that, as in the London Underground paper published in March, a figure of 1 per cent above the rate of inflation was a valid assumption for the revenues of Transport for London. But, shortly afterwards, that statement was

565
retracted. Yet it had appeared in the London Underground paper. The transparency surrounding those assumptions is extremely important when people are looking at the future and in particular at the proposed PPP scheme.
Lord Whitty: There is a confusion between reasonable presumptions that may have been made in certain contexts at various times and what the final negotiated settlement of the PPP will be. Clearly, built into the final package will be some presumption of underlying changes of fare. But that is by no means determined. We need to look at the nature of the negotiations for the PPP before we arrive at that point. But, even without any of those figures as regards the underlying trend, we should still want to leave considerable flexibility to TfL and the mayor thereafter as regards annual increases in fares, the structure of fares and the frequency of fare increases. Therefore, specifying figures that relate to the RPI for annual increases is not very sensible. It is a very constraining approach. The allegations that the cost of borrowing would be wholly loaded on fares was, as I have said, based on a wrong assumption of how much of the additional investment requirement would be met from new borrowed funds.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am sorry to press this point, but it is very important. There has been a great deal of debate. With respect, the Minister has not yet explained why the Minister for Transport in London mentioned the figure of 1 per cent above the level of inflation and, for instance, why London Underground mentioned the 1 per cent figure in its paper.
I can well understand that assumptions shift from time to time, and when the Government finally goes nap on a PPP proposal, a different set of fare rise assumptions may take place. But it was my understanding—and having read Hansard it seems crystal clear—that the Minister for Transport in London mentioned a figure of 1 per cent above the rate of inflation. I do not understand why that figure was mentioned if it is of no relevance at all to our debate.
Lord Whitty: I do not think it is of relevance to our debate on these clauses as regards what powers and restraints it will place on the mayor. Clearly, London Transport have to make certain presumptions about the underlying rate of price increases. In the circumstances, that presumption, had nothing changed, may have been a reasonable decision for London Transport, but it is not a reasonable indication of what the outcome of the PPP would be.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall not press him any further. However, I feel that the situation is unsatisfactory. The whole architecture of PPP is based on certain economic and financial assumptions. Absolutely central to those assumptions are matters like the rate of fare increases. I shall read Hansard to see what the Minister has said. That underlying reality, which may shift from time to time, is of great importance. I believe that some
566
reassurance to the general public would be extremely useful. As the Minister has said, there have been a number of scare stories. I do not necessarily believe that one needs to attach great credence to the Chantrey Vellacott report, but we have a wide range of estimates about the effect of PPP which need allaying. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 280XA:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
PPP AGREEMENTS: REQUIREMENT TO MEET EU TENDERING RULES
(" . Before any PPP agreement is entered into the Authority shall be required to have satisfied itself that any such PPP agreement meets the requirements of European Union tendering rules.")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 280XA carries forward the debate started earlier this week at Question Time when my noble friend Lady Ludford asked about the scope of European Union tendering rules. On Tuesday, in reply to my noble friend, the Minister appeared to be adamant that PPP contracts would come under Part B of the utilities directive and the regulations made under that directive and that, therefore, the full European competitive regime for tendering would not apply. Hence, the possibility of only a single bidder for these sub-surface lines.
As my noble friend made clear, only operating services for rail fall into Part B. The infrastructure is the subject of the PPP and that surely constitutes engineering works for the purposes of the regulation. In that event, the tendering process needs to be on a competitive basis unless there are specific reasons for it to fall within the restricted or negotiated procedure. Currently, I cannot see any grounds for exclusion in the regulations. I have read them fairly carefully over the course of today.
Can the Minister confirm whether, since Tuesday, he has been able to take further counsel on this matter? Is there a written legal opinion on the subject? If there is, will the Minister publish it? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord will know that it is not the normal practice for departments and government Ministers to publish legal advice, and there is no particular reason to depart from that in this case.
