Sitting of 20 May 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pigmeat
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What plans he has to ban the import of pigmeat derived from animals fed on meat and bonemeal; and if he will make a statement. [83846]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We will continue to urge retailers, caterers and consumers to take account of quality, animal welfare and other considerations when sourcing pork and pork products. An import ban on such products would be incompatible with our European Union and World Trade Organisation obligations.
    Miss McIntosh: Following the Agriculture Committee's positive report on the pig industry, and given the unprecedented difficulties being experienced by the pig sector, will the Government at least ban the import of animals fed on meat and bonemeal whose consumption has been banned in this country? We have unilaterally banned sow stalls and tethers in this country, and have put our pig producers in a very uncompetitive position in relation to producers in other European countries. Will the Government finally, once and for all, act today?
    Mr. Morley: What the hon. Lady asks cannot be delivered in the context of the single market regulations. Conservative Members have asked whether measures such as article 36 of the treaty of Rome could be used to ban the import of meat produced from pigs that have been confined to sow stalls and tethers. As there are common standards applying to the European Union, article 36 cannot be used.
    I should add that, when there was talk of using article 36 to ban the export of calves going into veal crates, the Conservative Government voted against it.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the animal welfare standards that apply to the pig sector in this country should apply throughout
    1196
    Europe? Will he confirm that the new standards applied here have led to a premium in British pig prices above the European norm, which we hope will continue?
    Will my hon. Friend consider the establishment of a specific rendering plant for pork? That would mean that offal could be an asset for our pig farmers, rather than the liability that it is now.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. Tethers are to be banned in the European Union, and we believe that sow stalls should be banned as well—as does the European scientific and veterinary committee.
    The price of pigmeat is 20 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom than the European average, which reflects the higher welfare and quality standards of British-produced pork and pork products and the existence of a demand. That demonstrates the importance of concentrating on quality and animal welfare standards.
    The Meat and Livestock Commission has discussed with my right hon. Friend the Minister the possibility of a dedicated rendering plant for meat and bonemeal, and we are considering it carefully.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Has the Minister urged his opposite numbers in the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to prevail on health authorities and local authorities to obtain only pigmeat and pork products that have been produced according to the high health and welfare standards that pertain in this country? Does he not recognise that it would be reprehensible for taxpayers to fund the purchase of pork from abroad that had not been produced according to the standards that apply here?
    Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend the Minister has written to local authorities, and all Ministers have taken every opportunity to suggest that local authorities specify welfare and quality standards. However, many local authorities have difficulties in relation to best value, and restrictions on tendering that were introduced by the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously we cannot ban the import of pork, but surely we should ensure that people know what imported pigs have been fed on, as well as knowing what health and welfare standards have been applied. That would at least give our pig farmers a fighting chance. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing appropriate labelling?
    Mr. Morley: The Meat and Livestock Commission and the pig industry have launched a quality British pork label, and many Agriculture Ministers and other hon. Members have attended publicity events connected with the launch. We want consumers to know that what they are buying is British-produced, and produced according to the quality and welfare standards that we know consumers want.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister not realise that, given the crisis in the pig industry, what Britain needs is a fair deal for British pig farmers? Will he not accept our advice? First, the Government should introduce labelling that shows both the method of production and the country of origin of all pigmeat sold here. Secondly, will the Minister challenge the unlawful

    1197
    cash payments made by the French Government to French pig farmers, evidence of which I delivered to his office by hand last week? Thirdly, will the Minister do what the Government of any other European Union member state would do in the event of a similar crisis in their pig sector, and at least try to halt the import of illegally produced pigmeat? If he is challenged in the courts, he will have our full support.
    Mr. Morley: That is very reassuring.
    We have repeatedly shown our support for the British pig industry, and there have been discussions in the Council of Ministers about the crisis in not just the United Kingdom pig industry, but the industry in Europe as a whole. As for the French proposals for aid, the Commission is to examine them to ensure that they are compatible with European law.
    In relation to the last point, I must repeat that Compassion in World Farming brought a court case to the European Court of Justice about the possibility of using article 36 to stop the export of veal calves to the continent—the same procedures that the hon. Gentleman is now arguing should be used. The then Conservative Government vehemently opposed that suggestion. The court ruled against it, which set the legal precedent that such measures cannot be used.

    Quarantine Reform
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress on quarantine 0reform. [83847]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On 26 March, I announced that new arrangements were planned to be in operation by April 2001, with a pilot scheme beforehand. I am looking at the options, but am minded that the pilot scheme should initially be open to a range of carriers on a range of routes and targeted at pet owners who are likely to come to, or return to the United Kingdom for a longer period than a conventional summer holiday. I am also minded to include guide dogs for the blind and for the deaf in the pilot scheme.
    Mr. Chapman: May I welcome the progress that the Government are making on the subject and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it? It compares favourably with the complete lack of progress under the previous Administration. None the less, many people in Wirral, South are concerned about the facility of bringing their pets home after a period overseas. What reaction has he received from transport operators to his proposals for a pilot scheme?
    Mr. Brown: Some weeks ago, I organised a meeting with representatives of transport operators. Discussions have continued between my officials and those of the different transport operators. The response from all sectors has been favourable and, from most, enthusiastic. Transport operators are rising to the challenge and recognise the potential of the scheme.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that it is not a question of keeping just rabies out of this country? Other canine infections are
    1198
    endemic on the continent, yet absent in Britain. Can he give the House the assurance that, if he does change the quarantine laws—personally, I would welcome it if he did—to satisfy the public, it must be shown that there is no greater likelihood of any of those canine infections coming to our country?
    Mr. Brown: That is a fair point. As Professor Kennedy outlined in his report, we are proceeding. Officials at my Department are in discussion with officials at the Department of Health to ensure that, as well as protecting against rabies, we take the opportunity to ensure that the pre-entry procedures protect, as much as they reasonably can, against other canine infections.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I warmly welcome not only the speed with which my right hon. Friend has moved on the issue, but the responsibility that he has taken on. I particularly welcome the announcement that guide dogs will be included in the pilot scheme. However, is he aware of the difficulty of a constituent of mine whose sister lives in Florida in the United States? Her dog is already microchipped, already has a health certificate and would be healthy to travel to the UK. However, there is still a delay on the announcement about the United States and Canada. Therefore, may I urge him to make a decision as quickly as possible, so that my constituent's sister is able to return to the UK with her guide dog as speedily as possible?
    Mr. Brown: I am sympathetic to individuals in the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlines. A number of hard cases have been put to me, but I do not think that it would be right to deal with individual cases at ministerial level before we have the pilot scheme in place. It is the Government's intention that the pilot scheme will lead to a full-scale scheme as quickly as possible. On the question of the United States, I hope to have something further to say to the House in a matter of weeks, but we are moving ahead in trying to get a scheme that will meet the needs of those who wish to bring pets in from north America.

    Poultry Plants
    Mr. John Whittingdale: What representations he has received about the level of regulation on low throughput poultry plants. [83848]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have received representations from Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, industry organisations and poultry plant operators, about the impact of proposals to increase the level of veterinary supervision in meat plants and to increase Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges. We have had just over 40 representations altogether.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of full-time veterinary supervision for low throughput producers has already driven four firms out of business and caused another four to deregulate to the exempt sector? Will he accept that that level of supervision is unnecessary for high-quality, free-range producers such as Kelly Turkeys in my constituency?

    1199
    Will he seek to establish from the Commission, as a matter of urgency, exactly what is the legal position on this matter?
    Mr. Rooker: We are seeking to establish with the Commission the issue of derogation in the poultry meat directive. Our legal understanding has always been that it applies only to the structural improvements, but we are checking on that and seeking clarification. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but every day in this country we slaughter 2 million chickens for us to eat. I am not prepared to put at risk the hygiene checks on the industry that are necessary for public protection.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the May Agriculture Council concerning the recent agreement on common agricultural policy reform in relation to farm incomes. [83850]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The reform will increase the market orientation of European agriculture and assist producers in their efforts to improve the competitive position of their businesses. In the short term, before the adjustments take place, there may be a small negative impact on aggregate incomes, but the hard-pressed beef sector is fully protected.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the possibility for modulation according to national priorities could be a great opportunity to make the common agricultural policy more acceptable to Britain? Does he expect to be able to use the system to provide more assistance to small family farms and possibly to new entrants into fanning?
    Mr. Brown: I am not an advocate of modulation, but it is permitted by horizontal measure 4 of the agreement. We consulted on the issue in principle in January, before the final phase of the negotiations, and the majority of farmers liked the idea in principle and responded positively. We are consulting further and we shall be consulting the Agriculture Ministers of the devolved authorities.
    Mr. Robert Walter: Two years ago farmers were told that things can only get better under Labour. Since then, farm incomes have collapsed. Will the so-called reform of the common agricultural policy give farmers any long-term hope? It appears that the reform is totally incompatible with the next world trade round and takes no account of the cost of EU enlargement. Can the Minister reassure fanners?
    Mr. Brown: I want to make it absolutely clear that I would have liked to have seen the reform agenda advocated by the United Kingdom and others go further and be introduced more quickly than it was in the negotiations that were concluded in Berlin. The common agricultural policy is undoubtedly moving in the right direction and there are substantial benefits in it for British agriculture. The task for Ministers and, dare I say it, for Parliament is to ensure that we make use of all the
    1200
    measures now open to us, including the rural development measures, to ensure that small, medium and large farms come through the present downturn in the agricultural cycle to profitability, a decent return on the work that farmers are doing, on the capital they have invested and on the investment in their livestock and crops.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that the Conservatives are always telling us that they want to keep the veto. Is the retention of that veto helpful in renegotiating the CAP?
    Mr. Brown: It is important that the Government have been able to get our country back to the heart of the negotiations with our partners in the European Union. We have been able to make substantial progress on our reform agenda in each and every area of the CAP and stabilise the budget in a way that the previous Government failed to do.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that the Minister has correctly acknowledged, today and previously, that the interim CAP reform will have to be revisited—for the very correct reasons referred to by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter)—will he confirm that the British Government's efforts in the matter will be concentrated on making the case, with renewed vigour, for shifting more funds, and fresh funds into wider rural development? We have to do that if we are to maintain the viability of our agricultural sector, particularly in the United Kingdom's less viable parts in terms of incomes.
    In answering the initial question, the Minister mentioned the emerging devolved structure in the United Kingdom. Will he amplify a little more on how he sees the agricultural representatives in Edinburgh and in Cardiff contributing under that structure, and does he welcome the fact that part of the coalition deal between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Sell out."] I am interested to hear Conservative Members use that phrase. I should have thought that they would welcome the fact that we shall see the introduction of an independent arbitration service for agriculture, for which we have long been calling. Now that one is being established in Scotland, when will similar services be established across the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Brown: I welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I set big store by the rural development measures. I am looking forward to working closely with the Agriculture Ministers from the devolved authorities—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The House will want to know that the mechanisms that I propose to use for consultations with the other Ministers are exactly the same as ones now operating within the Government, except that meetings of officials before the Council of Ministers will—I hope; it is subject to agreement with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—be supplemented by ministerial meetings between me and the other Agriculture Ministers.
    On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I am examining whether it would be possible to introduce such arrangements into England. However, I do urge people not to place too much hope in such a mechanism, as all

    1201
    that it could do would be to confirm that the regulations—which are very rigidly drawn—are being properly operated. The scope for altering decisions that have been made is very tightly circumscribed, and there is not as much discretion in the matter as would perhaps be normal in United Kingdom law.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister confirm that, prior to the previous general election, the Labour party was in favour of modulation in support payments? May I, please, impress on him the need for a really serious look at modulation—which would assist upland farmers, who are most under strain in the current economic climate?
    Mr. Brown: I am taking a hard look at it, and the consultation is a serious one. I have been struck by the response to my January consultation from farmers across a range of agricultural sectors. They were in favour of it, at least in principle, and wanted the idea to be explored further. Modulation is, of course, divisive in the agricultural sector, as those who believe that they could be beneficiaries of it are advocates, whereas those who believe that they could lose out by it are sceptical of it. We therefore have to proceed carefully.

    Beef Industry
    Mr. William Thompson: What assessment he has made of the implications for the beef industry of a lifting of the ban on the sale of beef on the bone in one part of the United Kingdom only. [83851]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government have made clear our wish to revoke the beef bones controls as soon as the scientific and medical evidence indicate that it is prudent to do so. Until then, we believe that United Kingdom-wide application of the controls will best protect public health and maintain confidence in beef and beef products.
    Mr. Thompson: Given the fact that the ban was imposed to safeguard the health of everyone in the United Kingdom, would it not be ludicrous if the ban were lifted in Scotland and in Wales but not in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if it is lifted in Scotland and in Wales, it will be lifted also in Northern Ireland—which, currently, is the only part of the United Kingdom that is able to export beef?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have had this discussion before. Confidence in the industry is important, but the need to protect the health of the public is of overriding importance. The Government's recommendation was based on the advice of the chief medical officer—not just the chief medical officer for England, who advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me, but the separate officers who advise my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. The Government decision was unanimous. It is difficult for Ministers to set to one side the clearly stated advice of the senior professional whose duty it is to advise them.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I support my right hon. Friend and urge him to take no criticism
    1202
    From Her Majesty's Opposition, who showed great incompetence on these matters during the 18 years that they had the power of decision over that great British industry. Will he assure me that he greatly appreciates eating the roast beef of Great Britain, that he likes a pork chop and a leg of lamb and that he believes that tasting and enjoying those products of the British industry makes him a better leader and negotiator? I should like to hear such appreciation of a great industry.
    Mr. Brown: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the British meat industry and an enthusiastic consumer of its products. At events organised by the Meat and Livestock Commission and others, I am pleased to be joined by hon. Members from both sides, sharing that appreciation of the best of Britain.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Why is the Minister so hostile to the poor old British beef farmer? [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers seem to find that extraordinarily funny. They obviously have not talked to any beef farmers recently. The Minister wants to allow imports of US beef fed on hormones that are banned in this country. He boasted last November about the end of the export ban, then waited five months before inviting European Commission officials to carry out that decision. He is destroying confidence in beef by keeping the absurd ban on beef on the bone when even the Government's chief scientist has said that it is not scientifically justified. Is it not time that Britain had a Minister of Agriculture who wanted a fair deal for Britain's beef farmers?
    Mr. Brown: We agree on that, then. This country has a Minister of Agriculture who wants a fair deal for British beef farmers. It has a Minister of Agriculture who got the beef ban lifted. It has a Minister of Agriculture who ensured that the beef sector was fully compensated for the price adjustments in the CAP round. It has a Minister of Agriculture who supports the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission and is able to maintain public confidence in beef products. A political lifting of a ban imposed for health reasons would do nothing for public confidence in the industry. On hormone-treated beef from the United States I am continuing the policy of the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member and a supporter.

    Specified Risk Materials
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What measures he is taking to ensure that controls on specified risk materials do not place additional burdens on the livestock industry. [83852]
    The Minister of State, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): My right hon. Friend the Minister announced last month the deferral of industry charging for the cost of specified risk material enforcement for a further year, which is worth about £20 million to industry.
    Mr. Cunningham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's deferral of the SRM charges. Will he also treat his review of other charges throughout the industry with some urgency?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. Let us be clear about this. Deferring the SRM charges means that the taxpayer is continuing to

    1203
    pay for the work, which is still being done. There were about 4,000 SRM inspections last year. The industry has been successful. It is 36 months since we found any spinal cord attached to a bovine carcase. There has been excellent work in the industry, but it must be checked and audited. We have to make sure in the public interest that it is carried out properly.
    So far as the other charges are concerned, we have not yet announced the meat hygiene charges for 1999–2000, and they will not be backdated. We are carrying the cost of not making the decision yet. We have undertaken a further, brief consultation that closed last week, and we will make our decision and announcements as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister aware that although the review is welcome—we particularly pressed for it—the speed with which the new consultation took place was resented, particularly by smaller producers who did not feel that they were given adequate time to look at it? Does the Minister accept that the important thing is to get the right decision rather than simply a quick decision, and if that results in low-throughput abattoirs being driven out of business, the lack of competition will be devastating for the meat industry?
    Mr. Rooker: We have no intention as a policy objective of driving low-throughput abattoirs out of business. We can make decisions on the basis of the consultation that we have already undertaken, and there are no surprises here for anybody. We decided to announce a further, quick check of the industry. Given the amount of letters, correspondence and representations, I accept that seven days was a short time. However, it was not as if anyone had to start from scratch in putting together their further representations. I do not accept that the consultation was only seven days. Added to the previous consultation, it makes a considerable length of time.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: The decision concerning deferral has been widely welcomed by farmers in my constituency, and is an indication that this Government genuinely listen to beef producers. However, does my hon. Friend believe that there is a need to ask some searching questions of our European competitors on their charging policy in relation to hygiene costs and specified risk material removal to ensure fair competition throughout the EU?
    Mr. Rooker: SRM removal is a BSE enforcement measure. We must do that, and it is not common throughout the rest of the EU—simply because those countries do not have BSE on anywhere near the scale that we have had. I must also knock on the head the idea that the measure applies to everyone. I heard a programme the other week on which a pig farmer was bewailing the SRM charges. SRM conditions apply only to cattle and sheep, and not to any other meat. The SRM charges were the biggest section of the increase that was forthcoming. To that extent, I am sure that the deferral has received a wide welcome.
    So far as the meat hygiene enforcement charges in the rest of Europe are concerned, we have put in the Library recently our assessment of the information that we
    1204
    have collected. We have no evidence that we are gold-plating and going over the top in comparison with other European nations. The contrary is true.
    Mr. James Paice: Why does not the Minister stop bragging about abandoning a charge for one year when the truth is that it was introduced by his Government in the first place, without any concern for its impact on the industry? How can we take seriously any concern for abattoir costs when he so contemptuously allowed just seven days for a response to the consultation? Why does he not do something useful today, and lift the specified offals controls on pig-only abattoirs, as was recommended earlier? If seven days is long enough for a consultation, the Minister has had more than that to consult the MLC. He could do it now.
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. We announced the introduction of charges for the removal of specified risk materials, but we did not do so through a written question or a letter. I announced it in a Committee in November 1997. There was not a single comment from any Conservative Member of Parliament present in the Committee that morning. The idea that this has just been put to the industry without any forewarning is nonsense. We put off the charges for the first year and the second year, and we will decide what to do for the third year before it starts.

    Dietary Supplements
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will make a statement on Government policy towards the classification of nutritional dietary supplements as food. [83853]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Most products described as dietary supplements are considered in law to be foods. The Government have no plans to change this arrangement.
    Mr. Chope: That answer is rather complacent. There is tremendous concern among health food manufacturers over the issue of definitions. There is no definition in law of a health food supplement. The manufacturers and consumers do not want the products to be banned as a result of the very wide definition that now applies to medicines. It is thought that the definition of medicines would include brandy, glucose and red wine, for example, as well as many other nutritional substances. Does the Minister accept that we need a clear definition of food supplements that ensures that they do not fall under the same regulatory regime as medicines?
    Mr. Morley: The background to this is that the Medicines Control Agency is considering some of the foods that could possibly be classed as medicines rather than food supplements. There is a very clear definition of what is and is not a medicine. There have been some doubts about whether some of the foods currently on sale should be defined as medicines and regulated accordingly. That is why the MCA is acting, following an article 169 letter from the Commission asking the Government to review the question.
    Some manufacturers and consumers have the impression that the MCA is seeking to reclassify supplements as medicines. That is not the case. It is

    1205
    considering the definitions and will take into account the representations that it has received as part of the consultation process.
    Mr. Mark Todd: I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the views of two manufacturers in my constituency, Peter Black Healthcare and Surepharm, which are concerned about the potential impact of MCA regulation. I welcome the reassurance that the regulation will not apply to existing products, but of course many companies will be concerned about the possible application to products developed in the future. Can we at least hasten the work of the expert group that was commissioned to consider the matter? What progress has it made?
    Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that the expert group, set up in 1997, is examining the issue. It is expected to report to the Food Advisory Committee towards the end of 2000. It is a major review, and there are many issues to consider. I repeat that it is not the intention unnecessarily to restrict the sale of vitamins and minerals or indeed to apply arbitrary limits without any scientific basis, but it is right and proper to regulate certain vitamins and supplements that may have a physiological effect and could come within the definition of medicines.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I stress the wide public concern about this matter? On Monday, I received a petition of nearly 1,000 signatures from a health food shop in my constituency, which shows that people do not want to be deprived of their supplements and feel that, if there is the remotest danger, they should be warned and allowed to take an adult decision. Some of the supplements and herbal remedies have been in use since Anglo-Saxon times.
    Mr. Morley: Some people are concerned about the current MCA review, but the intention is not to reclassify supplements as medicines. There are some grey areas and we need to examine whether some products are in fact medicines. It is a consultative process, and the views of both consumers and manufacturers will be taken into account.