We have had consistent views that such services would fall under Part B and, therefore, would be excluded from the full competition requirements. There are certain marginal areas, but if the main services fall under Part B, they are excluded. Clearly, we intend to abide by the European tendering rules and where any doubts are expressed we would need to consider them before we proceeded. We are in a defensible position in that the content of any such contract—this applies to all three potential contracts and not simply the Railtrack one—could be deemed to be outside Part B of the regulations.
I do not know what more I can say to the noble Lord. That seems to us to be the position and we do riot believe that it conflicts with the European legislation.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I still have doubts, having read the regulation. The companies are referred to in short as infraco. They deal with infrastructure, not rail services, which the operating companies provide. I suspect that the department may be optimistic. It would be unfortunate if it was subsequently discovered that the department was not complying with the regulations.
I hear what the Minister says. No doubt further advice will be taken on all sides. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 280YA:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF PPP AGREEMENTS
(" . The Authority shall review the operation of any PPP agreement and the performance of the PPP company under it three years after it has been entered into.")
The noble Lord said: As has been made clear, once the PPP arrangements are up and running there will be a series of periodic reviews under the contracts—say three, which means that they will be at approximately seven-year intervals. The details of the reviews and the way in which they will be carried out are given in London Underground's March 1999 progress report on the PPP.
That is all very well and fine, but the PPP arrangements are untried and will be for some years to come. Many of us believe that they are unworkable. It will be important for the authority to take an overview of the performance of the PPP companies under the contracts, so that Transport for London can take early corrective action well before the first review by the arbiter. That is not so much to negotiate on infrastructure service charges or bid rates of return, which are properly matters for the contractual review at seven-year intervals, but to reassure Londoners in a transparent way that the PPP structure is performing as it should. That review should be the responsibility of the authority as a whole, rather than Transport for London, because the political dimension will be important. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is correct that there will be explicit provision in the PPP contracts for periodic reviews every seven to eight years. That will provide a fundamental opportunity to review the underground services, requirements, investment priorities and the future of the contractual obligations and to amend those obligations and the performance criteria to reflect the performance up to that point.
In addition, the performance of the PPP companies will be kept under constant review by London Underground. London Underground's performance resulting from those contracts will, as the noble Lord is seeking, be kept under constant review by the mayor through TfL. The fact that we shall have fundamental detailed periodic reviews built into the contract only every seven or eight years does not mean that there will
568
not be regular reviews at the executive political level, as well as by the management interfacing with the PPP company. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
I am informed that during the debate on the previous amendment concerned with directives I said that the PPP contracts would be outside Part B. I meant that they would be inside Part B and therefore outside the requirement to go through the full European tendering process.
Lord Clement-Jones: I certainly took the Minister to mean what he has just said by way of clarification. I thank the noble Lord for his response. At this stage of the evening I do not quibble about the nature of the reviews. We on these Benches believe that something rather more formal should appear in primary legislation to allow a real marker to be put down after a three-year period so that the public can see clearly how these contracts are performing. That is separate from the contractual review itself. We shall consider the matter further in the light of the Minister's comments. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 280ZA:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC INTEREST COMPANY
(" .—(1) If PPP agreements have not been entered into in respect of the whole railway network by 1st July 2000, the Authority shall be permitted to establish a public interest company as defined by subsection (2) below to operate the relevant part of the railway network.
(2) In this section, "public interest company" means a company—