    Food Standards Bill
    Ms Joan Ryan: How many responses he has received on the draft Food Standards Bill. [83854]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): By the closing date for consultation on the draft Bill, in addition to the Food Standards Committee report, we had received 998 submissions, all of which will be placed in the Library later today.
    Ms Ryan: I welcome the way in which the Ministry and the Department of Health have acted on food safety since May 1997 and the fact that the Government allowed pre-legislative scrutiny. That approach is a marked change from the attitude of the previous Government. When will the Bill be introduced?
    Mr. Rooker: Hopefully, next month. We are intent on legislating in this Session on the draft Food Standards Bill. We are still dependent—not wholly, but to some extent—on the progress of the House of Lords Bill. If the hereditary peers break their word again, as they did earlier this week, we will be in some difficulty. We hope, however, to introduce the Food Standards Bill in this House next month.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the Minister aware that local authorities believe that between £15 and £23 of the proposed £90 Food Standards Agency tax will be spent on the costs of collection? Given the fear expressed in the recent Agriculture Committee report that the charge could rise to £600 a year—a fear that causes grave anxiety among the corner shop owners in the Aylesbury Vale district council area, which incorporates my Buckingham constituency—what estimate has he made of the number of such corner shops that are likely to have to shed staff and throw people on the dole as a result of that ill-considered imposition?
    Mr. Rooker: At approximately the same time as we introduce the Bill, which is—in effect—another part of the consultation process, we will announce the result of our secondary consultation on the levy. That was a separate consultation in a separate document. We have made it clear that we take seriously the submissions made to us, and I can say that there is no shred of a possibility of a single levy charge of anything near £600. The reason for the appearance of that figure in the record of the exchanges of the Select Committee is that I gave an honest answer to an honest question that did not automatically presuppose that the rate would be £600. We will announce our decision on the charge, but we want a fair system.
    Unless the levy raises some £40 million, we will not have a Food Standards Agency. Therefore, we have to raise that sum, but we have to do so fairly and in a way that is seen to be fair. We have told local authorities that, within the charge, they will be able to recover their collection charges and retain a surplus to provide more resources for enforcement.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Minister welcome the achievement of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in winning a commitment in the partnership agreement to find a fairer funding system for the Food Standards Agency? Is he, as he has perhaps indicated, likely to follow suit? It would be unfair if the small village shop had to pay the same levy as the wealthy large supermarkets.
    Mr. Rooker: We shall have to be careful choosing our words now that we have devolution, especially as we are working in partnership in different parts of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] No, I am ever the diplomat at the Dispatch Box. The Food Standards Agency will be a United Kingdom authority, but we will be in the unique position of setting up that UK authority in devolved subject areas. Therefore, it is crucial that the issue is addressed so that differences can be taken into account by the regulatory authorities in those areas. I am certain that we will find a satisfactory solution that is fair to small shopkeepers, is fair between England, Scotland and Wales, and is perceived to be fair by the public, because that is also important.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: If he will make a statement about the incomes of farmers in the pig industry. [83856]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government are fully aware of the difficulties still facing the pig industry. However, market prices have improved by 33 per cent. since the low point in January and currently stand some 20 per cent. above the average European Union price.
    Mr. Dawson: I thank my right hon. Friend for the serious and level-headed attention that he brings to that important subject, in contrast to some of the overblown rhetoric and nonsense we hear from Conservative Members. I commend to him the pigmeat products from the Lancaster and Wyre constituency; perhaps we should call it the Duchy of Lancaster pig. Will he give some serious attention to how notable firms such as North West Fine Foods can fully exploit the niche market of quality local produce, selling to quality local people and quality visitors?
    Mr. Brown: I fully take my hon. Friend's point, but there is no protectionist solution to the sector's problems. The way forward is to support the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign on assured British pork, ham and bacon. At the same time, we must urge retailers to make sure that the welfare premium for which we voted in 1991 is obtained by producers in the marketplace.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will make it the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose to the victims of crime the reasons for deciding in any case not to prosecute. [83876]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): The Crown Prosecution Service provides to the police information about casework decisions so that the police may forward it to victims. How much information can be given may depend on the circumstances of individual cases. The CPS must balance openness with victims with the interests of others involved in cases. As to the future, the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether or not to take over from the police the responsibility for informing victims of the reasons for CPS casework decisions. I intend to make a statement on this in June.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. My question was, as he knows, prompted by a constituency case, involving Mr. Ellis, the author of a book entitled, "Thoth: The Architect of the Universe". After it was published, the book was subject to massive plagiarism by Random House, one of the world's largest publishers. No fewer than 70 pages and some diagrams from his book were reproduced word for word in a Random House book. The publishers were put on
    1208
    notice that Mr. Ellis objected, and they undertook not to carry out publication. However, they did publish, taking advantage of their position in the market as one of the largest publishers. My constituent went to the police to seek redress under section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    Many months later, Mr. Ellis received a letter from the CPS saying that it would not prosecute but giving no reason. That is most unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Attorney-General can explain to Mr. Ellis why—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a constituency case across the Floor of the House. He might do better to make proper written representations to the Attorney-General, which would give the right hon and learned Gentleman an opportunity to consider it.
    Mr. Chope: Further to your remarks, Madam Speaker, I have written to the Attorney-General, and I have had no reply.
    Madam Speaker: Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows about it now.
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice this morning of the matters in which he is interested. He wrote to me as recently as 30 April concerning his constituent, Mr. Ellis, about whom he is obviously concerned. The hon. Gentleman's letter has been transferred to the Home Office for an answer. As I understand matters from the hurried inquiries that I have been able to make, the case is at present a matter for the police. So far as I know—and I shall have to make further inquiries following what the hon. Gentleman said—the CPS is not involved. I may be wrong on that point, but I have been unable to make further progress on it during the past two hours. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as the situation develops.
    Shona McIsaac: In cases involving death, what is the policy of the CPS towards keeping bereaved families informed of casework decisions, which cause much concern to many people?
    The Attorney-General: I share my hon. Friend's concern. In cases involving death, a senior CPS lawyer will be available to meet bereaved families to explain CPS casework decisions and relevant criminal law procedures. That is the long-established policy of the CPS, and it is reflected in its commitments to the victims charter. The policy recognises the special sensitivity that must be given to handling homicide cases.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the broader issue of communicating with victims, is not the real problem the continuing lack of effective communication between the prosecutor and the officer in the case and, through him, the victim? Is that because the Crown Prosecution Service does not explain matters to the police administration support units, or is it because the message does not get from those units back to the officer and the victim? Does the Attorney-General recall that in his report, Sir lain Glidewell made a number of recommendations both for research and action in that area? Will he please tell us what is happening?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I know from long experience that the

    1209
    system is not perfect—hence Sir Iain Glidewell's recommendations. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall from my earlier answer, the CPS is considering the matter to find out how the situation can be improved, given that there are two inputs—initially the police and, secondly, the CPS. I intend to make a statement because I know of the concern about the matter—it was registered by Sir Iain—when I make a further statement on his recommendations in June.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What progress has been made in implementing the Glidewell report in London. [83877]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Sir Iain Glidewell's review of the CPS made three recommendations specific to London. First, that CPS London should be organised broadly along the same lines as other CPS areas covering large conurbations. This has been accepted. A new chief Crown prosecutor for London has been appointed, supported by an area business manager. Secondly, Sir kin recommended that assistant chief Crown prosecutors be appointed. That has been implemented. Thirdly, he recommended that the special problems of London required greater co-operation between all the criminal justice agencies. The detail of that recommendation, especially in relation to trial issues groups, remains under consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will make a statement in June, as he said a moment ago.
    Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the long-standing concern among police and magistrates in Bexley at the avoidable delays and inefficiencies that have arisen because the nearest office of the Crown Prosecution Service is at the Cooperage, London Bridge, rather than local? For that reason, the Glidewell report was welcome: it promised an integration of the police, the magistrates and the CPS and definite benefits arising from that. Indeed, space was reserved in the new Bexleyheath police station for a CPS unit.
    Now those who were previously encouraged are dismayed at the way in which they believe the Glidewell report is being implemented. The dismay arises on three counts. One is the understanding that the nearest CPS office to Bexley will be in Croydon—the journey there is more difficult than it is to the Cooperage at London Bridge. The second count is that information technology arrangements are poor and reflect the lack of resources that are being put into the arrangement. The third is that the present reorganisation of magistrates courts in London is not being taken into account.
    Will my hon. and learned Friend please review the arrangements in south-east London with a view to bringing the CPS as near as possible to the police and magistrates?
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions should be brisk and to the point. The hon. Gentleman is raising an Adjournment debate. I hope that the Minister will not take as long in his response, or we shall never move down the Order Paper.
    The Solicitor-General: I would not dare, Madam Speaker, given what you have said.
    1210
    I can tell my hon. Friend who is assiduous in pursuing criminal justice issues in his area, that there are no plans at present to transfer work that is being undertaken by the Bexley team at London Bridge to Croydon. Also, as a result of an earlier review, the branch has already implemented a system whereby a dedicated team of staff work at Bexley magistrates court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Write!"] Following that suggestion from Opposition Members, I will write to my hon. Friend with full details of the matter.

    Private Sector Lawyers
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What plans he has to increase the use of private sector lawyers by prosecution services. [83878]
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have no immediate plans to increase the use of private sector lawyers. The CPS is working with the Bar to foster closer working relationships while seeking to increase the use of in-house lawyers employed by the CPS who have achieved success in obtaining the higher court advocacy qualification. The aim is to increase competition, improve standards and quality, and achieve best value for money.
    Mr. Cohen: Is there not an increasingly good case for hiring the best local solicitors to reduce delays in getting prosecution cases to court and get better results in more complicated cases? Is there not an opportunity to turn some of the poachers into gamekeepers?
    The Solicitor-General: All prosecution services can instruct private sector lawyers or in-house lawyers with the higher court advocacy qualification. The decision depends on the circumstances of the case. There has been no significant change in their use recently, one way or the other. My hon. Friend's comment has a certain validity. If there are suitable local lawyers, I am sure that the CPS will consider employing them.
    Mr. John Burnett: Does the Solicitor-General have any proposals to encourage experienced lawyers in mid-career to join the CPS? Will he assure the House that no stigma will attach to lawyers applying to rejoin the CPS, on the ground that early in their careers they had been members of the service?
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that we would encourage lawyers in private practice to join the CPS. The CPS advertises and has very flexible arrangements for extended leave. That is particularly advantageous to married women who may go on maternity leave and then want to stay away for longer. We encourage outside people to apply to the CPS. No stigma will attach to those who left service some time ago.

    International Court of Justice
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many cases he has been involved in within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the last 12 months. [83879]
    The Attorney-General: I represented the United Kingdom on 10, 11 and 12 May in proceedings brought before the International Court of Justice by Yugoslavia against the United Kingdom and nine other NATO States. My hon. Friend asked about cases "within the jurisdiction" of the ICJ. The question whether the Court has jurisdiction over Yugoslavia's claims against the UK and the other defendants is one of the central issues that the Court has to determine.
    I have also followed developments in the case brought by Libya against the United Kingdom and the United States arising from the tragedy over Lockerbie in 1988, but I have not myself been directly involved before the Court in that case.
    Mr. Dalyell: As cluster bombs are not very different from landmines, on which there has been international legislation—much to the credit of this Government—has anything been said about the legality of the use of cluster bombs? In particular, was either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General consulted about the dropping of cluster bombs on the centre of the city of Nis? Was either of them told of the proximity of a hospital in Belgrade to a target before permission was given, on the legal basis on which I understand they are consulted, for the attack to go ahead, with the tragic resulting death of patients?
    The Attorney-General: The matters that my hon. Friend raises are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I confirm that I have offered advice to colleagues in relation to some of the legal issues that have arisen during the process of approving targets for attack by UK forces. I am unwilling
    1212
    to be drawn further. I am confident that the Government and UK forces act in accordance with international law. Legal advice is available at every level of the process of approving targets for attack.

    Court of Appeal
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: How many unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal since 1 May 1997. [83880]
    The Attorney-General: Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 171 offenders, and 117 applications have been heard. Leave was granted in 112 applications and the sentence increased in 96, which is 83.4 per cent. of references that have been heard.
    Mr. Grieve: Does the Attorney-General consider that those figures reflect satisfactorily on the sentencing system in this country, or does he think that the number of cases on which he sought to make reference suggests that uniformity of sentencing is not being properly achieved?
    The Attorney-General: Only a tiny proportion of cases before the Crown courts are referred. They are those in which it is necessary so to do to ensure that public confidence is maintained. Over the years, the figures have been roughly the same; there was a dip in 1996 and 1997, and an increase in 1998 to a figure nearer to what it used to be in 1995. Generally, the figure is about the same. I believe that that is right and that it is shown in the results in the figures from the Court of Appeal that I have already given.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 24 MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the second report from the Modernisation Committee on sittings of the House in Westminster Hall.
TUESDAY 25 MAY—Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House—the pre-Cologne debate.
WEDNESDAY 26 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House which will include the usual three hour pre-recess debate.
Motion to approve the first report from the Administration Committee on the proposal to re-open the line of route during the summer adjournment.
Motion relating to Members' travel to EU institutions.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
Motion on quorum of concurrent meetings of Select Committees.
Motion on the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 8 JUNE—Second Reading of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 9 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Health Bill.
THURSDAY 10 JUNE—There will be a debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 11 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for an indication of the business for the week after the Whitsun recess. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she has not lost sight of the promised debate on the House of Lords White Paper? That debate could have been held today, but for the Government's shameful decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
Will the Government table any amendments to the Health Bill before we rise next week, so that Members and people outside the House have ample opportunity to respond to them? What has happened to the Food Standards Bill, which completed its passage through a Special Standing Committee some time ago and is now languishing on some parliamentary shelf?
1214
The House is expecting several statements in the near future: on genetically modified foods, drugs and freedom of information. We shall also expect to be updated on Kosovo before we rise. Will the Leader of the House indicate when we might expect which announcements? In relation to genetically modified foods, the Government will want to address the widely held belief, confirmed in the leaked letter to Friends of the Earth, that the Government are obsessed with presentation at the expense of policy.
Last week, I asked the Leader of the House if she would
"assure the House that if there are any important changes in Government policy next week, the appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House?"—[Official Report, 13 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 416.]
That was in connection with the Government's U-turn on the Tote. The right hon. Lady rejected the charge of discourtesy, but was not insult added to injury by the behaviour of the Home Secretary yesterday, when he announced a new policy—the opposite of the previous one—on the "Today" programme? Has the right hon. Lady read what Madam Speaker said yesterday about the matter? She stated:

"The House knows that I deprecate statements that are made in the written press or in the media before they come to House. I do so very much again today."—[Official Report, 19 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1074–75.]
Will the right hon. Lady now apologise to the House on behalf of the Government?
Mrs. Beckett: First, may I apologise to the House for something completely different? Two pages of the business statement were stuck together and I did not tell the House something that I am sure it wishes passionately to know.
On Wednesday 9 June, there will be a debate on the global navigation satellite system in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 9 June:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6528/99, Global Navigation Satellite System; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34-xvii;(1998–99).]
I apologise for denying the House that important information.
I have not lost sight of the Lords White Paper, and of course we will return to that matter. As for what the right hon. Gentleman called the shameful decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I have looked for the most notable and sensible precedents to follow. In 1985–86, when the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member and a supporter were passing major social security legislation—which was more substantial even than the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—
Mr. Eric Forth: That was then, this is now.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes. The then Government guillotined the Bill in Committee and provided two days on the Floor of the House to debate the remaining stages and the

1215
Third Reading. That amounted to some 13 hours in which to discuss legislation that covered literally every kind of benefit from the cradle to the grave.
In this instance, the Government provided one day's debate on the Floor of the House and were not asked to allocate more time. There were 13 hours of debate on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on that one day, so we have already discussed the legislation for the same amount of time as was allocated in 1985–86. The Government have now provided another full day for debate. It is quite clear that we are providing more than adequate time for the debate should the Opposition wish to use it actually to debate the Bill—but that is a matter for them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked that amendments to the Health Bill be tabled next week. I cannot give him that assurance today because I genuinely do not know, however, I shall certainly draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Government are currently finalising the Food Standards Bill in light of public consultation and the report of discussions in the Food Standards Select Committee. We aim to introduce the legislation in this Session if time is available.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a string of things—GM foods, drugs, freedom of information and Kosovo—and inquired as to when announcements might be made. We will endeavour to make as many announcements as we can before the recess. In response to the right hon. Gentleman's observations about presentation rather than policy and the comments by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on the radio this morning, I simply point out that the document which has been leaked—and about which there has been much excitement—states that it is important to write publications in clear language so that people can understand what is said. I do not think there is anything revolutionary about that—especially as the original memo, which is quoted in the Friends of the Earth press release, goes on to say:
"Ministers needed to guard against the charge that the Government was seeking to influence the findings of the paper."
It must be quite obvious that the Government are trying only to make policy clear. There does not seem to be anything in that document other than sheer common sense.
As for the matter of statements, the Government endeavour at all times to ensure that important statements are made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman referred to statements being made outside the House, and I understand that hon. Members sometimes wish to explore subjects more fully. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did announce the policy change to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—which, I might add, was leaked extensively—in a written parliamentary question. So it was already announced to the House: there was simply no statement. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), apologised fully to the House yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman and all Opposition Members are perfectly well aware that the Home Secretary is assiduous in his courtesy to the House and in his attempts to ensure that the House is informed
1216
properly. As to the Opposition's pretence that the Government somehow withhold statements from the House—
Mr. Forth: Yes.
Mrs. Beckett: I do wish that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) could possess his soul in some slight silence—Whips are normally silent. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on that occasion.
In the 1992–93 Session, the then Government made some 96 statements about Government policy. In the equivalent period this Session, this Government have made 117.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Leader of the House will have heard about the bombing of a hospital in Belgrade last night, in which three people were killed and members of staff and patients were injured. Given the increasing number of civilians who are being killed, and the growing belief that NATO is running out of military targets and that there could be more such tragedies, will the Government initiate a debate before the recess on the effects of the bombing on the civilian population in Yugoslavia, both in Serbia and in Kosovo?
Mrs. Beckett: Everyone in the House regrets and deeply deplores the fact that there have been civilian casualties. My hon. Friend refers to the belief that NATO is running out of military targets. I understand—I believe that this is not contested—that it is clear that the target was a military barracks not far from the hospital, and possibly one of the bombs aimed at those barracks went astray. As to the effects of that, at the moment we have only limited information because the Serbian Government are not allowing people into the area. Clearly, we shall make every attempt to find out as much information as possible.
I cannot offer my hon. Friend a special debate on that particular aspect of the matter, but I assure her that the Government will continue to make statements and find time for debates on all the issues surrounding that action.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is widespread and genuine confusion about the Government's position on genetically modified food and crops? Every day, we seem to receive conflicting reports. Will she arrange for a full statement and a full debate so that we can find out precisely what action the Government intend to take on those extremely important issues? Those are of concern not only to farmers and consumers, but to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the proposition put before him by my party that this is a classic case that the royal commission on environmental pollution, which has already done useful work on the subject, could be asked to revisit?
We understand why the Government did not make the statement that was expected today on the draft Bill on freedom of information. We have all been waiting so long for that statement that two or three days' delay is not a disaster. However, will the right hon. Lady now guarantee

1217
that there will be a statement when the draft Bill is published, which we anticipate will be next week, and that there will be a recognition of the concern that the original intentions set out by the Home Secretary appear to have been diluted?
Will the right hon. Lady agree also that the situation in Scotland—and, for all I know, in Wales—means that it is extremely important for us to make progress on that matter in this House? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the new Minister for Justice in Scotland, may be able to make more progress on it than is being made in this Parliament.
Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that open government and freedom of information in relation to the activities of the European institutions will also be addressed, albeit separately?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked about the conflicting reports and confusion about GM foods and crops. I agree that there is more confusion than there should be, but that is because people seem to want to sow confusion. For example, I heard such reports from people in the news media and, I am sorry to say, normally respected organisations that are campaigning on this matter.
The Government chief scientist was extensively quoted this morning, and he has made it plain that he was misquoted and misreported. I have his full letter before me in which he refers to what he believes is the only scientifically defensible position and says:
"I do not see a problem"—
with the Government's stance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the letter has been reported in a way that seeks to imply, and indeed asserts, that the Government chief scientist is in dispute with the Government's position.
Mr. John Bercow: He is.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he is talking through the back of his neck. He should read the letter, the first line of which says:
"I do not see a problem here".
Mr. James Paice: I have the letter.
Mrs. Beckett: Well, if the hon. Gentleman has the letter, I suggest that he reads it and digests its contents. I have read it all, and it clearly says that there is no dispute about the science and with the Government's position.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked about referring the matter to the royal commission, but of course the Science and Technology Select Committee has reported on the matter this week, and we are studying all the reports and considering the recommendations. However, I believe that the last thing that any of us wants to do is to kick into the long grass a sensible debate on the science of this matter, which is more than necessary and becomes more necessary with every day that misleading statements are made by the various campaigners on the issue.
1218
The hon. Gentleman asked me to guarantee a statement on the freedom of information Bill, and I do so. I can also tell him that I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends, as always, to explain with absolute clarity the position that the Government are taking and why he has reached his decisions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to take account of the issue of the principles of open government with regard to EU policy and so on. To the extent that that is within this Government's control, we do so.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of increasing speculation in the United Kingdom and in other countries in Europe about the future of the Western European Union, especially the rumour that it might be integrated into the European Union? Does she accept that that issue should be debated in the House? She may argue that there are two opportunities in the next two parliamentary weeks to do so, but I urge her to hold a special debate so that we may debate that specific issue and the wider issue of European security.
Mrs. Beckett: I have a faint recollection of having heard rumours to that effect from time to time over the years, which have always turned out to be unfounded press speculation. I fear that I cannot offer my hon. Friend a special debate on the matter, although I understand its importance. However, I draw to his attention the fact that there is to be a debate on the European Union next Tuesday. It will focus on the pre-Cologne Council, but there is no reason why the matters raised by my hon. Friend may not be relevant—subject to Madam Speaker's opinion. In addition, I have just announced that there is to be a debate on defence in the world just after the recess, so that might provide another opportunity to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Brooke: As we enter the final straight towards the millennium, we realise that some people are apparently less well prepared than they should be in terms of the millennium bug. When that is pointed out, however, they say that that criticism is based on out-of-date information. Would the Leader of the House therefore contemplate accelerating the frequency of the admirable reports that she gives to the House, so that unnecessary apprehensions are not created?
Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have every intention of doing so. The next statement is due in the relatively near future, and I intend thereafter to make monthly updating statements to the House.
Dr. Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend will know that, over the years, hon. Members from both sides of the House have asked whether, when statements are made, we might have the text a little earlier in the day—perhaps by noon on the day that the statement is to be made—so that questions can be more focused and more informed. Would not the statement on freedom of information be exactly the right occasion on which to institute such a new procedure?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I have slight reservations, although obviously it

1219
is a matter that could be considered. If I may say so without disrespect to any hon. Member on either side of the House, I would like to be absolutely and immediately confident that producing a copy of a statement at an earlier time would not mean that its precise details appeared in the news media before it was made in the House. I consider that it would be difficult to have such absolute confidence and certainty about that, but I will bear in mind that suggestion.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on national health service trust management? I do not know whether she is aware that three non-executive directors of the Guild health care trust in Preston exposed mismanagement of that trust by the chief executive, which was brought to light in an independent report entitled, "The Care and Treatment of Daniel Holden." The chief executive was suspended by the trust board. There was a further investigation, by an independent panel, which endorsed that action and confirmed that the trust had been mismanaged. The trust was told, via the regional office, by the Secretary of State for Health, that the three non-executive directors should resign, and that, if they did not, they would be sacked to give the trust a fresh start.
Madam Speaker: A question, please.
Mr. Evans: Yes, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the three non-executive directors were sacked. My great fear—I wonder whether the Leader of the House agrees—is that the morale of non-executive directors throughout the country will be affected by that decision.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the morale of non-executive directors but, to be honest, I do not see why that should be affected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it plain at a much earlier stage that he felt that, sadly, it was not in the interests of the trust or of the health service as a whole for the members of the previous team to stay in post. He invited them to resign, and they were not willing to do so. These are clearly special circumstances and we must all hope that they are unique.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), the Leader of the House said that not very much is known about the tragic hospital bombing in Belgrade. If there is such a lack of information, should not bombing stop, or should not there at least be a pause? In particular, could not a statement be made on Monday, when a little more will be known about the facts?
Mrs. Beckett: The House understands my hon. Friend's strong views on this matter and I accept that he is saying that, on those grounds and on this occasion, there should be a pause in the bombing. I simply say to him, however, that there are different views on it, which are held by people in all good conscience, and draw to his attention what I understand to be the recent remarks of the Catholic Archbishop of Belgrade, who said that any pause in NATO action would be taken by President Milosevic as a sign of weakness.
Mr. Michael Jack: A moment ago, the Leader of the House was dismissive of the request made by my
1220
hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for a special debate on what has been happening at the Guild health care trust in Preston. In the light of her specific comments on the unique nature of this matter, may I press her to arrange for either an oral or a written statement, before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, to deal with those factors?
The sacked non-executive directors, who were acting in their capacity as whistleblowers on mismanagement, feel that their circumstances draw attention to the role of non-executive directors who raise certain issues and find themselves in the firing line of the Secretary of State. We need a statement urgently to clarify that matter.
Mrs. Beckett: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, no doubt inadvertently, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not ask for a debate on that specific matter? He did not get round to that. I am afraid that I cannot find time for an extra and specific debate, but I can of course draw to his attention the fact that there is a pre-recess debate on Wednesday, in which any matter can be raised.
Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the publication earlier this week of the long-awaited and excellent White Paper on sustainable development—which has profound implications for Government policy on both social exclusion and environmental protection—can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this issue in the near future, particularly as no questions have been asked in the House, no Government statements have been made on it and there has been very little interest in the media?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that the White Paper will have profound implications, and it also merits most careful and thorough consideration and debate. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future, although, again, he may be able to raise the matter in the pre-recess debate and I am sure that the House will return to it.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that, for better or for worse, the penalty of capital punishment for murder was abandoned many years ago, will the Leader of the House find time for a statement, either by the Home Secretary or by one of the Law Officers, on why those paratroopers who are, rightly or wrongly, accused of murder on Bloody Sunday will be required to sign their own death warrants in the forthcoming inquiry by revealing their full identities to the public at large and to the terrorists in particular?
Mrs. Beckett: That point could have been raised during questions to the Attorney-General, which have just taken place. I am always hesitant about dealing with matters that might in any way be sub judice, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's observations to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that three British National party candidates in the forthcoming European elections have submitted nomination papers bearing false addresses in order to qualify for a party political broadcast and an election freepost to 20 million households at

1221
public expense? Does she not agree that there is an urgent need for the House to review election law, to prevent our democratic processes from being subverted by racist and fascist organisations seeking a platform for their vile and odious views?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right—and I am pleased to note that the whole House agrees with him.
I am aware of the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have little doubt that they are being studied with great attention, even as we speak. As my hon. Friend will know, the Home Office is in any case conducting an election review, and this is exactly the kind of matter that it will be studying. As my hon. Friend says, we need to ensure that it cannot happen again.
Mr. Michael Fallon: May we have an early debate on the rising cost of special advisers? The cost is now some £3.9 million a year, double the amount during the last year of Conservative government. May we also discuss the new practice of political advisers going on foreign jaunts with their Ministers? We are talking about 170 trips at public expense. How would Ministers defend this new kind of political tourism?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that we are likely to discuss that. I can even suggest a good slot: it can be discussed when we debate the financing of the Opposition parties.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Leader of the House examine the order of questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland next Wednesday? Will she confirm my estimate that there will be no opportunity for the Secretary of State to make a statement about the conduct of Lord Saville's inquiry—indeed, the shameful conduct of that inquiry? Will she arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement, hopefully announcing the winding up of the inquiry, given that Lord Saville has said that there will now be a lack of candour, and that the inquiry cannot possibly add anything to Lord Widgery's original inquiry?
Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, what comes out of the questions hat is a mixture of chance and what hon. Members have tabled. However, I have already undertaken to draw the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I will do the same with his observations.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we, as a matter of urgency, have a debate on early-day motion 669?
[That this House deplores the fact that the Right honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is being allowed to hold simultaneously the posts of Secretary of State for Wales and First Minister for Wales; believes that the existence of such a dual mandate creates an unacceptable conflict of interests; and deplores the fact that the total salary payable to the Right honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth as an honourable
1222
Member, Member of the National Assembly for Wales, Secretary of State for Wales and First Minister for Wales at £187,122 is higher than that paid to the Prime Minister and is amongst the highest remuneration of a public servant in the United Kingdom despite the fact that there is nothing the Right honourable Member can do as First Minister for Wales that he cannot do as Secretary of State for Wales.]
The Leader of the House will be aware of—and may well have participated in, over the years—the ritual condemnations by Labour Members of "fat cats" and Members of Parliament who hold several jobs. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is a Member of the Welsh Assembly, Secretary of State for Wales and First Minister for Wales. That is four jobs, by my reckoning. Will the right hon. Lady give us an opportunity to discuss how on earth any individual, no matter how worthy, can hold four important jobs and justify a salary of £187,000 a year?
Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), has already made it plain that he has no intention of drawing more than his present salary.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the difficulties in which the Paymaster General found herself during this morning's sitting of the Finance Bill Standing Committee, in regard to changes to widows bereavement allowances? In the light of the confusion that the Paymaster General allowed to be created, is this not an opportune time for the Chancellor to make a statement clarifying the position? Undoubtedly, in a forthcoming year, many tens of thousands of widows will suffer because of the Government's changes to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I am not aware of what happened in Committee this morning and, I say with respect to the hon. Gentleman, have some doubt about taking at face value Conservative Members' observation that there was confusion. I am certain that there will not be confusion about Government policy. I am also clear that the Government's changes are, for the first time, beginning to ensure that our reformed welfare system resembles the work and family patterns of today, as opposed to those of 50 years ago.
With regard to the overall approach and treatment of widows, I am mindful, for example, that the bereavement allowance, which was introduced by the Conservative party in 1986 to replace an allowance that was paid over six months, was introduced at a lower rate. It cut the funding that was made available to widows; it was introduced at a level of £1,000. During the rest of the 13 years that the Conservative party was in power, it never increased it by so much as a ha'penny, whereas we are about to double it, so we do not need to listen to strictures from Conservative Members about penalties on widows.
Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House put some pressure on the new Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House to answer questions on the "Partnership for Scotland" document which has been agreed between the Labour party and the Liberal

1223
Democrats as a basis for running the Scottish Parliament? I have been looking through it and I am sure that it has major financial implications for the United Kingdom taxpayer. I am very anxious that we should protect the UK taxpayer and, indeed, my English constituents from paying additional costs north of the border following that agreement with the Liberal Democrats.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that it is Scottish questions on Tuesday and he will be able to ask the Secretary of State himself.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster or, indeed, the Prime Minister to come to the House to explain why No. 10 Downing street leaked the announcement of the appointment of the poet laureate, thus ruining what was going to be an important occasion next week, and at the same time gratuitously insulting the Queen?
Mrs. Beckett: It is my understanding that that is not what happened at all. As I understand it, the announcement was made through No. 10 that the Queen had approved the appointment of the poet laureate. That is the norm and is the way in which all such previous announcements have been made.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the reply by the Leader of the House, will she confirm that, if what she says is right—namely, that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) intends to take only the salary that is currently received by his Cabinet colleagues—there is an excess of £97,122 a year? Will she confirm that that money will in no circumstances be taken? Furthermore, does she not agree that, if we have a debate or statement on the subject, it will afford to the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to confirm that, far from wasting the money by directing it back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to misuse, he will instead donate it to worthy charities?
Mrs. Beckett: That is an ingenious suggestion. I am sure that, somewhere in his comments, the hon. Gentleman meant to welcome the restraint that has been shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—and, indeed, all those in the Cabinet—in taking substantially less than the pay to which they are entitled, unlike, I fear, the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when my right hon. Friend says that he will not take any more than the salary that other members of the Cabinet are drawing, that is precisely what he means. As to the suggestion that my right hon. Friend should draw the rest of it and give it to charity, I just wish that I thought that Conservative Members would take that at face value if he did.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: May we have an early opportunity to debate Home Office proposals to restrict trial by jury? Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House to give a statement, especially in light of the fact that, as late as
1224
February 1997, he was saying that such proposals were not only wholly wrong, but short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective?
Mrs. Beckett: We have already done that; there was an answer to a private notice question yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made his position plain. He has said openly and honestly that that was the view that he expressed in 1997, that he has given the matter further consideration and that he has changed his mind. He has dealt with one of the main anxieties at that time—that there was no appeal against a decision about the form of trial—so the matter is plain. While no doubt the matter can be raised from time to time during Home Office affairs, there is no reason for extra time on it now.
Mr. Norman Baker: I should like to know when we are to have the statement on GM crops and GM food. I suggest that it should be sooner rather than later given that the Government's policy is unravelling at a rate of knots. Will that statement deal with the biotechnology presentation group—the spin unit—which no one had heard about until yesterday? Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that the terms of reference, dates of meetings and minutes of that spin unit will be published for all to see? Will she give a categoric assurance that, contrary to the implication in that leaked letter, there will be no attempt by Ministers to alter in any way, shape or form the recommendations from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser?
Mrs. Beckett: First, there is no such thing as a spin unit. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked me to insist that there will be no attempt to interfere. If the hon. Gentleman read the leaked document, he would see that it says plainly that there is no attempt by Ministers to interfere or even to appear to interfere. All that is intended is that there should be as clear a presentation of policy as possible. Clearly, that is much needed so that hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman do not continue to insist that our policy is unravelling in the face of a letter which says quite clearly that the policy is correct.
Mr. Paice: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider this business of genetically modified crops and have a full day's debate, not just a statement, whenever that may be? The responsible Minister could then account for why the document to which we have just referred says that the
"revised draft should be cleared by a future meeting of the presentation group."
That refers to the recommendations of the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser. If that draft has to be cleared, how can the right hon. Lady guarantee that there will be no power to interfere with it? The relevant Minister would also be able to deal with the final point in Sir Robert May's letter, to which we have also referred and from which the right hon. Lady quoted earlier. Having just said that he does not see how Ministers could contemplate giving permission for commercial release of GM crops until January 2003 at the earliest, Sir Robert May went on to say:
"Obviously I could have written a shorter letter by just saying that I agreed with this sentence, right from the start!!"

1225
If that is the case, will the right hon. Lady point out when and where any Government Minister has said that?
Mrs. Beckett: The Minister for the Environment has said precisely that.
Mr. Paice: He has not.
Mrs. Beckett: He has said that. I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman did not hear him, that is his problem. I shall come back to whether he has put a date on it. On the issue of why the matter should be cleared at a future meeting by people such as the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, it is precisely in order to ensure that what is said is accurate, is in no way misleading and is scientifically sound. I do not believe that Ministers in the previous Government did not have proper and sensible arrangements for ensuring that what was said was agreed and sound. If they did not, it certainly accounts for the perceived incompetence that they displayed for so long.
I have read the last paragraph of the letter—I have read the whole letter. In the last paragraph, the chief scientific adviser says that he could have agreed with that sentence about GM crops "covered by this research." The reason for the previous page to that letter is that he points out that there are more GM crops to be considered than just those covered by the research. He says that there is no point in having a simple date or a simple moratorium—such as that being called for by some campaigners—because some GM foods might require longer periods of experimental evidence and others might require shorter periods. The request is irrelevant and a waste of time. He does not use those words, but he makes it clear that there is no scientific justification for saying, "Let us have it on that date." I cannot imagine how anyone can read his letter and read into it anything other than that.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Last week, a written answer gave a brief account of the outcome of the ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency. As the Leader of the House will know, that was the first such ministerial meeting since 1995. I hope that she will find time for a debate on space policy, which is so important for British industries. We need to know the Government's thinking and plans on space policy, but have not had an opportunity to debate the matter since they took office.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not remember precisely everything that we debated in our first year in office, but think that the hon. Lady may well be right to say that there has not been a major debate on space policy for quite some time. I understand the interest in the matter. She might try to work it into the debate on the global navigation satellite system—in European Standing Committee A, should she care to attend. Nevertheless, despite understanding the issues' importance, I cannot undertake to find time in the near future to debate them in the House.
Mr. Bercow: Sort it!
Madam Speaker: Mr. Bercow, I want no sedentary comments.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the light of the Prime Minister's repeated failure to give clear answers on the Government's willingness, or otherwise, to hold a referendum before they have established clear rules for referendums, will the Leader of the House make time for either a statement or, preferably, a debate on the question whether the Government will guarantee not to hold any referendum until they have implemented the draft legislation that they are promising to bring before the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of any confusion on the matter; the Government have always made the position clear. We established the Neill committee, and we take its recommendations, which we are studying, very seriously. In due course, we shall come forward with proposals and—undoubtedly, if it is required—with legislative change.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady declined to give the apology for which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked in respect of yesterday's rather shocking episode about the statement on jury trial. She said that we had an apology yesterday. May I respectfully point out that what appears in column 1066 of Hansard is certainly not an apology to the House? Will she make such an apology? It really is deeply regrettable that such an announcement was slipped out in the way that it was. Will she also have a word with the Prime Minister and tell him that what the Government need is not an enforcer but a plumber?
Mrs. Beckett: I have never come across a Government who did not need plumbers. As for the apology, I simply said that it was my understanding that, yesterday, the House received a very full apology from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Again, I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the matter was dealt with and a statement was made to the House in a written parliamentary answer. Of course, if there are those who feel that there was insufficient opportunity to debate the issue, that is always a matter of concern. However, yesterday, Madam Speaker did the House the courtesy of finding time to raise it by granting the private notice question.

Personal Statement
1.13 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I rise to make an apology to the House.
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has investigated a complaint against me and found that my entry in the Register of Members' Interests was inadequate and incomplete. I fully accept the way in which the complaint was investigated and the Committee's conclusions. I am most grateful to the Committee for giving me the opportunity to answer its questions in person. The omissions in my entry were due to an oversight on my part. I accept the Committee's findings. I make no excuses, and I offer my most sincere apologies to the House.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mrs. Gorman; the House is most appreciative.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill (Allocation of Time)
1.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill (Allocation of Time)
  Order of consideration
  1. The Bill, as amended, shall be further considered in the following order, namely amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56; remaining New Clauses; amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 16, Schedule 2, Clause 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 4, Clauses 20 to 29, Schedule 5, Clauses 30 to 44, Schedule 6, Clauses 45 to 50, Schedule 7, Clauses 51 and 52, Clauses 57 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 to 64, Schedule 9, Clause 65, Schedule 10, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 11 and Clause 71; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 72 and 73, Schedule 12, Clauses 74 to 76, Schedule 13 and Clauses 77 to 79.

  Timetable
  2.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration in respect of amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56 shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  (2) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(1) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question that any remaining amendments to Clauses 53 to 56 standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (2) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(2) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  Miscellaneous
  4. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting, and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
  5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
  6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  9. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  10. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  I shall speak to the motion as briefly as possible, as I sense that both sides of the House want to get on and discuss the main business before us—which is the resumed consideration of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and particularly the Government's proposals on disability benefits.
  However, I must point out that after 13 hours of debate on Monday, we had completed consideration of less than half the amendments down for discussion. I made it clear the following day that the Government wished to bring the matter back to the House at the earliest opportunity and were keen to discuss our proposals—which will improve the condition of many disabled people—in prime time. By bringing them back today, when the House sits during the day, we shall ensure that the debate takes place in prime time. It is in the interests of the House and the country that people should understand exactly what the Government are proposing.
  The Bill was in Committee for more than 65 hours and 25 sittings. That is the most sittings that a social security Bill has had for 10 years. There were 180 Opposition amendments. We spent 13 hours in debate on Monday. A lot of that debate was on matters on which the Opposition apparently supported us, such as extending maternity allowance to people who previously did not get it. We spent two and a quarter hours on the single work-focused gateway, which the Opposition apparently support. We spent some considerable time discussing our proposals for extending bereavement benefits before the Opposition withdrew their amendment.
  At no point did the Opposition ask us for more time to discuss the Bill. We would have been happy to timetable the Report stage over two days rather than one. I stress again that I am more than happy to set out the Government's proposals, which will bring more help to severely disabled young people and to those who can work and want to do so, while bringing the benefit system up to date to reflect changing conditions. This wide-ranging welfare reform Bill implements the first stage of our pensions proposals, extends benefits to people who lose their spouse and have young children, and reforms disability benefits, as well as modernising the workings of the social security system. Those are all matters that the majority of the people in the country and in the House will support.

  1229
  If we can dispose of the debate on the guillotine motion quickly, the House will have four and a half hours to debate these important matters. That is probably longer than we would have had if there had not been a guillotine. I am anxious that all hon. Members should have as much opportunity as possible to put their point of view. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye later in the afternoon, Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to respond to the points that are put.
  1.17 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State said that the Bill had one of the longest Committee stages in recent years. That is not surprising. This huge Bill is essentially four Bills in one, so that is no justification for the guillotine.
  I intend to be brief, because we do not want to take too much time from the key debates on the proposals. However, it is important to point out that it was unnecessary for the Government to push the guillotine forward. The Secretary of State said that we could have asked for extra time, but we did not need extra time. We would have completed the consideration of the amendments in good time in one sitting.
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that the situation is everybody else's fault. He carried out one-to-one briefings with the press lobby, winding up the process by saying that there would be no discussion and no concessions, that the Government would take the so-called rebels head-on, that there would be a real clash and that he was looking forward to it. We have a bargain basement Arnold Schwarzenegger who has pumped up the debate; but half way through consideration, he cut and ran, failing to face up to a serious debate.
  The Secretary of State now blames everyone else. Apparently, we were going to bump the Kosovo debate the following day or we were filibustering the debate.
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Well, a glance at the amendments reinforces the point that the Government tabled new clauses on three new subjects that had had no previous consideration. Two of them—on very big subjects—were tabled at the last moment. One—which changed the relationship of people with their pension funds in insolvency—was dramatic, and changed the nature of the Bill. The second, and perhaps most important, was the clause that we believe will destroy the livelihoods of self-employed people, particularly those in the information technology industry.
  The last section of the clause, which is all about giving powers to the Treasury, states that
  "the Treasury may with the concurrence of the Secretary of State by order make such modifications of the preceding provisions of this section as the Treasury think appropriate for that purpose."
  Those powers are vast, and mean that the Treasury can change anything it likes—at a whim, by order. No wonder we needed to debate those matters, and the Government tabled those new clauses ahead of everything else. The Leader of the House told us that these were minor considerations. They were not.
  We heard earlier that it was a huge Henry VIII clause, but it is not so much Henry VIII as Louis XIV. The Prime Minister, Louis XIV himself, is the absolute monarch,
  1230
  ruling all he surveys. This is a clause in his mind and his body. He had his Chancellor going around that night on one-to-ones with the Secretary of State, leaning on those of his colleagues who took a different view. The Chancellor, the cardinal, is responsible to Louis XIV, but the Secretary of State is the man in the iron mask.
  So busy was the Secretary of State with the Chancellor that he managed to come into the Chamber for this vital Bill—his Bill—for four minutes and 23 seconds out of 14 hours. But who is counting? The Secretary of State made an appearance like a rabbit and went out like a rabbit when it was time for a one-to-one.
  After all that, the right hon. Gentleman has the cheek to come here and blame everybody else—the man who briefed and built up has now been blown away. He may discover that, as in all one-to-ones, it is good to talk, but it is also good to listen. The Secretary of State has not been listening. He did not listen to his advisory forum, all of whom resigned in disgust; he is not listening to his colleagues who have a problem with the proposals; and he is not listening to the Opposition. If he were listening more than lecturing, he might have learned of the serious problems with his proposals.
  After such incompetence—and with the Secretary of State now standing in the shadow of the only guillotine that really matters to him—I suggest that he looks to the famous lines of Sydney Carton:
  "It is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known."
  The Government are a shambles and out of control. The guillotine today is a sign of the bully—all bluster and bravado, but when it comes to the crunch, no backbone.
  1.23 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I strongly support this guillotine motion, and I would like to explain why—particularly to my hon. Friends, all of whose views I respect on this matter of great importance.
  I look at this matter in the context of my experience of previous Labour Governments with previous contentious issues, such as the reform of the House of Lords in the 1966 Parliament. At that time, it was not opposition from Conservatives or Liberals, but disagreement within our own party that led to the reform of the House of Lords being frustrated and prevented. It has had to be resuscitated 30 years later by a Government so concerned about it that they have had to resort to the desperate measure of appointing me as a member of a royal commission to look at it.
  Labour Members—Opposition Members could not have done it—inserted in the original Scottish and Welsh devolution legislation the 40 per cent. referendum provision that led to the fall of the Labour Government, 18 years of Conservative government and, incidentally, a 20-year delay in the introduction of devolution.
  We are to debate a major issue after we approve the guillotine. I respect fully the views of all my hon. Friends, but they should be aware that the Government will win today, regardless of Labour Members' votes against or abstentions. They will win because of the loyalty of the overwhelming majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party, including old lags such as myself.
  What will be the consequence if there is a substantial failure among Labour Members to support the Government? Whatever our views, we will all go from