(a) a majority of whose issued shares are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons falling within paragraphs(i) to (iv) below—

(i) any Minister of the Crown, Government department or other emanation of the Crown;

(ii) any local authority;

(iii) any metropolitan county passenger transport authority; and

(iv) any body corporate whose members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown, a Government department, a local authority or a metropolitan county passenger transport authority or a body corporate whose members are so appointed;

(b) in which the majority of the voting rights are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons in paragraph (a) above;

(c) a majority of whose board of directors can be appointed or removed by any of the bodies or persons in paragraph (a) above:

(d) in which the majority of the voting rights are controlled by any of the bodies or persons in paragraph (a) above, pursuant to an agreement with other persons; or

(e) a subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (a) to (d) above.

(3) The public interest company may borrow money for investing in transport in Greater London.")
The noble Lord said: It is a matter of some regret that we reach this amendment, which in many ways forms the centrepiece of our opposition to this part of the Bill,

569
at this late hour. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I deal in detail with the nature of the public interest company proposed as part of this amendment.
As the LSE report by Stephen Glaister, Rosemary Scanlon and Tony Travers stated back in March when the Bill was passing through the other place, the Government's plan for a PPP for the Underground is flawed in principle and impractical. That is even clearer now than when those words were written. The PPP for London Underground is a scheme that will have consequences for a long time—at least 30 years. Yet, as the authors said:
"The PPP threatens to impose burdensome long-term pressures on Underground operating revenues, including the prospect of continually rising fares, in order to pay back upfront investment by private contractors".
What is more, we are being asked to buy the PPP as a solution without even being given the information on which to evaluate it. Members of neither House have been given access to the information on which government projections are based. Government assumptions about fare levels appear to be very fluid. I have made reference to some of the statements in the other place by the Minister for Transport in London. I have also mentioned the estimates made by Chantrey Vellacott, the veracity of whose report we could debate.
The PPP itself is a strange sandwich comprising the asset owner—Transport for London—in the public sector, the three infrastructure companies in the private sector and the operating company in the public sector. This is a recipe for confusion. The reason for the separation of infrastructure from operation in the case of the privatisation of the railways was to encourage competition, yet in the case of the Underground there are no proposals for competition over the tracks. Therefore, the economic case for separation makes no sense at all. All we know is that the costs of separation will be higher than the status quo. As outlined on many occasions by both my honourable colleagues in the other place and the distinguished authors of the LSE paper, there are far more preferable alternatives on hand.
The origins of the PPP solution seem to lie with the Treasury's insistence on treating borrowing by Transport for London for capital investment in the Underground as part of the PSBR However, as I mentioned earlier in Committee, for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link's revised financing structure the Government agreed to the issue of guaranteed bonds. That did not count against the PSBR because the Deputy Prime Minister said that the chances of a call being made on the guarantee were less than 20 per cent.
The Treasury has also agreed that borrowing by several of the regional airports will not count towards the PSBR. If the Treasury cannot relax its rules, however, the alternative consistently supported by Liberal Democrats, both in another place and on these Benches, is that of a public interest company. That has been described by the LSE as the "fourth way" approach. Clearly, that alternative is a preferable approach for long-term financing of the Underground. It includes the following components: the issue of long-term bonds secured by dedicated revenues, such as congestion charges and fees; an agreed level of
570
government grant, such as the one agreed for the train-operating companies; and a realistic and agreed level of operating profit.
Earlier in Committee the Minister admitted that a separate company structure for the regional airports had advantages. We agree. Instead of the clear logic and cost effectiveness of these proposals, we have the sight of the Deputy Prime Minister desperately trying to make the unworkable work. The price of this will be too high for the London Underground traveller and the taxpayer. We will be bearing the consequences of it for the next 30 years. The way in which the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was financially restructured in the early 1980s, when the MTA was able to issue its own bonds directly to the capital markets, offers an example of possible success for London in this way.
Furthermore, the way that these arrangements are being set up is deliberately designed to minimise any influence of the incoming mayor over the creation of the scheme, the identity of the PPP companies, the assumptions which underlie the economics involved in their operation, or the performance targets to be set. Yet the mayor will carry the ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of Transport for London as a whole.
The proposed PPP will actually make a mockery of the new mayor's position. For the first year or more of the GLA's existence, TfL will be responsible for almost all London's transport services except the London Underground, the most important element in the capital's transport system, the one most in need of improvement, and the one for which the mayor will receive more brickbats than anything else. If I was more cynical, I would think that the Government had deliberately planned this as a way of discrediting the new mayor as soon as he or she takes up office.
Two of the three major aims in the Government's White Paper were to deliver an integrated and sustainable transport strategy in London and to unify the presently fragmented responsibility for transport in London by creating a body that can tackle issues at London-wide level. PPP will certainly not fulfil these objectives for Transport for London. In the words of the LSE authors,
"At present there is a risk that the attempt to make the PPP work at any price will be both costly to the farepayer and the taxpayer and damaging to the new GLA".
The current amendment does not attempt to eliminate the PPP. It states that, if by July of next year the contracts are not let, this procedure will take place and a public interest company will take over the remaining parts of the network. We are, therefore, giving it a sporting chance, but we are also extremely pessimistic about the prospect of success. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Very briefly, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said about the likely effects of the PPP. In fact, I made many of the points that have just been made by the noble Lord during my Second Reading speech on the Bill. However, we do not