  1231
  here tonight and campaign for our party in the European elections. If there is a substantial reduction in the Government's majority because of the views of some of my hon. Friends—and they are friends in both senses—who will be pleased?
  The Government will not be pleased. My hon. Friends who have reservations or disagreements with the Government will not be pleased, because they will have lost. Who will be pleased? The BBC, which has set itself up as a kind of alternative Opposition party, will be pleased. It is waiting breathlessly for its news bulletins to be able to start with the headline, "Labour suffered a serious rebellion and setback in the House of Commons this afternoon."
  Who else would benefit? Let us consider the Liberal Democrats who, we must never forget, voted with Margaret Thatcher to bring down the Labour Government who would have introduced devolution. They are responsible for Thatcherism, together with the Conservatives. There are quite a few pretty nice guys among Liberal Members of Parliament, but those of us who have nests of Liberal Democrats in our constituencies know that they are not the same thing at all. They are opportunists, fluttering from issue to issue and alighting like flies on garbage heaps.
  The Liberal Democrats in our constituencies are waiting to prepare their grubby "Focus" leaflets to put through letter boxes. That is what they will do, regardless of the views of their Members of Parliament who, as I said, share the responsibility for 18 years of Thatcherism.
  What about the Conservatives? If there is—as I trust that there will not be—a substantial reduction in the Government's majority this afternoon, that will bring the first smirks to their faces since May 1997. It will give great comfort to the people who are responsible for the entire problem facing the Government today, because the number of people on incapacity benefit today derives from the fiddling of the unemployment figures by the Conservative Government.
  I do not decry in any way the sincerity with which my hon. Friends approach this issue. However, they should consider the consequences of their actions this afternoon, because I sat here for 18 years under a Conservative Government and I do not want another. Just look at that hypocritical rabble now. The Conservatives were responsible for the issue and they are trying to cash in on it, but they have offered no solutions. They are beaten and battered, but they are hoping to drag something out of this afternoon.
  1.30pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is normally an eloquent advocate of parliamentary democracy. The argument that he has just advanced is that his colleagues on the Government Benches should not listen to their consciences or to the arguments, but should vote now and go home. I hope that Labour Members will realise that that is a jaundiced view from the right hon. Gentleman and may be influenced by the fact that on 6 May, more people voted Liberal Democrat in his constituency than voted Labour.
  I shall not follow the two previous contributors with 30-year or even 300-year precedents. I wish to address the implications for the good management of business in this
  1232
  House now, which is as important as this Bill. I must correct the Secretary of State: the principal Liberal Democrat spokesman on social security made it clear that we thought that it would be necessary to have two days of debate for Report and Third Reading, because in Committee, there was not a single Labour Member who took a view different from the Government's on the issues. Dissenting Labour Members could not put forward their views in Committee and would wish to do so on Report. That is why the proceedings are so important and why we need time.
  I wish to offer a gentle and modest word of advice to the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench. They should show a little bit less of their macho aggression towards those who will be pleased by what may happen this afternoon, towards those who are genuinely in receipt of disability benefits and towards the groups that represent them. They are listening to this debate carefully, because they want to know what has happened to the Labour Government whom many of them supported in 1997.
  Surely the Government recognise that the attitude they have adopted is likely to cause more resentment, not less. A more thoughtful and responsive attitude would have been much more successful. What will the Secretary of State say to Labour Members who will have to go back to their constituencies this weekend and confess that they voted for a more devastating attack on the living standards of that particular group than even the Conservatives were prepared to make? That is the reality of the situation.
  The guillotine should not have been necessary and the Secretary of State was wrong. Had the proceedings continued in the early hours of Tuesday morning, we could have had about 10 more hours of discussion without affecting the business on Tuesday. We could have dealt adequately with all the issues, including those that will be raised today by Labour Back Benchers. Now he is allowing us just six hours.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett)rose—
  Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way because we are being brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Nobody else has taken interventions and I shall not do so, because I wish to get on with the debate.
  Mr. Blunkett rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I cannot have two Members standing at the same time.
  Mr. Tyler: Nobody—no Minister and no Whip—ever explained on behalf of the Government why it was necessary to stop the debate at that hour in the morning on Tuesday. The guillotine should not have been necessary, because we could have continued on Tuesday morning and given adequate attention to the Bill.
  It would be absurd for me to make an extensive speech at this stage, but I believe that the Government are wrong to try to steamroller the Bill through instead of sticking to the original proposal of a proper debate with plenty of time to enable all views to be heard. The Government will regret the impression that will be given by pursuing this course of action.
  1.34 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is quite wrong. The Government have not permitted six hours for debate on the Bill. They have in fact contemplated limiting debate to just three hours. The allocation of time motion is entitled to three hours in itself.
  Ms Ann Coffey: Sit down and let us get on with it then.
  Mr. Shepherd: No, I will not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I call an hon. Member to speak, I expect him to be heard.
  Mr. Shepherd: Those who shout "sit down" should reflect on who is placing the motion before the House. Who seeks to curtail debate?
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gave us an old Stalinist, new Labour speech. His complaint that he had endured 18 years of Thatcher government reminded me that many Members think that we have had, as of 4 May, 20 years of Thatcher's principles and government.
  The Government are utilising a guillotine to defeat proper debate on matters of conscience, judgment and the representative function. Across the Chamber, I see the nodding heads of the nodding donkeys. I have seen the same during 20 years in this House. The Government are seriously telling the House that around 60 Back-Bench Members have expressed dissent, but that they can be bundled out in one and a half hours. They are telling us that if they can shut up the House, there might be four and a half hours of debate. Notice how the Government are trying to swivel the finger of blame towards others when it points firmly at the Secretary of State who is proposing this extraordinary guillotine.
  I want to take apart one of the Secretary of State's arguments. He announced that the Bill spent 65 hours in Committee. Many Members sitting here have served in Committees lasting well over 100 hours. The new fashion of Government is no longer to seek consent or even to settle for acquiescence. The Crown in Downing street is prepared to ram through, in just 90 minutes, contentions that are matters of conscience and the representative function.
  Every hon. Member who votes for the guillotine will be saying that he or she accepts that he or she may have no freedom of speech to express his or her wishes and his or her judgment.
  Kali Mountford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Shepherd: I see the hon. Lady baying at me, but if she reflects on what I am asking, she will see that this matter should be debated without a vicious guillotine. Members must weigh two propositions. Are they prepared to vote to deny themselves the ability to address these issues properly? That is the question that they must ask themselves. We shall see who goes through the Lobby, saying, on the one hand, "Yes we should not discuss this matter", but saying on the other hand, for the wider public, "We protest against this issue."
  1234
  There is a fundamental contradiction in voting for the motion. We hold it in our hands to send a message to the Government that including guillotine motions in the time for consideration of the Bill—only six hours, including three for the guillotine—is deceitful. That deceit is intended to screw down proper debate and reasoned opposition. When the Secretary of State says that he has allowed six hours, we all know that that is phooey. It is a monstrous demonstration of the Executive's control over the representative body of the electorate of the United Kingdom.
  1.38 pm
  Sir Richard Body: Over the past 40 years, I have debated many guillotine motions, but I have never been so saddened as I am on this occasion. All of us know that the true purpose of a guillotine is to suppress debate. There can be no other reason for one. On this occasion, there should be plenty of time, because no right hon. or hon. Member has no disabled people in his or her constituency.
  The only way in which we can persuade the Government that this measure is unjust is by giving examples of case histories. By their nature, those must take some time to set out. To restrict debate is a cruel and a wrong device. I regret the guillotine motion enormously. Every Labour Member who wants to speak, and who will be prevented from expressing the concerns of constituents who will be affected by the Bill, must protest. However they vote later, they ought to vote against this motion, which is as wicked a guillotine as has ever fallen on the House.
  1.40 pm
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) have always spoken against guillotine motions. They spent 18 years supporting the Tory Government, but arguing against those motions, so there is nothing new there. I understand their views, which are well held—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Members did not vote for them. Indeed, they were something of a bother to the previous Administration and they are entitled to take their view. However, it is important to point out that by 3am on Tuesday morning, we were halfway through all the amendments that had been put down for debate. It does not do anyone any good to discuss—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want any interventions from the Front Bench.
  Mr. Darling: It does not do any of us any good to start debating such an important matter after being up all night, having discussed dozens of issues, and in that state of mind. I have been here only 13 years, but I know a filibuster when I see one and I saw what was happening on Monday night. We are ensuring this afternoon that the majority of the House has adequate time to debate what is an important issue.
  I now turn to the two arguments of the two Opposition parties. On consultation, I must point out, as I dare say that it will come up later, that I am sorry that some members of the disability benefits forum decided that they could no longer serve. I was encouraged by the fact that

  1235
  they wrote to me on the same day that they resigned, saying that despite their differences—there had been differences—they wanted to come back and discuss the detailed proposals as well as others. Some of the members of the forum have already been in the Department and one group is coming tomorrow afternoon to discuss service delivery. I am sorry that those people decided to leave, but the door is always open to anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of our welfare reform.
  I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). People voted for the Labour party in May 1997 because it created the welfare state in the 1940s, and we believe in the welfare state now. We were elected to clean up the mess that the Tory party left us. The Labour party has introduced measure after measure to combat poverty and the causes of poverty.
  I can deal quite simply with the Liberal Democrats. One of the most important steps that we have taken to combat poverty for everyone, including disabled people, is the new deal. The Liberal Democrats opposed the means of funding that new deal. They cannot pretend today that they are the friends of those who have benefited from the new deal without admitting that, if they had had their way, there would have been no new deal in the first place.
  I sense that the majority of Members in the House want to get on to debate the important matters before us. I am happy to do so and we should now proceed to do that, I hope without a Division and without further delay.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 377, Noes 145.

  Division No. 190]

  [1.43 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Browne, Desmond

  Ashton, Joe

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burden, Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burgon, Colin

  Austin, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Banks, Tony

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Barnes, Harry

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Casale, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cawsey, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chaytor, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Boateng, Paul

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clwyd, Ann

  1236

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, lain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Cox, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hurst, Alan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, John

  Jamieson, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Doran, Frank

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fisher, Mark

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Flint, Caroline

  Kemp, Fraser

  Flynn, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S

  Follett, Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foulkes, George

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Gapes, Mike

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Gardiner, Barry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Laxton, Bob

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lepper, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Leslie, Christopher

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Levitt, Tom

  Goggins, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lock, David

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, Peter

  McCabe, Steve

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Macdonald, Calum

  Healey, John

  McDonnell, John

  1237

  McFall, John

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  McNulty, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Roy, Frank

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ruane, Chris

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Salter, Martin

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Maxton, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Merron, Gillian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Singh, Marsha

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mountford, Kali

  Speller, John

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mullin, Chris

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Norris, Dan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stringer, Graham

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pearson, Ian

  (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Timms, Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Todd, Mark

  Pound, Stephen

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  White, Brian

  1238

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  (Swansea W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Jane Kennedy.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Bercow, John

  Key, Robert

  Blunt, Crispin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Breed, Colin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Burnett, John

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cash, William Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  (Chipping Barnet)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Maples, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cran, James

  Moore, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Faber, David

  Prior, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Randall, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Rendel, David

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fraser, Christopher

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gale, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gorrie, Donald

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gray, James

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Grieve, Dominic

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Swinney, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, William

  1239

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wells, Bowen

  Townend, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Trend, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Walter, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Webb, Steve

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—

  Order of consideration
  1. The Bill, as amended, shall be further considered in the following order, namely amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56; remaining New Clauses; amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 16, Schedule 2, Clause 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 4, Clauses 20 to 29, Schedule 5, Clauses 30 to 44, Schedule 6, Clauses 45 to 50, Schedule 7, Clauses 51 and 52, Clauses 57 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 to 64, Schedule 9, Clause 65, Schedule 10, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 11 and Clause 71; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 72 and 73, Schedule 12, Clauses 74 to 76, Schedule 13 and Clauses 77 to 79.

  Timetable
  2.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration in respect of amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56 shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  (2) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(1) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  1240

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question that any remaining amendments to Clauses 53 to 56 standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (2) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(2) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  Miscellaneous
  4. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting, and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
  5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
  6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  9. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  10. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day
  Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
    Clause 53

      INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RESTRICTION TO RECENT CONTRIBUTORS
      1.56 pm
      Mr. Roger Berry: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 52, line 18, leave out Clauses 53 and 54.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 52, line 18, leave out Clause 53.
      No. 3, in page 52, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert—
      '(a) subject to a minimum period of contributions actually paid of one year, contributions actually paid for a period of less than 10 years shall allow payment of a proportion of benefit to be calculated depending on the number of years for which contributions have been made; and'.
      No. 6, in clause 54, page 53, line 1, leave out Clause 54.
      No. 113, in page 53, line 16, at end insert—
      '(aa) for a person in employment to be treated in prescribed circumstances as in contracted—out employment for the purposes of this section;
      (ab) for any reduction under subsection (1) to be made only where the person entitled to incapacity benefit was for any period treated for the purposes of this section as in contracted— out employment;
      (ac) for the duration of such period of periods to be taken into account in a prescribed manner in calculating the amount of any such reduction;'.
      Government amendment No. 31.
      No. 86, in clause 55, page 54, line 3, leave out Clauses 55 and 56.
      No. 7, in clause 56, page 54, line 38, leave out Clause 56.
      Mr. Berry: Before I explain what the amendment does and why we have tabled it, I must make two comments. First, I entirely support the Government's curtailing debate at a ridiculous hour on Tuesday morning and I entirely support the guillotine motion. Timetabled debates are a credit to the House, and what happened in the early hours of Tuesday morning was a discredit to the House.
      Secondly, I do not want the political party that, when in government in 1995, inflicted the biggest ever cuts in benefits for disabled people who were unable to work to start attacking this side of the House. It is true that one or two Conservative Members hold views about incapacity benefit that are the same as my own. I respect their views and the lobbying that they have taken as fellow members of the all-party disablement group. However, the Conservative Government's policy in 1995, when they cut literally billions of pounds off benefit for disabled people who were unable to work, does not give them great moral authority in the Chamber this afternoon.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a very important point about the occasions when those who support this Government passionately might find themselves in the same position
      1242
      as several of my colleagues and I this afternoon. I will not weary the House with a long defence. I simply say this: the first rumours of possible cuts to incapacity benefit appeared in the media 18 months ago. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will acknowledge that many Labour Members requested meetings with Ministers—I am grateful that our requests were granted—and expressed our concerns. There may be a difference of opinion at the end of the day, and I do not demand that Ministers change their view. However, it must be recognised that our concerns about clauses 53 and 54 have not appeared suddenly in recent weeks.
      Many of us expressed concern when rumours first appeared in the media 18 months ago. Some of us have made a regular trek—in my case, from my office in Millbank—to the Department of Social Security. This is not a Johnny—come—lately concern. Disagree we may, but let nobody say that attempts were not made to avoid the situation that we face today. I would have given almost anything to avoid it. The problem is, of course, that clauses 53 and 54 will do so much damage.
      2 pm
      I regret that discussions have, unfortunately, brought about no change, but I feel regret also because my colleagues and I have consistently applauded the Government's very great achievements in securing a better deal, fairness and more equal opportunities for disabled people. In the new deal, progress on civil rights and a range of other policies, the Government's performance contrasts dramatically with that of the previous Government.
      I last spoke in a debate in the House three or four weeks ago to express the strongest possible enthusiasm for the Disability Rights Commission Bill. The Government care about a fair deal for disabled people, which is why I regret having to stand here today and say that clauses 53 and 54 are, sadly, in sharp contrast to their commendable policies elsewhere, including many in the Bill. I welcome many of the Bill's measures—not least the increased benefits for severely disabled young people—because they will help disabled people.
      Why, then, is there such concern about clauses 53 and 54? Clause 53 will withdraw entitlement to incapacity benefit from new claimants who have been unable to make national insurance contributions in the previous two years. Clause 54 proposes to means-test incapacity benefit.
      One might ask, "What is the problem?" The problem is that the two clauses would reduce benefit for disabled people who are unable to work. In the first year, 45,000 disabled people who cannot work would be worse off, and that figure would rise to 335,000 after 10 years. That is equivalent to more than one in five of those who currently receive incapacity benefit.
      Those figures are not mine or those of the disability movement; they are the figures in the regulatory impact assessment produced by the Department of Social Security. The plan is that the long-term effect should be that more than a third of a million disabled people who are unable to work will be worse off. The average net cost to those people in the first year will be £28 a week, and the cost will rise thereafter. Of course, many will be worse off even than that. That cost allows for tax and benefit changes, as set down in the regulatory impact assessment.

      1243
      Clause 53 will deny 170,000 people entitlement to any incapacity benefit. That is the figure in the Green Paper. The media have quoted that figure as if disability organisations have plucked it from the air, but they have not. Those people will not be entitled to incapacity benefit because they have not paid sufficient contributions in the previous two years. They will not suddenly be fit for work. In the strange language of disability benefits, they will have "passed" the all-work test, or whatever replaces it. They will be unable to work, due to long-term illness or disability, not because their GP or their disability organisation says so, but because the Benefits Agency's own doctors say so. Such people might have made national insurance contributions for 20 or 30 years, but if they have not made enough contributions in the last two years—perhaps because they lost their job and have been unemployed—they will be denied incapacity benefit.
      We are told that the measure restores the original intention of incapacity benefit. Incapacity benefit was introduced by the previous Government in 1995. I had thought that the benefit was intended to provide financial support for disabled people who were unable to work. I assumed that if, in 1995, there had been any doubt about the intention of the benefit, the contribution conditions would have been changed to take that into account. I assume that those who were in this place in 1995 knew what contribution conditions were set down in that legislation, and I cannot imagine for a moment that anyone inserted contribution conditions that did not reflect the purpose of the benefit. With the greatest respect, I find it difficult to understand the argument that the Bill restores the original intention of incapacity benefit.
      Clause 54 proposes that, for those who do qualify for incapacity benefit in future, that benefit—which is, rightly, taxable—will also be means-tested. In other words, anyone with a personal or occupational pension of more than £50 a week will lose 50p of incapacity benefit for every extra £1 of pension. As soon as the pension of a disabled person who is unable to work reaches £2,652 a year, they will start to lose incapacity benefit. People who are unable to work, who have made personal provision for their future financial security, would face an effective marginal tax rate of 50 per cent.—greater than that of the highest-income earners in the country, and of Members of Parliament.
      I believe that people who have put aside money for their security in later life—who have put money into a personal pension or an occupational pension—will feel that they have been misled. I believe that they understood that if they made personal provision, it would top up incapacity benefit, should they ever be unable to work.
      I have many friends who fall into that category. Many of them have a deteriorating condition. They are currently in work. They are planning for the future, when—perhaps at the age of 50—they will be physically unable to work. They will not slip into incapacity benefit; they will be judged by Benefits Agency doctors to be physically unable to work. They have a condition that makes that probable. Therefore they do what all Governments say that they should do—they save. They put money into a personal pension or make other arrangements, in order to top up the incapacity benefit that they believe that they would be entitled to. They will feel aggrieved because they will feel that, whereas they have fulfilled their part of the contract, the Government are modifying their version of what constitutes the Government's part of the contract.
      1244
      Inevitably, apart from causing great hardship, the measure will discourage saving. How could it be otherwise? And yet we all want to encourage people to extend personal provision for later life. Incapacity benefit will start to be lost when those people's pension reaches the princely sum of £2,652 a year.
      Why are the Government doing this? I have been asked that question frequently in recent days, and my answer has always been that I do not know; and I genuinely do not know, because this is not a necessary part of the welfare reform programme, which I passionately support. I do not believe that the arguments suggesting that it is necessary are entirely convincing.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton referred earlier to the growth in the number of people in receipt of incapacity benefit. At Prime Minister's questions yesterday afternoon, a question, which was entirely right and which has clarified things enormously, was asked about people currently in receipt of incapacity benefit who might or might not have ended up on incapacity benefit because of the policies of the previous Government. I have no quarrel at all with that question or with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said earlier, but we need to recognise that clauses 53 and 54 have nothing whatever to do with existing claimants; they relate to future claimants.
      It is therefore a fact that whatever the Tories did or did not do to encourage people on to incapacity benefit and off unemployment benefit is totally irrelevant to the clauses that are giving rise to contention today. Although it seems obvious—the point has been made many times by disability organisations, and I made it on Second Reading, with all humility, as did many others—I repeat that there cannot possibly be a justification for clauses 53 and 54, which cut incapacity benefit for future claimants, that rests on what the Tories might or might not have done.
      If the Government believe that, in the future, people who are not entitled to incapacity benefit may receive it, the solution is simple: look at the gateway to the benefit, look at the eligibility criteria, look at the all-work test and give different guidance to the Benefits Agency doctors.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: That is being done.
      Mr. Berry: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes the point that that is being done. He is entirely right, but it is also right to say that that has nothing whatever to do with the amendment, which would delete clauses 53 and 54. I do not want to be ruled out of order; I want to stick to a discussion of those clauses, but can we please recognise that that argument is not relevant?
      We are told that something must be done about incapacity benefit—there is a "something must be done" school of thought—because the number of people in receipt of it has tripled and so on. I do not want to detain the House by discussing why that might have happened. Governments are spending more on supporting disabled people; most of the time we take credit for that, but if we are now supposed to be embarrassed, okay. With the greatest respect, comparing the present situation with that of 20 years ago is not relevant. The last time incapacity benefit was examined—indeed, the year in which it was introduced to replace invalidity benefit—was not 20 years ago, but 1995.

      1245
      I have referred to 1995 once before this afternoon. It seems to be the year that has been Snopaked from history in the debate on these matters in recent weeks—it is as if 1995 never occurred. However, that was the year when the Conservatives scrapped invalidity benefit and replaced it with the far less generous incapacity benefit. Since then, spending on incapacity benefit has fallen. It is currently about £7.4 billion a year; four years ago, it was nearer £9 billion a year—and it is falling as a result of the latest changes that are feeding through the system. The idea that further cuts to incapacity benefit are necessary because of escalating spending is simply wrong.
      If we look at the latest Department of Social Security figures on the number of claimants for incapacity benefit, we see that, since 1995, there has been a fall in the number of people in receipt of it. The figure is 5 per cent. down on that for 1995, and benefit rates have of course fallen in value. That is why spending on incapacity benefit is falling; that is what the previous Government were trying to achieve in 1995.
      The previous Government did not go through all the problems of revising benefits for disabled people who are unable to work for any reason other than to reduce spending. That is what they did, and they did it by reducing benefit rates and the number of claimants. Let us be perfectly clear: as of today, spending is falling and the number of claimants is falling, and their policies are the reason for that. I doubt very much that Labour Members would want to worsen that situation.
      2.15 pm
      We are told that we should means-test incapacity benefit because more people have occupational or personal pensions than when it—or, more correctly, its predecessor—was introduced. That was the justification for the 1995 cuts. It is interesting to re-read those debates, although I shall not quote from them so that I do not get into even more trouble.
      The reason given by the Government of the day for the change was that more people had personal or occupational pensions. For example, that was the justification for the specific policy of removing the earnings-related element of the benefit. The growth in occupational pensions was taken into account four years ago. With the greatest respect, that argument has already been used to cut incapacity benefit. What on earth could be the justification for doing so again? I do not know; perhaps the Tories did not cut enough. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a shame, given the situation that we have inherited, that we should be considering further cuts.
      The argument could be made that, because the basic state pension is a contributory benefit and many pensioners have occupational pensions, we ought to means-test it. The Government are quite rightly steadfastly opposed to that, as we all are. I simply make the point that the same argument could be made for incapacity benefit. Both are contributory benefits, both are rightly taxable, and in both cases we want to encourage people to make personal provision.
      We are told that some incapacity benefit claimants have a high income, and that that justifies the means-testing. Again, the same argument could be made to means-test
      1246
      the basic state pension. Quite rightly, the Government are strongly opposed to that. Disabled people who are unable to work and who have a pension income of £2,652 are hardly well off, but, on that pension income, they will start losing incapacity benefit.
      It has been said that we need clauses 53 and 54 to help severely disabled people. I do not believe that that can be justified. The clauses save the Government, in the long term, £700 million. The changes to severe disablement allowance will save £100 million in total. That is more than the cost of the disability income guarantee and the improvement in disability allowance for three and four-year-olds. It is therefore not the case that the £700 million saving resulting from these proposals is being recycled to help severely disabled people.
      It is not clear, either, that, if that were the case, the most equitable way of helping severely disabled people would be to redistribute not from the general population, but from less severely disabled people. Moreover, severely disabled people will be hit by the cuts in incapacity benefit envisaged in the clauses. There are severely disabled people who have not been able to pay national insurance contributions for the previous two years. There are severely disabled people who will be means-tested. There is no reallocation of money to assist severely disabled people.
      I shall bring my comments to a close, because many hon. Members want to speak. At the beginning of my speech, I said that there had been meetings between the all-party disablement group, of which I have the honour to be the secretary, and Ministers over the months. I place on record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues—and, indeed, to his predecessor and her ministerial colleagues—for a series of extremely courteous and helpful meetings. While, obviously, I regret the outcome of the meetings, that constitutes no criticism. The openness that they featured should be applauded.
      I am more concerned about the fact that disability organisations which know a lot about disability benefits, the way in which people are affected from day to day and the effect that the proposals might have feel that their views have been cast aside. Sadly, last week 12 organisations resigned from the disability benefits forum that the Government rightly set up to advise on disability benefits, including the Carers National Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation.
      Those organisations do not make decisions in haste. Their chief executives are not people who rush to criticise anyone; they have a job to do, and they want to get on with it. They support 99 per cent. of what the Bill is doing to help disabled people—as, indeed, do I, and as do my colleagues who have joined me in tabling the amendment. They felt, however, that they had something important to say. They were and are aggrieved, and, in fairness, the House should take that into consideration.
      Clauses 53 and 54 are unfair. Hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are unable to work will be worse off as a result of them. The Government's commitment to welfare reform, which I strongly share, does not depend on those clauses. I believe that they should be removed, and that is what amendment No. 12 would achieve. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
      Mr. Edward Leigh:I shall speak for only a short time, because I suspect that the House would rather hear from Labour Members. Some of them nod; I shall not disappoint them.
      The House wishes to hear from Labour Members because the time has come for the posturing to end, and for Labour to govern. The time has come for Labour to learn the hard lessons of government. Occasionally, Governments must do unpopular things and disappoint their supporters. Labour Members must either have the courage of their convictions and do what they know in their hearts is right, thus disappointing their natural constituency, or support the Government.
      There has been enormous criticism of what the Conservative Government tried to achieve in regard to social security. There has been criticism of so-called salami-slicing government. That, however, is precisely what this Government are doing today, in an attempt—no doubt orchestrated by the Treasury—to save money. As the proposal has been designed by new Labour, it will of course affect people in the future; but that will not soften the row that is already brewing. This attempt to save £750 million is not part of the grand strategy for welfare reform. It is a mean measure—and it is, above all, a means-testing measure.
      The two clauses are so wrong not because the social security budget is too large, although it is too large; not because the social security budget must be cut, although it must be cut; not because some groups in society will suffer, although, sadly, they will. They are wrong because they target people who are neither very rich nor very poor, but who have made a modest attempt to save for their old age.
      It is appalling to assume that someone with a modest pension who has not sustained his or her contributions over the past two years should be denied an ever-increasing amount of incapacity benefit. So many conditions gradually catch up on people. So many people in future will not be able to maintain their contributions—people who have saved a little, and who will suffer if these clauses are agreed to. I hope that all hon. Members will look to their consciences, and vote against the clauses in four hours' time.
      Mr. Levitt:I oppose amendment No. 12, and support the Bill as drafted. I do so with some regret. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and I have worked together on a number of disability issues for many years, even before I was a Member of Parliament, and I am sorry that our views differ in this instance. Let me explain why that is.
      Some of my colleagues find the whole concept of what they call means-testing distasteful. I understand their reasons, but I think that ensuring that money goes to those who need it most is what government is all about. Clauses 53 and 54 will enable resources to be targeted at those who are most in need: disabled people and their carers, and others on low incomes.
      Clause 54 is, I feel, the more significant of the two. It creates a link between occupational pensions and incapacity benefit. Occupational pensions are deferred income: there is a tax advantage for those who contribute to them at the time of their contribution. It behoves us to examine the treatment of occupational pensions in other parts of the benefits system.
      1248
      A person receiving a jobseeker's allowance who also has an occupational pension loses his or her jobseeker's allowance pound for pound against the occupational pension. Those who move to old age pensions from incapacity benefit lose their incapacity benefit completely, and some who make such a move do so by taking a cut in income. I do not necessarily defend those two states of play; I am saying that the Bill's proposals are much more generous to those who will be on incapacity benefit in the future than we are now to those receiving jobseeker's allowance, or experiencing the transition to old age pensions.
      Incapacity benefit is not strictly a disability benefit. It is there to compensate people for the loss of income caused by incapacity; it does not address the disability itself. There has been no mention in the debate of disability living allowance, the principal benefit for disabled people, which deals with the actual costs of disability. The Bill makes no change to that allowance. It will not be means-tested, and, in that sense, it is true to say that the Bill does not provide for a general means test for disability benefits, despite the way in which it has been portrayed.
      Mr. Steve Webb:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Levitt:I will not, because plenty of hon. Members want to make their case, and I want as many as possible to be able to do so—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does as well.
      What will be the position of new claimants? Those in receipt of incapacity benefit plus an occupational pension of up to £50 a week will not be affected by the Bill. That applies to four out of five people receiving incapacity benefit who either have no occupational pension, or have an occupational pension of less than £50 a week. Only those with incomes of £10,000 a year or more consisting of a combination of incapacity benefit and occupational pensions will have their incapacity benefit withdrawn.
      Moreover, we should consider the effect of the measure on those people's guaranteed income—bearing in mind that the Government are guaranteeing income to certain parts of the population. The income that those at the top of the taper on occupational pensions will receive is higher than the pensioners income guarantee that we have introduced, higher than the disabled persons income guarantee and considerably higher than the national minimum wage, in the case of someone working a 40-hour week. It is more or less equivalent to the working families tax credit. Thus even at the top of the taper, it is still the highest guaranteed income for any group for which the Government are undertaking to guarantee an income.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Webb:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Levitt:I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that I am sure he will get his chance.
      Other Labour Members have expressed the view that the £50 limit—the £50 cut-in—of the occupational pensions taper is too small. It may be, but the £50 is not in the Bill. Indeed, the Bill provides the mechanism for

      1249
      changing the level; it gives the Secretary of State the power to change that level. That ability must be there, but the £50 itself is not in the Bill.
      Others object for reasons—which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood rightly mentioned—to do with the deficiencies in the way in which the Benefits Agency's medical and tribunal services operate. Those are good points, but they too are being addressed through other measures, many of which do not require legislation. It is therefore not necessary to have them in the Bill.
      It has been said that there is a disincentive to save, but let us look at another clause in the Bill: the one to introduce stakeholder pensions. It ensures that anyone whose income is less than £9,000 per year, which will include a lot of disabled people, will receive stakeholder pension credits as though they were receiving £9,000 a year. It would not be possible to fund that measure without the funding made available by clauses 53 and 54.
      That stakeholder pension element, from which many disabled people will benefit, has to be factored into the equation when people assess whether it is a cuts Bill. The measures will lead to an extra £1 billion being spent on disabled people's benefits during the current Parliament. If we take into account the changes to the stakeholder pension, to the carers allowance and to the disability income guarantee—which, again, is not in the Bill because it is a Treasury measure—we will find not a deficit of £750 million in 10 years' time, but a net increase resulting in extra funding going to that wider group of people.
      I ask my colleagues on the Labour Benches to consider the following situation. At their next advice surgery, they may have in front of them a three-year-old girl who has been born with no legs, and her parents; a 17-year-old boy who has been a promising student, but is now paraplegic after a road accident; a disabled adult on a low income who is never likely to be able to save for a pension; and a bank manager who has taken early retirement with a back problem. He has £70,000 in savings, a £150,000 house, an occupational pension worth £25,000 or £35,000, and £3,500 a year of incapacity benefit on top of that.
      The Bill will, for the first time, give that three-year-old girl access to disability benefits. It will give that 17-year-old boy the highest level of non-contributory benefits—higher than incapacity benefit—to meet the needs of his severe disability. As I have already explained, it will give that disabled person a stake in a stakeholder pension. It will allow that bank manager to keep his £3,500 incapacity benefit because he is an existing claimant, but it says that the incapacity benefit of the tiny minority of people who have such an occupational pension, some of whom are on the highest rate of taxation, is better spent on the other people who will benefit from the Bill.
      As someone who has been involved with the disability world for a long time, my dream is that everyone who has to leave work early because of incapacity or disability—perhaps through failing eyesight, hearing, dexterity or mobility—will be helped to stay in work for an average of five more years through educating employers about their needs, providing technology for them and other support at work, and preventing discrimination against them in employment. Those measures will retain skills in the work
      1250
      force, and maintain the dignity and income levels of disabled people. They will have the knock-on effect of reducing the amount that the state pays out in benefit.
      All those measures are in train. Those on the new deal and access to work are up and running. We should be celebrating because, this morning, the Disability Rights Commission Bill completed its Committee stage with helpful amendments that were asked for by the disability lobby. The Bill will outlaw, and give teeth to the outlawing of, discrimination, but the third leg of that stool is the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. That addresses the real needs of disabled people and finances the measures by redirecting some of the funds from some relatively wealthy people to those who have nothing. Amendment No. 12 does not help the people at the bottom in any way. I oppose the amendment and support the Bill.
      Mr. David Rendel:I am pleased to have the chance to talk a little about the amendments because they are critical to the whole of the Bill. I should like to follow through some of the Government's arguments and then talk a little about what their aims are. I hope to demonstrate thereby that their arguments are illogical and contain internal inconsistencies, and that their aims will not be met by the measures that they seek to introduce.
      When the Government started to talk about welfare reform, they said that the cuts that they planned to introduce were perhaps needed to meet the requirement to reduce the welfare bill—welfare costs in total. They said that those costs had been going up over a period, that they looked like continuing to go up in the foreseeable future, and that it was important to bring them down.
      However, when we discussed clauses 53 and 54 in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), made it clear that, on the contrary, the clauses were not Treasury driven and that the amount of money that was due to be saved was incidental: it just happened that there would be savings, but that was not the point of the clauses.
      The previous Secretary of State for Social Security had made it clear that, if there were to be any cuts in benefits for disabled people, they would be given back to those people in some other way; there would be no net cut in their benefits. Clearly, therefore, although there may be a need to reduce the welfare bill overall, the intention of clauses 53 and 54 cannot be to achieve that.
      Another reason that the Government gave for introducing the clauses was that the Tory party and the previous Government had moved people off the unemployment register on to incapacity benefit, and that that was the wrong thing to do. They said that that policy had to be reversed, yet when we questioned them in Committee on the point, they said, "it is not true to say that anyone receiving incapacity benefit does not deserve it, or is not truly incapacitated."
      The Government said that all the doctors who had been doing the tests to decide whether those people were really due incapacity benefit had been doing a good job, and that everyone who was currently getting incapacity benefit was due it. What is more, they told us that they did not intend to change the tests, or to give the doctors concerned any other advice. They are changing the name of the test, but they told us clearly that they had no intention of making it more severe, or more difficult to get through;

      1251
      they have no intention of making it more difficult to receive incapacity benefit following changes in relation to the tests. Their argument that, in some way, what they are doing now will reduce the number on incapacity benefit and push up the unemployment register—which they appear to think is the right thing to do—is inconsistent and illogical.
      The Government have said that, wherever possible, they want to encourage people with disabilities to get back into work. My hon. Friends and I share that view and there is probably not a Member in the House who does not believe that, when it is possible for people with disabilities to get back to work, they should be encouraged and enabled to do so. Yet the Government have to answer the question that they failed to answer in Committee, which is how restricting incapacity benefit to people who have worked recently, and restricting the amount of incapacity benefit for people with occupational pensions, will help disabled people to get back into work. It is likely to have the opposite effect. Those who are becoming more disabled through some progressive illness will be tempted to get out of work as quickly as possible because they will need to do so at a time when they have recently paid contributions and will be eligible for incapacity benefit.
      The Government say that it is all part of a package. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made that point too. In fact, it is not a necessary part of the package. We were told just now that we cannot have the other things in the Bill, such as the increase in severe disablement allowance for some young people, unless we have these two clauses. Yet, as I said already, the Government have made it clear that the savings that they are introducing in these two clauses are peripheral and are not a necessary part of the package. It is therefore illogical to pretend that we cannot have the other parts of the package, which may be welcome, unless we have these two clauses.
      What have the Government said about their aims? They have said that their aim is to help the most vulnerable and there are things in the Bill which help to do that. There are things which my hon. Friends and I have not hesitated to welcome. Only a small part of the cuts being introduced in this Bill is going back to the most vulnerable. In these two clauses we see a net cut in the long term of £700 million a year. That is not giving help to the most vulnerable.
      Had the Government come here today and said that they needed the cuts because the money was needed to help the most vulnerable, that would have reassured many Labour as well as Opposition Members. They would have believed that that was the right way to spread the available money. Liberal Democrats have no intention of saying that we suddenly want to increase the welfare bill by a huge amount in order to help the most vulnerable. We accept that there is only a certain amount of money available and that, where possible, it should be spread to the most vulnerable. In that sense, we approve of the Government's aim, but we disapprove of the fact that they are not achieving that aim by means of these two clauses.
      The Government want to encourage work. We, too, want to see work encouraged where possible. After all, for those who have some incapacity, work is often a means of increasing self-confidence and self-worth. For that reason alone, apart from the financial incentive, it is worth trying to encourage people back to work where possible.
      1252
      Clause 53 restricts those who will receive incapacity benefit. In the future, it will not go to those who have worked for a long time and been able to make their national insurance contributions over some years. Instead, there will be an arbitrary cut-off which says that if one has not done the right amount of work within the past two years, one cannot get incapacity benefit. Surely, if the Government were really out to encourage work, they would be trying to encourage those who have been working the longest by giving them the most help when they become incapable of working.
      The Government said that they want to encourage saving—so do we, because it is a good aim. The Government are introducing disincentives to saving by increasing the amount of means-tested benefits for those with disabilities. In practice, although the Government's aim of encouraging saving is one of which we approve, once again, they are failing to achieve it by what they are doing.
      There is one aim that the Government will achieve, however, and that is their aim to reduce welfare spending. They will do so by cutting benefits at the expense of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, including some who have severe disablement and perhaps have never been able to work or make national insurance contributions. The Government have invented for themselves a new slogan: work for those who can, cuts for those who cannot.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Tom Clarke:I support amendment No. 12. I fear that, for the first time in 16 years in this Parliament, I may not be in a position to support the Government if, as I see it, they remain intransigent on this matter. It will be the first time that I have not supported my party in all my time here, and I say that of the party I love.
      Many of my remarks will echo those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and the all-party disablement group, including Lord Ashley, who leads it, Alf Morris, Brian Rix and many others. I thank them for the help they have given me in seeking to make some sense of this debate and the various views expressed in it. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has been unfailingly courteous to me. I do not join those of my colleagues who think that, in the society in which we live and with the pluralism that we enjoy, it is wrong of a member of the Government or someone from the Whips Office to give us their views. Our job is to win the debate and get this Government of ours on the right lines.
      Like me, many of my colleagues have been pleased to be part of a Government who, in two short years, have done so much to benefit the lives of millions of our disabled fellow citizens, honouring the commitment I gave on behalf of the shadow Cabinet at the party conference before the last election.
      Of course, I warmly support the new deal for disabled people and the disabled persons tax credit. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to do for children and those under 25. However, it is against that backdrop that I argue for this amendment, largely because I proudly endorse the Government's initiatives, particularly on disability and employment.

      1253
      There is no difference between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me when he argues that replacing benefits with paid work is common sense for any person, disabled or not. It restores dignity and self-esteem. In the autumn of 1998 the then Secretary of State for Social Security and the all-party disablement group, together, said:
      "future savings would come from helping disabled people to get jobs rather than reducing benefit entitlement."
      That commitment is the inspiration behind amendment No. 12.
      I have been surprised that it is proposed in the future to remove the benefit entitlement of tens of thousands of people who are unable to work. More in sorrow than in anger, I say that the Government have failed to recognise in clause 53 that not all disabled people are able to work. Indeed—according figures recently published by the Government, not me—170,000 people will suffer from the provisions. They will be excluded from incapacity benefit, but will not be provided with a safety net. It cannot be right to exclude those people from benefit if we are genuinely pursuing social justice. It cannot be right to exclude them if our test really is to respond to the needs of the many, not the few.
      What is the purpose of clause 53? What will it accomplish? If it is being suggested that, now or in the future, people on incapacity benefit are not sick or disabled, the way of dealing with the problem is by using the entitlement test. Very clearly, the issue should be one of whether those people are able to pass the gateway-to-benefit test, rather than—as many people believe the Bill would do—moving the goal posts without changing the eligibility criteria.
      Given the reforms of the all-work test, on which I have pressed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before—and which we must assume go a long way towards meeting the Government's objectives; otherwise, why did we make them?—I fail to see why it is necessary to go even further by abolishing entitlement to incapacity benefit for so many people. It is especially difficult to understand why abolition is necessary when we hear that the Bill is not cuts driven.
      The evidence from my own surgeries—like that, I suspect, from the surgeries of hon. Members on both sides of the House—tells me that it is not easy to get incapacity benefit. The tests are very stringent and, for many people, require great effort. The reforms of 1995—as recently as that—made the all-work test even more rigid. Extravagant claims of huge abuses—of many disabled people lying idle and receiving benefit—are quite simply wrong.
      Although I want disabled people to find work, I fail to understand how denying benefits to those who have not made contributions in the past two years, as they have not able to work in those years, will help to achieve that objective. In fact, denying benefit to those disabled people could have the perverse effect of deterring them from seeking work. Many people believe that, if they return to work but again fall ill, they may not be able to receive benefit. For many people, that is a disincentive to find work—which is the complete opposite of all that we want to achieve.
      1254
      I do not fall for the argument that everyone who is unemployed does not want a job. The argument does not hold true of the people who come to my constituency surgeries, and does not accord with the evidence and observations of which I am told weekly by other hon. Members. I cannot believe, and will not accept, that the argument is true in the cases of people who have to be helped into my surgeries—and who tell me that, after the shortest medical tests, they are being cut off completely from benefit. That is wrong and must be corrected.
      Clause 53 proposes taking money from disabled people who cannot work, and giving it to those who can. Therefore, effectively, those who are unable to work will be subsidising those who can. Where is the fairness in that? It is fine that those who are currently receiving incapacity benefit will not be made any worse off by the provisions, but protecting the benefits of today's disabled people cannot justify penalising tomorrow's disabled people. Quite simply, it would be wrong to do that.
      Some argue that certain people currently receiving incapacity benefit should not be doing so. The argument has been made by my hon. and dear Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), whom I helped in the previous two general elections. I offer to help him in the next election—although, after this speech, the offer may not be quite so welcome. I also tell him that the Bill will not address the issue of people wrongly receiving incapacity benefit. They will continue to receive the benefit, but it will be denied to those who should qualify for it after passing the most rigid tests ever created. There is absolutely no justification for denying those people benefit.
      As the consultation document said, many people have access to occupational and personal pensions—but those are their nest eggs, not luxuries. Many of them pay a high proportion of a relatively low income into a private pension scheme. They are likely to feel deeply betrayed when they discover that—yet again, as under the previous Government—they are being penalised for their action by a reduction in incapacity benefit.
      If people are receiving benefit that they do not need, the problem will have to be tackled—I accept that—but we must do so in a manner that does not undermine those who are on low incomes. We cannot redress the perception that many wealthy people are receiving benefit—although, as it happens, they made their contributions over the years—by seeking to take funds from those who are in lower-income brackets.
      I am glad that—according to the lunchtime news bulletins—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be giving us further information on that matter. It would not have been acceptable if people receiving as little as £50 a week were effectively to be taxed at a rate of 50 per cent. It would not be possible for me to defend taking from those people 50p out of each pound. That was not the policy that I offered in the three years when I had the privilege of being the shadow Cabinet spokesperson on disability.
      We understand the Government's concern about the rising costs of welfare spending. However, we shall not reduce those costs if—because of the provisions of clause 54, which may adversely affect their benefits entitlement, making them feel cheated—people feel less inclined to invest in a pension for their latter years.