571
agree with the noble Lord about what may provide the solution to this particular problem. We beg to differ on that matter.
Lord Whitty: I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, say that he was giving the PPP a sporting chance of success. Up until that point, he was not exactly supportive of that approach. I believe that the negative comments to the approach of PPP have perhaps undermined people's confidence in it. It has not, however, undermined our determination and belief that this is the best way forward for the London Underground and our determination to define and specify the terms of the PPP that we will offer both in relation to Railtrack and the other two contracts that we intend to award.
The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear as long ago as December last that he was committed to seeing the PPP negotiations through to completion. He has never hidden the fact that this means that the process is unlikely to be completed before TfL is vested in July 2000. That means that the deadline contained in the noble Lord's amendment cannot and will not be met. We have given no commitment that it will be met. It would be damaging to the PPP negotiating and tendering process if we tried to meet it.
I understand that people may have ideological and practical objections to the PPP process, but we believe that it is the best way of mobilising not only private capital into the London Underground but also a fair amount of private sector expertise and technology. That seems a sensible way forward while maintaining the overall public sector structure.
It is a new body. TfL is a new creature. But London Underground has not worked under the straightforward public sector provisions in the past; nor does the privatisation of British Rail give us any great comfort that the alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, would be appropriate for the London Underground.
We are pursuing the matter. We shall take the time it takes to pursue it, which will almost certainly carry us beyond 1st July 2000. The noble Lord's alternative of establishing a public interest company at that date does not seem to us to meet the requirement either. The amendment prescribes a list of bodies or persons who are holding a majority of shares in a public interest company. The company is in effect a subsidiary of TfL, with some wider public sector involvement. A public interest company, therefore, again falls into the local government finance regime. That is exactly what the noble Lord does not like.
I explained at a much earlier hour that I do not believe that to be as great a constraint as do the noble Lord and his colleagues. TfL will be able to borrow money to invest in transport because it will be a local authority for financial purposes. It will also be subject to the local authority financial regime, as also would this body, which in effect would be a subsidiary of TfL.
572
I do not see that the amendment provides a better way than PPP to raise money which we could not otherwise tap into. Indeed, all it would do would be further to blur the boundaries of what TfL is doing, as distinct from the London Underground.
I believe that there is considerable scope for the PPP to work. Putting it in its kindest way, the constant sniping from various areas of the political spectrum against the PPP has not helped. But our determination to deliver it remains. We believe that it is the best way forward for London transport and for a positive contribution for London Underground to an integrated transport system. I do not expect that I have convinced the noble Lord. But I hope that at this hour of the night he will not pursue his amendment.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that considered and upbeat reply. I am not alone in my lack of faith in the PPP, as the Minister pointed out. I note that he spotted that I was not giving such a sporting chance to the PPP. On these Benches we have a fundamental difference of view about the workability of the PPP, the desirability of Treasury rules, and so on. We are only sorry that the department was unable to take a closer look at other models. I have mentioned New York. Chicago is another model where authorities are able to borrow on the market. Because of the structure and composition of their company in the public sector they are able to be more flexible about the way they operate. That is what the amendment was designed to provide. We shall continue to disagree on that. We may wish to have a further discussion at later stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 168 to 176 agreed to.
Schedules 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clauses 177 to 180 agreed to.
Clause 181 [The PPP arbiter]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 280A:
Page 97, line 5, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Chapter")
These amendments make minor technical changes to the existing provisions for a statutory arbiter. Amendments Nos. 280A and 283C provide a definition of the PPP arbiter in the chapter. Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B relate to the requirement to provide information to the PPP arbiter. Amendment No. 283A adds a definition of a related third party agreement, to make clear that parties to such agreements are covered by the requirements to provide information. Amendment No. 283B adds a reference that a person may refuse to answer any question as well as to provide any information which he would be entitled to refuse to provide for the purposes of court proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 281A:
Page 97, line 8, at end insert—
("() For the avoidance of doubt, in discharging those functions the PPP arbiter shall be acting as an expert and not as an arbitrator under the Arbitration Acts.")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 281A, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 282 and 283. We now begin the final furlong by moving onto the PPP arbiter. It is quite correct that the Bill as drafted requires a PPP arbiter to act as a third party referee on any disputes. Most significant construction contracts in the commercial world would have some form of expert umpire to resolve disputes. For the same reasons, the Bill should follow the precedent of normal commercial agreements. The procedure under the Bill is onerous and frequently excluded by commercial agreement in the private sector. PPP agreement should follow the same line. This amendment attempts to cure a lapse from normal business practice.
Turning to Amendment No. 282, it is quite correct that the Bill as drafted requires the PPP arbiter to act as a third party referee in any disputes. As I said, most significant construction contracts in the contract world would have some form of expert umpire to resolve disputes.
It is, furthermore, extremely helpful that the Bill sets out the principles on which the PPP arbiter is to act, so that everyone has some idea of where he stands. However, as drafted, the principles allow an escape clause should any relevant body—that is, LRT or TfL or any of their subsidiaries—mismanage its resources to the extent that it can no longer perform its side of any PPP agreement, as the PPP arbiter is to "have regard to the resources available to any relevant body" without specifying when they are to be available. While it is right that TfL should not be taken to have contracted to deliver something which is beyond its means, private sector operators need the security of knowing that, if TfL contracts to provide something, it will be held to it and not allowed to wriggle out of its agreements if it subsequently mismanages its funds.
Turning to the last amendment, Amendment No. 283, again it is quite correct that the Bill as drafted requires a PPP arbiter to act as a third party referee in any disputes. It is, furthermore, extremely helpful that the Bill sets out the principles on which the PPP arbiter is to act, so that everyone has some idea of where they stand. However, as drafted, the Bill is unclear as to what should happen in the event that these principles clash.
574
This places the PPP arbiter in an invidious position. The amendment cures a defect in the Bill by stating which principle takes priority. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 281A purports to clarify the role of the arbiter. The definition is set out in the Arbitration Act. The Government have made it clear that the arbiter will not just be an expert who will give technical judgments, nor will he arbitrate in disputes between the parties. He will determine questions and issues put to him while having regard to his statutory duties. We believe that the provisions in Clauses 181 to 187 adequately define this role. As the noble Lord will be aware, the reference to the relevant body in this clause refers to the public sector body—that is, TfL—rather than the PPP contractors.
Amendment No. 282 would require the arbiter to disregard the level of resources available to TfL and so have the effect of placing restrictions on the way in which TfL allocates its budget, which is not acceptable or desirable. The performance levels required under PPP agreements need to be set against what TfL can afford.
Amendment No. 283 seeks to require the arbiter to make efficiency and economy his key priority when making a direction or issuing guidance. Subsections (2) to (5) of the clause clearly define the objectives set out to the arbiter of which subsection (3) deals specifically with efficiency and economy. We are of the view that there are no substantial benefits to be had from the objectives being ranked in a predefined order of importance. All parties will be best served by the objectives having equal considerations. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. It was only a probing amendment and I shall read with interest what the noble Baroness said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 181, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 182 to 185 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Disability Rights Commissioner Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before one o'clock.