      1255
      Again more in sorrow than in anger, I say that it would be a tragedy if the Government, by not accepting amendment No. 12, were to tarnish what has so far been an excellent record of protecting disabled people's interests. I am sincerely convinced that the clauses would lead to hardship for many of our constituents who will become disabled.
      In that spirit, and in all honesty, I cannot support a policy that is logically flawed and, in the eyes of many, morally without justification. Even now, at the 11th hour, I plead with the Government to think again.
      3 pm
      Mrs. Angela Browning:I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 86. The debate so far has focused primarily on the means-testing of incapacity benefit and the changes to it. Amendment No. 86 would delete clauses 55 and 56. Clause 55 deals with incapacity in youth and clause 56 contains the Government's proposal to abolish severe disablement allowance.
      The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) rightly drew attention to the fact that there are many people who will never work, however much we may wish to make available to them the facilities of supported employment. Many young people currently qualify for SDA on the ground that they are born with a disability. The Government have made the concession of broadening the contributions rule to exempt those up to the age of 25, rather than their original proposal of 19.
      We all recognise that for someone with a lifelong severe disability, education or training can go on well into their 20s. Even after that, the chances of paid employment may be limited or may require a protracted process. They may be required to do voluntary work or get into the world of work through the therapeutics earning rule to begin with. I am concerned that those young people who currently qualify for severe disablement allowance on the ground of their disability once they have come through the education system will now come within the catch-all of the new rules for incapacity benefit.
      The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that incapacity benefit was not necessarily regarded as a disability benefit, but as a benefit that gave substitution for income. I hope that I have not misrepresented him. Those currently qualifying for severe disablement allowance who have never worked and who realistically will never hold down full-time or well-paid part-time employment do not have to fulfil the criteria for an income replacement benefit; they get SDA on a medical assessment of the severity of their disability. That is to change and they are to come within the remit of the incapacity benefit rules. I ask the Government to look again at that.
      The more we debate the issue, the more the Government's repeated lectures about the many and the few ring in my ears. The weakness throughout the Bill is that the few are ignored—those with specific disabilities or groups of disabilities whom the Government have not recognised or who will be adversely affected. The abolition of SDA will adversely affect people who were
      1256
      born with disabilities and for whom full-time paid employment is not a realistic possibility or can be achieved only in modified form.
      Mr. Tony McWalter:Does the hon. Lady accept that the change allows the people she is talking about to move to incapacity benefit, which is more generous than severe disablement allowance?
      Mrs. Browning:Incapacity benefit is means-tested and departs from the non-contributory nature of SDA. I have already acknowledged that the Government have increased the age limit to 25, but others over 25 will come within that remit for many of the reasons that I have given, but will for the first time fall foul of the contributory rule. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but for some people with a lifelong disability, often one present from birth, it is appropriate to extend education and training for as long as possible, perhaps well beyond 25, not necessarily because there is a great expectation of them fulfilling a role in paid employment, but because it is a therapeutic programme that may be in their best interests, depending on the type and severity of their disability. I ask the Government to look again at the detail for the few who will be affected by the abolition of SDA, particularly the typical programme for some of the very young people for whom education and training will go on for a very long time in their own best interests.
      Mr. Frank Field:I wish to bring the House back to the chilling speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He was assuredly right to say that Labour Members have much to congratulate the Government on in welfare reform and other areas. Because he was so conscious of the time available, he failed to remind us that he was a member of the previous Labour Government. I shall come back to that point at the end of my speech.
      I hope that there are few who are keener than I am on new Labour. For long years I sat on the Opposition Benches as a member of a party that found it difficult to keep its core vote, let alone take the argument beyond that to win elections. However, we have to remember that parties have histories. We are new Labour, but we were the Opposition. That helped to form our character and led us to present ourselves to the electorate in a certain light.
      When the Tories attacked the national insurance fund a dozen times or so, we did not oppose them for fun. When we stayed up all night, it was not because it was our only weapon, because we did not need sleep, or because we were ideologically driven by an opposition to means tests; we did it because we saw what Tory policies were doing to our communities. The Tories' endless attack on the welfare state that they inherited and their endless push to means-test were undermining decent working-class morality in our constituencies. They used the power of the state machine to teach people not to work, not to save and not to tell the truth.
      When we are taken through the looking glass, like Alice, in our constituencies, knowing that people trust what we say, we can see how deeply corrupting that form of welfare has been. We had to attack what the Conservatives did to our communities, denying people jobs in shipyards and steel mills and throwing them on to means-tested benefits, mocking their every decent

      1257
      instinct. People were penalised if they saved or if they told the truth, and woe betide them and their chances of getting help if they found employment.
      New Labour comes with a history, which has helped to form us. Our opposition was not theoretical, but one that represented the heartlands of our communities. It was a plea that we should have welfare reform which would make difficult decisions, but would build with the grain of human nature and exhort the most decent aspects of mankind—not denigrate or undermine them.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton—perhaps without knowing it—gave vent to why the Bill concerns some of us so much. Whichever way we vote tonight, most will do so with heavy hearts and, at some stage, the Bill will come back to us. If one of the reasons for reform is what the Conservatives—that gang over there—did to manipulate unemployment figures and to push people on to incapacity benefit, the solution is to deal with that evil.
      The solution is not to say, "Never mind who you are. Never mind what your circumstances are. Never mind what your contribution is. We will get some of you later to get the bill down." Maybe hon. Members on both sides have not been as careful as we should have been when raising individual points about people being treated badly under the benefit integrity project. Perhaps there has been a loss of nerve. The job of policing benefits remains to be done, and is wholly separate from what the Bill is about.
      I want to speak to amendment No.12, because clause 53 is an attack on what the Green Paper on welfare reform said and what the Prime Minister has told the country that welfare reform is all about. The Green Paper said that we would move slowly but carefully to a system of contract welfare. We would make sure that it was transparent, that people would build up their entitlements, that they would rely on them and that they would be rewarded for doing so. Clause 53 strikes at the very heart of that concept. Clause 53 also strikes at the Prime Minister's comments about wishing to move us from a something-for-nothing society to a something-for-something society. How can we justify the two clauses that we are debating if we take seriously, as I do, what the Prime Minister has said and continues to say?
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton referred to the duty that we have as Labour Back Benchers to sustain our Government and to help direct our Government. He talked of some of the difficulties that previous Labour Governments got into with House of Lords reform. I must remind him of the anguish that some of us feel at this stage of the debate.
      The 1974 Labour Government were committed to introducing child benefit but, for certain reasons, decided that it would be best to put that commitment aside. There was a leak of Cabinet papers, and some hon. Members faced action under the Official Secrets Act. Some who were in the House then—they are listening to the debate now—bravely spoke in favour of Labour reasserting that promise. They must have felt the anguish that those of us debating the clauses today feel. They had to go through the fire.
      I had the privilege to fight the first election that I won in Birkenhead on a platform stressing that one of the great promises that we had delivered was on child benefit.
      1258
      It was pressure from the Back Benches that delivered that promise, which I found to be so much of a vote winner in Birkenhead. It remains so today.
      3.15 pm
      There is no case for us to behave irresponsibly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, the Whips should have done their job. That is their duty—to get the Government's business through today. Unfortunately, we as Back Benchers have two duties to balance. One is to sustain, with pride, our Government. The other is that when we look back on our stewardship, we do so with real pride in what the Government have achieved.
      On the new deal and so many other matters, the Government have made such a clear difference from those characters in the Conservative party who used to occupy the Government Benches. Their policy was to drive people off the rolls, to strengthen the hands of staff, to harass claimants and to push them out. We have not done that. We have provided a £5 billion budget, and people have to behave responsibly, carefully and maturely. However, there are real options. There was clear, red water between our reform programme and what the Conservatives did in power.
      In looking back at the Conservatives' dozen attacks on the national insurance fund—which we so opposed—what is the difference from what we are proposing in clauses 53 and 54? Where is the clear water between both sides? It is marvellous to see the Conservative Moonies who have had a mass conversion to national insurance. The Unification church would blush at the way in which the Conservatives have taken to their new roles. If I were not so nervous, I would be able to remember the high priest of the Unification church. We could choose which Opposition Member fulfils that role.
      This day will pass and, whatever difficulties we have, we are part of this great party that will deliver the reform programme. Of course, we must bear in mind—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said—what happened to the last Labour Government. However, we must look also at what Back Benchers have managed do to in sustaining and directing the Government. I am sure that we will be successful in that.
      I make this plea to Ministers. They will win their vote tonight, given the size of the majority. Many who support them will do so easily, but many others will do so with heavy hearts, and they will be looking for real changes when the Bill comes back from the other place.
      Mrs. Theresa May:In his comprehensive and measured speech, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) referred to the delegations taken by the all-party disablement group to meet Ministers over the past two years to discuss the issue of disability benefits, particularly when there were reports in the press that such benefits were under threat.
      When I was the joint chairman of the all-party group, I was able to be a member of a number of those delegations, alongside the hon. Gentleman. What was noticeable about Ministers' reaction to our concerns about the threat to disability benefits was their consistent insistence that there was no Treasury-led intention to cut

      1259
      the amount of money that was being paid in disability benefits, and that any savings would come from disabled people being helped back into the workplace.
      That intention was repeated by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), when he referred to the joint statement by the then Secretary of State and the all-party disablement group in March 1998, which said:
      "There was agreement that future savings would come from helping disabled people to get jobs rather than reducing benefit entitlement."
      That theme was repeated in the Green Paper where, on page 54, the Government said that, over time, less money would be spent on incapacity benefit
      "as more people make a successful return to work and fewer people remain on benefit."
      Sadly, clauses 53 and 54 break that commitment.
      The Government have said that the changes to incapacity benefit in clauses 53 and 54 are necessary because an awful lot of people are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit who, frankly, are not eligible for it; but they have produced no concrete evidence to support that argument. They make the political assertion—it has been repeated today by several hon. Members—that it was all the fault of the previous Government, who used incapacity benefit to get people off the unemployment figures; again, I have seen no hard evidence for that.
      As some Labour Back Benchers have said, if the Government really believe that people are incorrectly receiving incapacity benefit now, the solution is not to prevent disabled people from receiving it in future. The Government argue that something must be done about incapacity benefit because of the increasing numbers of people claiming it. The hon. Member for Kingswood set out the statistics on both the number of claimants and the amount that is being spent, showing that argument to be wrong. Even if his figures are wrong, the Government have failed to appreciate the fact that many people—especially women—are now in the work force and can qualify for receipt of incapacity benefit, whereas in the past they would not have been able to do so.
      The answer to the problems that the Government have identified is not what is proposed in clauses 53 and 54. Those proposals will hit genuinely disabled people who deserve to receive incapacity benefit because they are incapable of work.
      Disabled people with progressive and deteriorating conditions will be especially badly hit. People with multiple sclerosis, for example, may work full-time for many years and contribute to national insurance and then become unable to work full-time as their condition progresses but, wanting to remain as long as possible in the workplace, they may move into part-time work, eventually falling below the lower earnings limit. Such people may then work for a period without paying the national insurance contributions necessary to qualify for incapacity benefit. When they become completely incapable of working, they will be disqualified from claiming the benefit.
      Women will also be badly affected. Women may work for some years and then leave the workplace to look after a family. To meet their family responsibilities, they may return to work, perhaps in two part-time jobs that pay below the lower earnings limit. Women in that position who develop an illness or disability that prevents them
      1260
      from working will not qualify for incapacity benefit. Such people should not be written off as ineligible, or as scroungers. They would genuinely be in need of the benefit and should qualify for it.
      This is not about redistributing benefits to severely disabled people; it is about cutting the amount of benefit available to disabled people. As such, it is a clear breach of commitments given by Ministers to Members of Parliament. It is nothing less than a betrayal of disabled people.
      Kali Mountford:I rise in pride to support and sustain the Government. I was one of those who spent 65 hours in Committee, not as a nodding donkey, as some Opposition Members have said, but taking a full part in the debate. Conservative Members who served with me in Committee could assure the House that that is true. I am proud of the fact that we worked on the Bill, in its entirety, including clauses 53 and 54.
      The Bill hangs together extremely well. It is cogent. It makes sense of national insurance contributions and of how we pay benefit and deal with people in extreme poverty. It tackles some of the inequities in the current system. Both Government and Opposition Members have spoken of problems that we have had in the past that have nothing to do with the Bill and have already been dealt with. I agree entirely that the benefit integrity project caused incredible pain and harm and I am glad that our Ministers abolished it; we should be proud of that. The House should be aware, though, that it is no longer a problem.
      If people want to look for a problem to deal with, let it be the Benefits Agency medical service. I have been aware of that problem for some time, but we should recognise that it has nothing to do with the Bill, and that the Government are considering doctors' qualifications and the criteria to which they will have to work to ensure that the system works better than it has in the past.
      The all-work test was an abomination, but if hon. Members are concerned about what new regulations are to take its place, let them lobby on that issue in the right place. Clauses 53 and 54 contain no reference to the all-work test. This is the wrong place and the wrong time to raise those objections. I am sure that the Government's plans for checking the gateway into benefits are the right way of dealing with the problem. It is right to consider what people's abilities—rather than disabilities—are now and will be in the future.
      It has been mentioned that the Bill does not address the fact that the previous Government took people off unemployment benefit and put them on incapacity benefit. That is entirely true, but it is not the point of what I want to say. I was a member of the Employment Service when there were loads of changes to forms and regulations, taking people off unemployment benefit and putting them on to a range of other benefits, including invalidity benefit and then incapacity benefit.
      Civil servants were told that if the questions about people's health and capabilities were answered in a certain way, they should advise the claimant to go elsewhere and claim a different benefit. The effect of that is important in the context of clauses 53 and 54. Anyone who knows about the psychological effects of unemployment and what happens to people who spend a long time without work will know that despair begins to set in after about two years.

      1261
      People on incapacity benefit are very likely to remain on it for at least that long, away from the workplace and with no future opportunity to reintroduce themselves to the labour market, simply by virtue of the fact that they have been away from it for far too long. Confidence is sapped and they become dependent on the benefit, because all other opportunities seem closed. I do not want people to live that life. A life on benefits is no joke; it is no fun. People on benefits are not well off.
      We have a duty to consider whether the qualification for incapacity benefit makes sense. It is an income-related benefit, designed to replace the income that people had when they were fit for employment. It seems sensible to ask what is the link between the period of employment and the period of receipt of benefit.
      There must come a time at which we can argue that the benefit is no longer an income-replacement benefit. The Government's proposals make sense. It is not as though the qualification is onerous and difficult. Let us consider someone on average male earnings. It would take that person only four weeks to qualify. Even somebody on the minimum wage would qualify after 12 weeks of employment. That is not an onerous requirement, but it is sensible. It maintains the link between work and the benefit and is not too difficult to achieve. Therefore, I do not find that a mean measure.
      3.30 pm
      It certainly is not a mean proposal, if we consider it in the context of other benefits to which people are entitled.
      I am most concerned about those entitled to income support, and the Bill will add £5.70 to the premium for disability paid to those claiming income support. That is a generous increase and takes account of the fact that people who are likely to suffer ill health for some time face extra costs. However, it does not make sense to argue that those costs should be covered by a national insurance contributory benefit. It is right not to leave people floating on a sea of despair, and I would not support any measure that did so. However, the Bill would introduce stability into the system and people would know exactly where they stood in relation to work and their incapacity.
      The impression has been given this afternoon that people on incapacity benefit are permanently disabled. That is not always the case and some people will improve. It would be wrong for the House to leave the impression that we have been talking about all disabled people in all circumstances, because that is not the case.
      I have been concerned to hear people talking about income support in the way that it has been talked about in the past, which—when I worked in the benefits system and for a welfare rights organisation—caused me great despair. Income support is sometimes stigmatised, but that does a great disservice to all recipients of income support. All people should be treated with dignity, including those who have to claim income support.
      Income support is claimed because an individual has no other income. That is the whole point. When I considered the issues before the House today, I looked at their impact on the very worst off, but the amendments do not address that issue. Nothing in the amendments would redistribute funds to the worst-off. The only redistribution would be the redistribution of the £5.70 increase in the disabled premium on income support.
      1262
      I started my speech by saying that I was proud to have supported the Government on the Bill. My view has not changed during the debate, although I have listened with interest to the various contributions. I urge those hon. Members to reconsider their remarks in the light of the totality of the Bill and all that it can achieve. It would be easy to support all the wonderful measures that have been discussed this afternoon, but hon. Members have been cherry-picking with gay abandon. They have walked through the cherry orchard with their baskets and enjoyed every minute. However, the baskets need to be filled by the Bill and all its clauses.
      Mr. Howard Flight:The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) presented an argument that all fair-minded hon. Members must surely accept. The arrangements proposed in clauses 53 and 54 would not just means-test the benefit against pensions but would affect whether someone could take a pension early. If people can take their pensions early, they would be disqualified from incapacity benefit. That is morally wrong. If people take their pensions—for which they have saved during their lives—early, the price they pay is a substantially lower pension for the rest of their lives. Under the Bill, if people choose not to take their pensions early so that they can look after themselves in old age, they will not be entitled to incapacity benefit. That is unacceptable, even for those who can stomach the concept of means-testing pensions per se.
      Other hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the changes in the national insurance contribution rules will have perverse effects. The changes are likely to hit people who have debilitating diseases, and spouses—both male and female—who stop work, whether to care for children or an ill spouse. The changes will encourage anyone who may be vulnerable to leave work and get the benefit before they are at risk. The proposals would not even achieve the objective that the Government claim they are seeking to achieve.
      I attended Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday and the Prime Minister made the point that it was outrageous that one in four retired men draws incapacity benefit. He made the party political point about unemployment benefit versus incapacity benefit, but he also suggested that the system of medical examination could not be working if it delivered that figure. If the Government's primary objective is to stop wrong assessments or people milking the system, the proposals would not achieve that. They will create a different regime for the future, but they will not tidy up what is wrong today. To justify clauses 53 and 54 on those grounds is a travesty of the argument.
      It is not acceptable for anyone who seeks to take a fair approach to camouflage what is a cut of £570 million—which will be achieved by imposing harsh and probably perverse tests on qualifying for incapacity benefit—with all the other arguments. I cannot see how Labour Members can support this measure, given the commitments they made when the Conservative party made certain mistakes on the issue of means-testing.
      Audrey Wise:The social security system has three components which are contributory benefits, such as pensions; non-contributory benefits, which are paid for a particular circumstance, such as child benefit or, at the moment, severe disablement allowance; and means-tested

      1263
      benefits which the Labour party have always regarded as a safety net. All three components are necessary and important.
      The current proposals to which we object would materially alter the balance between the three components. We have been told that clause 53, which reduces eligibility for incapacity benefit by changing contribution record rules, is being introduced because people should be recently in touch with the labour market. However, contributions records are a poor guide to whether people are in touch with the labour market, or even in it at all. Many people, particularly women, work part-time below the contributions threshold. There are many reasons for part-time work. Women may take it because of child care or it may be all that they can get. They be unwell but want to keep on working as much as they can.
      Although those people are below the contributions threshold, they are in the labour market. However, the Bill rules them out. Some 180,000 women have two part-time jobs, both of which fall beneath the contributions threshold. Are we telling them that they are ineligible because they are not in touch with the labour market? Can they have two jobs and still not qualify? Contributions records are a poor guide.
      Why should a recent record be required in any case? Someone may have paid for 20 years and still be rendered ineligible by clause 54. Someone else may have paid only one year's contributions, but still be eligible. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the relationship between benefits and contributions? The clause makes nonsense of the contributory principle.
      Some people may be unwell, but continue to work to the best of their ability. What advice should we give to constituents in that case? If the clause is enacted, we should benefit them by suggesting that it would be safer to cease work while they qualify. 1 do not want to give people that advice. I do not have to do so now. I can tell people to keep on working, and I believe that it is best for people to work if they can.
      We have heard some extraordinary statements about incapacity benefit, implying that loads of people are on it just because they decided that it would be nice. We are told that people take early retirement and go on incapacity benefit. We are told that there are so many people on the benefit because it is a substitute for unemployment benefit.
      In fact, the big problem of social security is how complicated it is. There are many different benefits and qualifications, and names of benefits change. It is true that the Tories tried to get people off the unemployment register and on to sick benefits, but incapacity benefit did not then exist. Invalidity benefit was created for that purpose.
      Incapacity benefit came into being in 1995 because the Tories wanted to reverse the position. We opposed it vigorously in 1995, deploring the fact that many people who qualified for sick pay would no longer qualify. In a Labour party briefing we said:
      "There will be a new and more stringent functional test of incapacity under which many people will lose entitlement to benefit."
      We did not say that people could go on to the benefit just because they fancied it or wanted to retire early. We said that a new and harsh rule was being introduced by the
      1264
      Conservatives. It was not me who said so, but a brief from Labour's economic secretariat, red rose and all. Labour Members were all encouraged to think those things, because they were true.
      Now, we are told that people are on incapacity benefit because they have taken early retirement. In 1995, we said:
      "There is growing evidence that concerns about the new benefit will mean that many people will choose to take out private insurance, at considerable personal expense, rather than risk the uncertainties attached to the new eligibility test."
      We were saying that incapacity benefit would force people to take out private occupational insurance to gain themselves a pension because they would be deprived of benefits.
      Over the years, a lot of people, encouraged by the trade union movement, have taken occupational pensions. Trades unions have demanded proper superannuation benefits and so on. The private part of the retired person's income has gradually increased. We said that that process would be hastened for the wrong reason by Tory cuts. Now, however, we say that everyone who has taken out private insurance or who has a good occupational pension that will give them something decent when they retire, even if it is early, will be too well off. Never mind that they have paid through national insurance for many years.
      Having between £5,000 and £9,000 is defined as being too well off. Some of us say that we could do with a bit of redistribution, but we do not mean redistribution from some disabled people to some other disabled people. We want redistribution from those who are really well off, but we are told that that is politically unacceptable. All sorts of arguments and non-arguments are used, but that is a no-go area for us. If there is to be redistribution, it should be through the tax and contributions system, not by taking money from some allegedly less-deserving chronically sick or disabled people and giving it to chronically sick or disabled people whose conditions are even worse. That is not the sort of redistribution that I want, and nor do I think that the population wants it.
      3.45 pm
      Restrictions, the 50 per cent. tax on occupational pensions over £50 and matter of the contributions records are dealt with in amendment No. 12, to which 68 of my hon. Friends have put their names. I do not know whether amendment No. 7, which amends clause 56, will be pressed to a vote, but I should certainly vote for it. If it is not divided on, I shall regard my vote on amendment No. 12 as standing as a proxy for that amendment because clause 56 is also objectionable.
      I know that the youngest people are passported on to incapacity benefit. That is great, and I am all in favour of it. I do not even ask that the same should be done for the rest. All I ask is that we preserve the status quo for the rest. Mark my words: the amendments are not about making improvements; they simply preserve benefits that people have at present, and I think that no one receives excessive benefits.
      One problem with benefits is that their names change. I have been around a fair time, and I was here when the precursor of severe disablement allowance was introduced

      1265
      by the last Labour Government—we could talk about pride in Government then—on 21 November 1974. Barbara Castle said that it
      "will provide new, non-means-tested help for those of working age who are deprived of the opportunity to earn their living and who have no rights under existing contributory insurance schemes."
      It was, she said, a brand new benefit. She said:
      "This is quite an historic moment. We have made an important breakthrough here. These are only the first steps towards a new policy for the disabled over a wide field. These first steps bring a new non-means-tested security to nearly 250.000 people whose needs we have neglected for too long."—[Official Report, 21 November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1555.]
      I do not want to be in this House at another historic moment—when that benefit, which was so proudly introduced, is removed by this Labour Government. I do not think that that was what was meant when it was said that this was the first step in a new deal for disabled people—not at all.
      We hear that the amount spent on disabled and chronically sick people has increased. It is a lot more than it was in 1974. It has gone up and so it should have, because it used to be disgraceful. The activities of Labour Members, who increased eligibility and introduced new benefits, paved the way for it to increase. That is not a cause for complaint. It has given people a new dignity and new rights. It is part of the reason why so many disabled people are now in a position to assert themselves, and they do so. They claim their full humanity.
      I do not want to be a part of any backtracking. It is not enough to say that we are improving the situation for some people. Of course, I welcome that and our amendment would not destroy that. At the moment, we will be spending rather more than we were, which is good, but we will gradually be saving at the expense of some of the disabled and the chronically sick and I object to that.
      It seems extraordinary that we are told that we cannot cherry-pick. I do not see this Bill as a cherry orchard in any case. Surely, the purpose of the parliamentary process is to consider legislation and, if one decides that it is good, to support it, but if one decides that it is a terrible error, to say so and act on it. One acts on that, even if it is against one's own Government.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) reminisced about the time shortly before we came to the House when child benefit was in prospect. I remember that vividly. I have looked round and tried to see a fellow face who was here at that time, who would share my memories. I will share my memories with all my right hon. and hon. Friends. Child benefit was the brainchild of Barbara Castle, who originally tagged it with the name child endowment, which then became the prospect of child benefit. However, we were told that there was a snag and that the trade unionists did not like the measure because it would transfer money from the wallet to the handbag, so it would be dangerous. We were told that some of our supporters might not support us if we introduced child benefit because we were abolishing the child tax allowance. We were told that it was, "dangerous."
      Talk about pressure—we were a very tight House then and at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party in 1976, those of us who were campaigning for the rapid
      1266
      introduction of child benefit were told by the then Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, that if we persisted, he would resign and there would be a general election three weeks hence. Compare that with the pressure today. We stuck and child benefit was introduced. The Prime Minister did not resign and there was not a general election in three weeks—it was another three years and then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, all the candidates were able to stand with pride on a platform of improvement for children.
      I do not want my hon. Friends to feel that the only way to be loyal to our Labour Government is to accept without question everything that comes from those on the Front Bench. It is also our duty to try to improve our Government's legislation. When all is said and done, we are here to represent our constituents.
      I do not ask those hon. Members who do not agree with the amendments to support them. Those who do not agree and who feel that they have a legitimate argument, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), should vote the amendments down by all means—that is their duty. However, I suggest to all those who feel uneasy about stepping back and removing existing rights that the best way to feel at ease with oneself in these circumstances is to support our amendment. I hope that quite a lot of my hon. Friends will be in that Lobby tonight.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin:This afternoon's debate is similar to the debate that we had at a similar time, but in the morning and not the afternoon, a few days ago. In great part, it has been illuminating to those of us who care about the history of political parties. We have heard from Labour Members passionate and powerful speeches about the Labour party discovering itself.
      The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) also said something about the Conservative party; he accused us of being the Unification church. I for one would remind him that the religion of which he is one of the prime advocates in this country also believes in the road to Damascus. The Conservative party has gone through that sort of conversion. [Interruption.] Yes, we have, because we made an honourable, and dreadful, series of errors. They were honourable and those on the Treasury Bench should not pout too much at this point because they are susceptible to a similar error today.
      The error that we made was to suppose that we could endlessly target, that the result of targeting and means-testing would be that we would deliver a smaller amount of taxpayers' money to a smaller group of people who most needed it and that by those means, we would better distribute income with a lower call on the taxpayers' funds. We were abundantly wrong: we increased dependency and the social security budget, thus increasing the call on the taxpayer. That is the history of the matter.
      Today, as on Monday night, we are talking about the direction of change. No one imagines that the measure, the clauses and the amendments will suddenly transform the whole of social security. We all know that it is a question of incremental change of direction. What will be decided when hon. Members from both sides of the House, I hope, go through the same Lobby later this afternoon is whether we are to announce that as a collectivity—all of us in the House—we believe that we have to change direction and move to a position in which

      1267
      instead of increasing continually the amount of means-testing and dependency, we increase instead the incentive for people responsibly to look after their own affairs so that they do not need to depend so much on benefit.
      I merely wish to say that I entered the House two years ago with one great hope above all others—that this would be the Parliament in which we would find, and this phrase is more popular on the Labour than the Conservative Benches, a consensus on this matter, which is of the greatest possible long-term national significance. 1 thought that we had come to a moment when, because we had learned from our mistakes and the Labour party had benefited from the wise advice of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and others, we would be able to agree on a change of direction in social security. This afternoon, we will find out whether there is a sufficient consensus to persuade the Government to live up to those high hopes, which Conservative Members now have of the Government, many Labour Members have and, what is much more important, both of our electorates share—the electorate who vote Conservative and the electorate who vote Labour. That is a national hope. This afternoon, there is a chance that it will be fulfilled or dashed. It is up to Labour as much as to Conservative Members to ensure that it is fulfilled.
      4 pm
      Mr. Chris Pond:The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) invited Labour Members to join him in the Lobby. One of the main reasons why I will support the Bill as its stands and oppose the amendments is that, after working for 20 years for the poverty lobby and seeing what the Conservatives did to the poorest and most vulnerable, under no circumstances could 1 join them in the Lobby.
      The Conservatives say that perhaps they were wrong. A moment ago, the hon. Member for West Dorset was on the Damascus bypass. In the early hours of Tuesday morning, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) offered to slip into a hair shirt, albeit one designed in Savile row. Despite what they are now saying, for 18 years they supported a Government who did much damage to the living standards, hopes and aspirations of the poorest. They were all looking the other way. It was the longest lapse of concentration that we have seen. For 18 years, they did not notice what they were doing. They did not notice their doubling and trebling of the extent of means-testing or their attack on national insurance benefits and the national insurance principle. However much synthetic compassion they can manufacture in this debate for party political purposes, I will not join them in the Lobby. We must ensure that no one forgets what they did in government and what they would do again to the poorest, if they ever had the chance.
      What the Conservatives did in those 18 years shapes the welfare reform debate. They created a climate of fear. It is not only the cuts throughout the 18 years; one of the most cynical cuts was the benefit integrity project, introduced only three days before the general election with the explicit purpose of cutting the benefits of the most severely disabled. I am proud that our Government have changed that and are ensuring that people get the benefits to which they are entitled, no more and no less.
      I know that few people are listening to the debate, so I can quietly divulge that the Select Committee on Social Security recently went on a junket—to Loughborough.
      1268
      We get some privileges in this House. We heard about some research carried out by the specialist social policy research unit at the university. We found that currently, disabled three and four-year-old children get only half their mobility costs covered. The Bill will ensure that about 80 per cent. of those costs are covered. It will help children and their families.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody:Does it occur to my hon. Friend that those of us who tabled the amendment, which does not relate to the clause to which he refers, do not follow the logic of telling Labour Members who are concerned about this aspect of the Bill that because we want to do something about disabled four-year-olds, it is necessary to bring in cuts that will affect others who may be older?
      Mr. Pond:I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that she will allow me to develop my argument. I do not suggest that those who support the amendment against clauses 53 and 54 are unconcerned about disabled three and four-year-olds. Nor do I suggest that they are unconcerned about the fact that the Bill will help younger disabled people up to the age of 25. However, the debate about the Bill has been shaped by the assumption that all welfare reform is about cuts. That is not the case.
      Much of the debate on clauses 53 and 54 has been useful, but it has turned into a discussion of the contributory national insurance principle. It has become a debate about contributory benefits, universal benefits and means-testing. It is a helpful debate which we should pursue, but it does not throw much light on the two clauses. In some ways, one could argue that clause 53 strengthens the insurance principle by ensuring that contributions are much more closely related to benefit entitlement. It may be that other aspects of the Bill go in different directions, but it is a sensible debate which we have to have, and I am pleased to say that the Social Security Committee will have it. Perhaps that can feed into future discussion.
      Mr. Webb:The hon. Gentleman had some sport at the Tories' expense, which is always good fun and we enjoyed it, but the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) asked the most pertinent question. If is wrong to means-test the basic state pension—I believe that it is, and I think that the hon. Gentleman does too—why is it right to means-test incapacity benefit?
      Mr. Pond:If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will deal with that point when I come to clause 54.
      Much heat has been generated, understandably, by both clauses. I want to shed a little light by citing research published last year by the Policy Studies Institute and carried out in early 1997. It considered a group of people who left incapacity benefit, voluntarily or because they had been disqualified under the all-work test, which the Bill also reforms. The largest group—one in three—of IB leavers went into full-time jobs. The second group—about a quarter—went back on to IB a few months later. The linking rules in the Bill and the regulations allow that. A smaller group relied on other benefits, such as jobseeker's allowance and income support
      The importance of that research is that it helps us to assess the impact of the clauses. It found that IB recipients fell into two main groups. The first was those who saw

      1269
      incapacity benefit as a bridge between work and retirement. The second was those who saw incapacity benefit as a short-term earnings replacement. The majority left incapacity benefit to go into employment, normally with an income much higher than IB.
      The people in the first group were predominantly those who had been on IB for a considerable period. They had been written off, lacked hope and found it much more difficult to go into employment afterwards. The second group tended to be newer claimants. That is relevant because clause 53 applies to new claimants, the group who, with, I hope, the assistance of the new deal, the single work-focused gateway, the tax credit for the disabled and other Government measures, will he assisted to get into employment. As many hon. Members have said, the Bill applies to new claimants in that respect. That is the group that the Policy Studies Institute says should be given every assistance to make the transition back into work. Perhaps as a result of that research, that is what the Government are doing.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked about means-testing the basic state pension and incapacity benefit in relation to occupational pensions. Let us consider the treatment of both. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) pointed out, clause 54 proposes the withdrawal, above a certain level, of incapacity benefit for those with an occupational or personal pension. The Green Paper suggested a £50 disregard and a 50 per cent. withdrawal rate. Those figures are not in the Bill, as the Secretary of State said. It may be sensible to consider them in the context of the review of capping and savings limits in social security generally. However, let us take those figures as read for the moment—a £50 disregard and a 50 per cent. withdrawal rate. Hon. Members will note that, once one starts to receive the state pension, there is a 100 per cent. withdrawal rate of incapacity benefit and no disregard whatever.
      Mr. Field:Is not my hon. Friend confusing two things? The first is that people should not receive two benefits for the same cause—therefore, they can draw only one. The second relates to the question put by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb): if it is right to withdraw incapacity benefit, why is it not right to withdraw the retirement pension?
      Mr. Pond:I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have enjoyed working with him over the years; no doubt I shall continue to do so during these debates. My point is that, if the benefit were now being devised, given the number of people who now receive occupational pensions and the fact that a considerable proportion of them—about a quarter—draw those pensions before retirement age, I suspect that, although the situation was different in 1971, a measure of this sort would have been built into those earlier provisions.
      Mr. Simon Burns:Rubbish.
      Mr. Pond:From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman suggests that that is rubbish.
      Mr. Letwin:I have a genuine question. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is no disincentive to save, if benefits are so constructed that those who save receive fewer benefits?
      Mr. Pond:Several hon. Members have made the point that if we are to offset occupational or personal pensions against incapacity benefit, presumably some years in advance of that—in some cases, some decades in advance—people would have to make judgments about whether it was worth saving because, if they did so, their national insurance contributions would buy less. I suggest that most people who make decisions about saving for an occupational or personal pension are planning to save for their retirement—something that they can predict will happen. They do not insure themselves against the possibility that they will become disabled or incapacitated a few years before they reach retirement age.
      As other hon. Members have pointed out—it was certainly made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak—only about a third of incapacity benefit recipients receive non-state pensions. Of those, four in 10 would be unaffected by clause 54. That means that eight out of 10 of those recipients will not be affected at all.
      Mr. Berry:Given that the possibility of becoming unable to work is uncertain—as my hon. Friend points out—is not that an even greater reason for not means-testing a benefit that arises due to unforeseen circumstances?
      Mr. Pond:The point is that, when people are saving for their retirement in the form of an occupational or personal pension, that element of savings is not there to offset the possibility of becoming incapacitated. There may be many other ways of saving to meet that risk and other reasons for saving, but that is not one of them.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Dr. Lynne Jones:Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Pond:No, I want to finish my remarks. I have made some specific points on the clauses and I know that other Members want to speak.
      For many years, I have argued for welfare reform. I defy any Member of the House to tell us that the social security system, as it currently operates, works perfectly in every respect. None of us believe that to be the case. All of us believe that some changes should be made. If we are committed to the idea of welfare reform, we cannot simply leave the current system in place and add a few bolt-on extras. We shall have to make some difficult decisions; we must modernise the system and put right some of the mistakes of the past. I believe that the clauses and the Bill will do so.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Mark Oaten:I speak in favour of amendments Nos. 5, 3, 6 and 7, tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats have strong objections to clauses 53, 54 and 56.
      I am surprised that we are holding this debate. When the rumours of these changes were growing—sadly, in the national press—about 18 months ago, I could not believe that there would not be some form of concession from the

      1271
      Government. Even at the 11th hour, during the past 10 days or so, I have been surprised that the Government have not chosen to grant some moderate concessions. I do not want make great play of Monday night's events, but the Government have shown almost a pleasure in driving through some of their policies without being prepared to listen to the many arguments that have been put forward.
      I do not want to be too harsh on the Government. One of the good things that has come from the debate is that Members on both sides of the House have not chosen to make a cheap football out of issues relating to disabled people. The quality of the debate has been excellent. However, I point out to the Government that there is a sense of arrogance: although I can understand that they want to reject the arguments of the Opposition parties, I find it strange that they have chosen to ignore the arguments that have been put forward by some 68 of their own Back Benchers.
      In that connection, I praise the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) for the superb and excellent speech with which he introduced the amendments. I praise also the integrity of the Members who signed those amendments; many of them have a record in the House of fighting hard on disability issues. They have shown that they put those issues almost above party politics. They should be commended for that action. I can understand that the Government might even reject the calls of some those Members. However, I am surprised that although they are prepared to listen to and to work so closely with organisations such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Scope and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—when it does not suit them to listen, they turn down the requests that were put so strongly by those groups.
      Much that is in the clauses goes against the Government's own thinking. I and other hon. Members spent Tuesday morning and this morning attending the final Committee sittings on the Disability Rights Commission Bill. I warmly praise what the Government have been doing to enhance the rights of disabled people. The Government should be praised for that; they have taken action fast—within two years of coming into power. However, there is a contradiction. On one hand, they have made good progress, but, on the benefits side, they are not able to be consistent with their principles of working for disabled people. Disabled people tell me that it is all very well to have enhanced rights, but, if one does not have enough money to live on each week, some of those rights are pretty hollow.
      Against that backdrop of organisations saying that the Government are wrong, we must examine why they persist in going ahead with these changes. The Government's argument is that welfare spending is out of control and that far too many people have been taking up incapacity benefit. However, is it not the case that, in recent years, that trend has declined? Perhaps we are beginning to see the kicking in of reforms made by previous Governments.
      We are left with the conclusion that the reason for the changes is not the welfare of disabled people and that the only reason is to try to save money, even though the problem may not necessarily exist. What disappoints me about the debates that have taken place during the past 18 months is that we might not have spent as much time as we should have done in examining whether there is
      1272
      a problem. We have assumed that the problem exists. We have certainly not spent as much time as we should have done in examining the gateway for those benefits.
      The all-work test is a bad test; it is rightly being replaced with a different test. However, perhaps that new test is also wrong and we should put some more work into examining it. There is a contradiction: the Government claim that individuals are trying it on—trying to get a benefit to which they are not entitled—but, on the other hand, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security clearly stated in Committee that he did not envisage that, under the new test, there would be any change in those who would be entitled to the benefit. We should do more work on that matter.
      I was interested in the point developed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He said that although the benefit integrity project had been flawed, perhaps the policing of benefits and of the gateway was not yet right. I hope that the replacement for the benefit integrity project will go some way to address that point. I draw the conclusion that it would have been wiser for the Government to have waited for a few years so that some of the changes could bed down. They should have waited to see whether the trends that were identified would decline, whether the new capability test would make a difference and whether the problem that they sought to solve through these measures existed in the first place.
      Clause 54 goes to the heart of the means-testing principle that concerns many hon. Members. The Government are in a ridiculous situation. On the one hand, they are trying to create a society in which individuals are thrifty and put money aside. Yet, on the other hand—despite the comments of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond)—they are sending a clear signal through these changes that there is no incentive to save. As a result of the changes, a couple on a combined income of £10,000 will not be entitled to receive benefit. That seems strange given that that income figure falls below the poverty line. The Government surely did not intend to put such a couple in that position.
      If the Government insist on going down this route, we call on them, at this eleventh hour, to change the threshold at which the changes will kick in. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that the £50 figure is not on the face of the Bill. May I derive some hope from that comment? When the Secretary of State responds to the debate, will he compromise for the first time and change the figure? I heard the Secretary of State say via various media outlets that he did not have to decide on a figure until 2001. Let us hope that he will say today that the £50 figure is wrong, and that a higher threshold will ensure that the burden is easier and fairer.
      Clause 53 introduces a double standard. If new Labour made one thing clear, it was their desire to try to change the benefit culture, and to introduce a contract between the citizen and the state that said, "You will get something out if you put something in". These changes clearly contradict that approach. As the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) said, it must be wrong that someone's contributions spanning 10, 15 or 20 years will be wiped out and ignored. Why did such people bother to contribute at all? What was the point, if they will not receive benefit because they have not applied two years before they claim? That makes a nonsense of the years of making contributions. I do not believe that that measure was in the Labour manifesto. I certainly do not believe that Labour