  Kosovo Settlement
  Kosovo Settlement
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  GUUAM Group
  GUUAM Group
  EU Enlargement Negotiations
  EU Enlargement Negotiations
  Meat Hygiene
  Meat Hygiene
  Tuberculosis in Cattle
  Tuberculosis in Cattle
  Meat Labelling
  Meat Labelling
  Privy Council Judicial Committee Hearings: Photocopying and Fax Facilities
  Privy Council Judicial Committee Hearings: Photocopying and Fax Facilities
  Scotland Act 1998: Advice to Her Majesty the Queen
  Scotland Act 1998: Advice to Her Majesty the Queen
  Vehicle Number Plates
  Vehicle Number Plates
  GMOs: Open Decision-making
  GMOs: Open Decision-making
  Climate Change
  Climate Change
  Urban Task Force: Report
  Urban Task Force: Report
  Right to Roam: Occupiers' Liability
  Right to Roam: Occupiers' Liability
  Small Businesses: Support for R and D)
  Small Businesses: Support for R and D)
  Internal Market Council, 21 June
  Internal Market Council, 21 June
  FE Colleges and School Sixth Forms: Funding
  FE Colleges and School Sixth Forms: Funding
  Depleted Uranium: Use in Yugoslavia
  Depleted Uranium: Use in Yugoslavia
  Kosovo: UK Sorties
  Kosovo: UK Sorties
  BOWMAN Communication System
  BOWMAN Communication System
  Nuclear Policy
  Nuclear Policy
  Serbia: Civilian Casualties
  Serbia: Civilian Casualties
  Kosovo: Russian Participation
  Kosovo: Russian Participation
  Yugoslavia: NATO Strategy
  Yugoslavia: NATO Strategy