      1273
      Members and the many millions of people who voted for them could have envisaged the introduction of this major change to contributions so early in a Labour Administration.
      It is disappointing that the Government were not prepared to accept in Committee some sensible amendments that would have at least reduced the impact of the changes. During 64 hours of consideration in Committee, the Government did not make a single concession. It is the first time that I have served in Committee, and two months into the process, I wondered why I was wasting my time. The Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), could not have been more reasonable, but they did not move an inch. Perhaps that is the Committee's fault. It might have been more constructive if the Committee's membership had reflected more clearly the opinion within the Labour party. We could then have had a healthier debate in Committee.
      Dr. Godman:The hon. Gentleman mentioned a threshold figure of £50. What kind of threshold would be acceptable to his party: £100, £150 or £200?
      Mr. Oaten:The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to suggest a figure. That would imply that I am in favour of the proposal; I am not. I would not want to suggest any figure because I think that the measure is wrong. We offered the Government a compromise on a bad system, and any revised figure should not see individuals with an income of £10,000 who are on the poverty line fall short of benefit. The Government should at least increase the figure above that point.
      Amendment No. 3 suggests that, rather than stating that contributions must be made in one of the two years before the benefit kicks in, the Government should allow at least one year in the 10 previous years. That is a simple amendment which would reduce the negative impact of the changes.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will address the important issue of carers raised by the hon. Member for Preston. While we welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that it will be difficult for carers to build up national insurance contributions and have provided a linkage with the carers allowance, it is estimated that only 400,000 out of 5 million carers in this country receive carers allowance. What will happen to the carers who do not have that link? How will they access incapacity benefit?
      Amendment No. 7 offers the House the opportunity to reverse the decision to abolish the severe disablement allowance. That is an essential safety net, and the Government's proposed changes will mean that 16,000 people will lose out each year. Time is short, and the hon. Member for Preston developed that point very clearly. Other hon. Members may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to emphasise that point.
      We will push the matter to the vote. We feel strongly that the Government have not thought through the proposals. They have tried to solve a problem that I suggest is not there. The Government have missed good opportunities to develop the welfare state in new ways and
      1274
      they have broken some important principles in relation to contributions and means testing. In doing so, their actions have been extremely unfair. My party and I are left with the sad conclusion that this Bill is about the interests of the Treasury, not the welfare of disabled people.
      Dr. Lynne Jones:Few Labour Members—including me—would argue against the need for substantial reform of the social security system, given our inheritance from the Conservative party. The previous Government reduced the system to a means-tested, low-grade safety net for the poor. That reform option was specifically ruled out in the Green Paper, and rightly so.
      Yet, as many of those who responded to the consultation process—including Age Concern—pointed out, the Government failed to review the welfare state comprehensively. Instead, they advanced proposals without discussing alternative principles. Those groups said that the Green Paper failed to discuss clearly the role of social insurance, universal benefits and means-testing within the social security system. Much of today's debate has focused on the social insurance principle and means-testing. Labour Members have fought hard for years to preserve the contributory principle, so I am saddened to see that we have abandoned that principle today.
      Far from criticising support for the amendment as cherry-picking, I argue that the amendment will act to support the Government's aim of providing work for those who can and security for those who cannot. We welcome the new deal that encourages people to enter work and to save. That is an essential part of a welfare reform package. We welcome also the additional assistance for young people who are severely disabled, and I acknowledge that the linking law will ameliorate some of the effects of these changes. They are good measures. However, it is counter-productive to their fundamental aims for the Government to alter the contribution requirements and to means-test incapacity benefit.
      4.30 pm
      We argue that our aim is to modernise the social security system, and we should modernise a system that was set up at a time when families had one breadwinner—usually the man—and wives stayed at home and looked after the children. However, one income is no longer adequate, and very few people are fortunate enough to stay in one type of employment for most of their lives, which was commonplace when the Beveridge reforms were introduced. Instead, we have so-called flexible working, job insecurity and many part-time jobs.
      We must not forget that even people who are being paid the minimum wage and are working 16 hours a week—that is classed as full-time work for the purposes of means-tested social security benefits—still do not earn enough to meet the lower earnings limit and do not, therefore, pay national insurance contributions. We have insecurity, or flexibility, yet far from modernising the system to create a contribution requirement that would reflect that flexibility, we are introducing rigidities for contribution requirements. We are doing exactly the opposite of modernising the system to reflect the modern-day experiences of people in the workplace.
      We also want to encourage people to be self-sufficient and thrifty and to save for the future. How can means-testing incapacity benefit help to achieve that?

      1275
      The majority of disabled people do not have pensions. Surely we want to encourage them to take out pensions. If we do not, they may, when they retire, receive some incapacity benefit, but they will have failed to provide additional resources, so they are likely to depend on other means-tested benefits, which will cost the state more.
      Under the Tories and their salami-slicing policies, we learned that the more means-testing—which allegedly targets those most in need—is introduced, the more expensive the system becomes. That is not only my opinion, but that of many people, including representatives from the private sector. It is interesting that, in its submission to the Green Paper, the Association of British Insurers said:
      "The interrelationship between state benefits and what insurance companies can offer needs to be properly understood by government, by insurance companies and by the public. A stable framework is needed in which people can make plans which will not be disrupted by a subsequent change of government policy. People naturally are resentful if, for example, having saved for a specific welfare need, they then discover that they have been wasting their money and that they would have obtained the same benefit from the state for nothing. Conversely, if people have reasonably expected that the state will provide, they are aggrieved if suddenly the state decides not to provide."
      The private sector, which wants to encourage people to save, recognises the disincentives that are created in the social security system. That point was made time and again in submissions to the consultation paper.
      The Department of Social Security's summary of the 340 responses to the disability benefits consultation paper said that the issue most frequently raised was the perceived unfairness of taking into account income for which people have already contributed against a benefit that is also earned through the payment of contributions.
      Contrary to the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) tried to give, the people who will be affected by the measures are not rich people with enormous pensions. If they have pensions, those pensions are relatively small, and although the Secretary of State correctly stated that 44 per cent. of people on incapacity benefit are in the top two quintiles of the earnings table, that does not take account of the fact that their income includes disability living allowance, which is supposed to reflect the additional costs of being disabled. That benefit pushes people higher up the earnings table. That applies only to people who already have occupational pensions. The majority of people on incapacity benefit have below-average incomes; only 25 per cent. are in the upper 40 per cent. of the income range. That demonstrates that, on the whole, people who have disabilities have a shorter working life and one in which they are able to earn less than other people.
      Such people, who do not have savings and who perhaps have a progressive illness and know that their working life will be curtailed, will be listening to the debate. Many have in the past responded to exhortations to save for the future and today will be wondering why they should bother. That is why I argue that targeting does not, in the long run, save money in benefits, but costs more.
      Last week, the Prime Minister, in his tribute to John Smith, said:
      "One of the first acts of his leadership was to establish the Social Justice Commission on healing the divisions of the Conservative years".
      1276
      It is interesting to read the social justice commission's comments about welfare reform. It said:
      "In our view, the Social Security system should be built upon the foundation of social insurance."
      It considered the arguments of some of my hon. Friends that it is best to target benefits on those who most need them, but said:
      "It is often argued … that a simpler and cheaper solution to the problems of the Welfare State would be to means-test all benefits so that they go only to the people who 'really need them'".
      It went on to say that
      "the strategy is fatally flawed".
      It then said that
      "means-tested benefits, which cannot prevent poverty are also remarkably inefficient at relieving it … Moreover, these benefits are extremely expensive to administer … a further disadvantage of means-testing is that it penalises savings … instead of providing a predictable and stable financial base from which people can deal with change, means-tested benefits create further insecurity".
      That echoes the comments of the Association of British Insurers. The commission said also that means-tested benefits
      "deepen the problem of social exclusion"
      that this Government are committed to eradicating.
      I appeal to Ministers to listen to those arguments. If we are aiming to deal with dependency and trying to bring people who were excluded during the Tory years back into the mainstream of society, we should think again about the measures in clauses 53 and 54.
      Mr. Michael Connarty:I have been listening with interest to my hon. Friend, and I have been reading as much as I can on this subject in the past week. I noted that, following the publication of the Crossman paper, it was said that people were willing to pay through the contributory system because they felt that they were storing up something for their family for the future, but they would not want to pay through direct taxation. Clause 53 clearly breaks the link between benefits and the contributions that people make over their lifetime, and is likely to make people wonder whether the contributory system has anything to offer them.
      Dr. Jones:My hon. Friend is exactly right. I wish that the Secretary of State and Ministers would consider not only the consultation on the Green Paper, to which I have referred, but the results of their research on public attitudes to the welfare state and the response to reform, which clearly demonstrates that there is considerable public support for the social insurance principle. There is a strong feeling that those who have paid into the national insurance system should be able to gain from it when the need arises, regardless of circumstances.
      In that research, members of the public pointed out to the Government that means-testing was not only expensive for the state, but intrusive for individuals. The public regard means-testing as unfair, because the low thresholds might have the effect of arbitrarily excluding people who are in genuine need, but who narrowly fail to qualify. Many pensioners feel that way about the failure of the state pension to keep up with means-tested benefits. They resent the fact that, if they have a small occupational pension, they are deprived of the benefits received by people who have not saved.

      1277
      The research showed that the majority of people considered that, if there was to be means-testing, it should take place on the way in, by requiring higher earners to pay higher contributions, instead of on the way out, by limiting payouts to those on low incomes and with low savings.
      The research that was carried out for the Department of Social Security acknowledged that some people would like benefits to be targeted on those with a low income and low savings, but the overwhelming majority—69 per cent.—consider that a person's contribution record is more important than their means in determining entitlement to benefits.
      The social justice commission also considered disability benefits. Its report says that the requirements for a comprehensive disability income are twofold. First, it should compensate disabled people for the additional expense of being disabled, by offering a tax-free benefit based on up-to-date evidence of living costs, including the additional costs that disabled people must meet. Disability living allowance is such a benefit, although the social justice commission commented on its many inadequacies.
      Secondly, as disabled people are much more likely than others to be unemployed or only partially employed, a comprehensive disability income should offer some compensation, in the form of a taxable benefit, for the loss of earnings potential. That is precisely what incapacity benefit was designed to do. It is a taxable benefit, so, rightly, people on a high income are already taxed on it. However, it is designed to reflect the fact that the working years—and often the earnings potential—of people who are disabled are much curtailed.
      That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said that the benefit was about. It is about income maintenance. It is about trying to bring disabled people up to the level of the rest of us. A measure of the success of that policy should be whether disabled people have the same range of income as non-disabled people. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that if we are to end discrimination against disabled people, we should ensure that they have the potential to earn an income similar to that of people who are not disabled but in the same type of job.
      I fear that the Government are out of touch with public opinion on the issue. For the sake of saving, ostensibly, £700 million in the long run, they will greatly damage the social insurance principle. They will discourage saving. The advice that the Government are giving those people who might qualify for incapacity benefit, but who are struggling to continue to work and perhaps retraining, is, "Give up work and go on benefit now; because if you do not, you may lose out in future."
      I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think again. Reform is needed, and there is a great opportunity to achieve consensus on the way forward. Surely that consensus must be based on what is nationally popular, and that is the social insurance principle, whereby there are contributory benefits for people who contribute while in work, encouraging them to save, to be thrifty and to work hard for the future.
      4.45 pm
      Miss Anne McIntosh:I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on a well-constructed and informative speech.
      Mr. James Gray:It was courageous.
      Miss McIntosh:As my hon. Friend says, it was a courageous speech.
      I, too, support amendment No. 86 and reject clauses 55 and 56. This is a very sad day for the House, and more particularly for the vulnerable people in society, especially the disabled, whom the welfare state, set up all those years ago by the Beveridge reforms, was most specifically designed to help.
      I regret that the allocation of time motion has been carried. I suppose that we should be grateful for the presence this afternoon of the Secretary of State, and benefit from his presence. However, I believe that my constituents will find his comments insulting. On Monday evening, I spoke on two separate occasions: first, on the dismantling of the bereavement allowance and, secondly, on the companies that have set up consultancies in the Vale of York as limited companies, especially in the information technology sector, and had written to ask me to intervene in that debate so that their voice could be heard. I know that they will especially resent allegations of a filibuster on Monday evening, coming from a Secretary of State who, for the greater part of the evening, was not even in the Chamber.
      The words of the hon. Member for Selly Oak especially struck a chord with me on two counts. The changes to the entitlement to incapacity benefit will penalise those who have saved, and they will constitute an attack on the contributory principle.
      As I said on Monday evening—I shall develop this theme in relation to incapacity benefit—I believe that the Government's proposals are an attack on the Beveridge system. They mark a step towards the dismantling of that system, which was set up precisely to help the most vulnerable in society.
      I emphasise the fact that the piecemeal reform that the Government are undertaking will not bring the social security bill down. The savings will be pitiful. On the severe disablement allowance, savings in the first year will be only £10 million. Over the whole period of the Parliament, they will rise to only £80 million. On incapacity benefit, savings in the first year will be only £70 million, rising after 10 years to only £700 million. In support of what the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, could the Government not have come before us with a comprehensive reform, or at least the start of one, rather than the piecemeal reform that they have presented to us this evening?
      Changing the entitlement to incapacity benefit is simply another extension of the Government's means-testing agenda. Instead of encouraging people to save, they will penalise the very people who are doing so.
      I particularly want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who said that the measure is a breach of contract. For that reason, I simply cannot support clauses 55 and 56. I support amendment No. 86. The Government have no right to breach the contract between the state and the individuals

      1279
      who have paid their contributions over a number of years. On the grounds that the changes to the entitlement to incapacity benefit will penalise those who have saved and are an attack on the contributory principle, I support amendment No. 86.
      Dr. George Turner:While I agree with much of what is being said by those on both sides of the argument, I find that Labour Members have run into a conflict of principles. As was pointed out from the Conservative Benches early in the debate, a conflict of principles is one of the real difficulties of being in government rather than in opposition. I am pleased that there has at least been a good element of listening by those on both sides of the argument during the debate on how we should resolve our conflict of principles.
      When the Government are under attack, Back Benchers taking my position—I shall vote with the Government tonight—find that it has a built-in difficulty: if we do not speak as well as vote, it is because we are assumed to be secretly opposed to the Government and not willing to stand our ground; if we speak in support of the Government, we are assumed to be currying favour with the Whips Office. We are damned either way.
      During 20 years in local government, I learned that people need to face up to the issues. Those Members who were here in opposition for many years benefited from the fact that every penny could be spent not once or twice, but in every debate. The Liberal Democrats have shown me that for the past two years. The problem with being in government is that we can spend money only once and I believe that that is the core of the difficulty faced by my right hon. and hon. Friends this afternoon.
      I do not like means-tested benefits, but I have regularly supported them and so have other hon. Members who are opposing them today. Faced with the problems of the pensioners in my constituency, I have had to accept that, until our economy permits us to do more for all pensioners, we have to offer a minimum income guarantee to pensioners. We have had to say that we will try to identify those most in need and help them.
      I do not like means-tested benefits, but as a practical politician who is trying to help Ministers to make difficult decisions, I have to say that if I were to pick a group for which I would relax that principle, it would be the pensioners in my constituency. My difficulty with my hon. Friends who have so ably put the case for those who have been incapacitated—those of my constituents to whom that has happened are often late on in their lives, perhaps over 55—is that, if I am honest, that group would not be my priority.
      I understand the case being made for that group, and I understand the case for its being the next to which we look to give largesse, but I have to say that, as many of my hon. Friends have recognised in the debate, the Government have addressed some more pressing needs and areas where Exchequer help is urgently needed to tackle the real problems of major disability, among the young in particular.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) rightly talked about cherry-picking and I believe that Back Benchers must assess where they stand on a Bill, as they do on our manifesto. Who on earth could agree with everything in his party's manifesto? It is not human nature to do so, and I certainly did not do so, but
      1280
      I accepted the manifesto as a package. I accept that, in the democratic process, we arrive at a conclusion and, to be broad brush, I accept that other people's opinions have sometimes outweighed my individual preferences.
      In government, we do not have the ability to be always on the side of the angels. As an agnostic, I do not believe in angels. From my experience in local government, I know that people decide to modernise. Their group agrees with them, they look at new issues to be addressed in government, they identify the growth areas and then agree and vote on them. They then ask, "How will we fund those areas? How shall we address these new priorities?" Only people in opposition can oppose every single means by which people address the big problem.
      The problem of local government remains that it is always easy to address new need, but difficult to address the base budget. It is difficult for people who fought for needs to be addressed in the society of a decade ago to accept that those needs may no longer be the priority of the day. I believe that the Government have set about tackling that.
      Some difficult decisions will have to be made, but I believe that, ultimately, we owe it to the people whom we represent to make those decisions. If there is one group of people who can tell me about the need for welfare reform, it is a group whom our party has traditionally represented—people on council estates. As part of my constituency work, I regularly visit the homes of those who are too disabled to come to my surgeries. Those are the people whom I want to help–but my goodness, there are "experts" on those estates who specify those whose need for state benefits is, in their view, less than meritorious.
      The Conservatives were in government for 18 years because, all too often, Labour supporters did not believe that we were fit to govern. I feel that facing up to some of the difficult decisions that we must make in government gives us the best opportunity that we shall ever have to benefit those whom we seek to represent—to benefit them in the long term—through the improvements in the economy that we are delivering.
      The package in the Bill is one that I, along with other hon. Members, can support with honour.
      Mr. Duncan Smith:The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said that he did not agree with everything in his party's manifesto. Did he tell the electorate that, or is he going to allow it to emerge as a disclosed secret later?
      Dr. Turner:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Duncan Smith:No.
      Dr. Turner rose—
      Mr. Duncan Smith:All right, I will give way.
      Dr. Turner:I told the electorate that I would support the manifesto and vote for measures specified in it, and that is what I shall do.
      Mr. Duncan Smith:With respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not make claims that have no basis in reality. I suggest that, when people want to be bold and

      1281
      brave and to make decisions about what they consider to be right and proper, they should work on that, but not claim subsequently that that is what they did.
      This is likely to be our most important debate on the Bill, because it creates the greatest difficulty and generates the greatest interest. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on tabling his amendment, and on speaking to it so well; but the whole debate should be seen in the context of what the Government have been doing throughout the realm of what they call welfare reform.
      According to all the latest figures, including the Government's own figures, the social security budget is set to rise faster than the one that the Government inherited, and faster than was predicted in the context of the changes that would render an increase necessary. If it is rising by an average of about 3.3 per cent. a year, that will mean a total increase of £38 billion over the next three years. That is what the Government have done to the social security budget, and that is the most important backdrop to the debate. We should understand why some of the decisions that are being made now are having to be made, and what characterises them.
      Let me say something about incapacity benefit, and the changes that are proposed. The rationale that has led the Government, and the Secretary of State, to believe that through means-testing they can reduce overall costs is driven by a short-term need to find the savings that they have apparently failed to find elsewhere. The Government's rhetoric in the run-up to the election suggested that they would cut social security costs so that they could spend more on health and education. In fact, they are doing both—and that is the problem.
      What the Government fail to realise in looking at the short term is that the constant extension of the means test is not really the solution at all; indeed, it will be part of the problem. If the application of means test upon means test were the solution, surely it would have worked by now. Successive Governments, of whatever hue—both Labour and Conservative—have tried that approach from various angles. Each time, there has been a growth in social security spending. Therefore, the policy has not worked. I do not know what makes the Government think that, in the narrow case of those on incapacity benefit, it will work. In essence, the process deals with the symptoms, and those are short term. It does not deal with the cause.
      5 pm
      The Government have decided to impose the means test anyway, which is a bad principle. They have chosen to do it for what they may believe are necessary reasons, but why have they done it in such a perverse way? Why attack, for example, someone who is on a modest income, has made an effort to save, and has tried to take himself out of the position of being dependent on handouts, as he would see it?
      Why attack that individual when the Government, the Secretary of State and Prime Minister have said that they wanted to encourage people to save? They wanted to ensure that people lifted themselves out of dependency through saving and providing for their future, but the
      1282
      Government's measures are a direct attack on their own words, their own principles and on the very type of person whom they hold up as a model.
      Are people on £2,600 a year from their pension fund, rising to £9,000 a year, the wealthy people who now have to be struck out? Are they less incapacitated than the person standing next to them who did not make any effort to save? They are going to lose. That, in essence, is what the issue is about. It is not about an across-the-board, fair measure to find a solution.
      The Government now seem confused. At first, in Committee, the purpose was not to save money but to be fair. Now, in the briefings to the press and in what we hear from the media, the Government's line is that the measure is to save money, so they have decided to save money by targeting a narrow group. That is why they are so confused.
      Surely it cannot be right that people who do not need to save for a pension, who can manage to save in their own way because they are wealthy enough—perhaps through an individual savings account or some shares; at any rate something that is not identifiable as a pension fund, private or occupational—are okay and will have no problem; that people who have made no effort over all the years to save any money, who used to be described perhaps as feckless, who perhaps could not be bothered because they thought that the key thing was to ensure that they could never get caught with enough money to get themselves locked out of benefits, are okay; but that the people who made the effort are not okay.
      Then there is the whole business of the two-year rule. I find that utterly perverse. It is a way of suggesting to people who have serious worries about whether they will have a progressive illness that will one day render them incapable of working that they had better make an early decision, because the last thing they want is a broken record of employment in the two-year period. Out go those people as well—not people who want to be out of work, but people who apparently may, through reasons beyond their control, be deposited out of work. Hence the selective and targeted process of the means test is incredibly short term and narrow minded.
      Before the Secretary of State and other Labour Members crow about how they are taking the tough decisions and how their solution is the way ahead, I pray in aid two people who agree with me and who the Government believe—or at least they did yesterday—are the key men that they should listen to. The first is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the 1993 Labour conference, he said:
      "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved—the end of the means test".
      As recently as 1998 the Prime Minister said:
      "There are problems if you move to too much means testing."
      To which group of people could he possibly have been speaking? Clearly, it was not the Secretary of State or his colleagues because they have taken a different view.
      If reform of the welfare state is required—and it is—it must be about finding the characteristics that drive dependency and focusing on them. Before the Secretary of State says, "The Opposition are in favour of reform but do not support us on the tough decisions," I remind him of what happened when the Government decided to cut

      1283
      the lone parent benefit. It was Conservative Members who went into the Lobby to support the Government, so the Secretary of State should be careful about using that argument. We are prepared to take the tough decisions as long as they deal with the issues relating to serious dependency.
      The Government are in a mess of their own making and they will not get out of it by claiming that they will solve the problem by improving pensions. That is not the case. They will simply deliver yet another means test into the pension arrangements. The minimum income guarantee is nothing more than a massive disincentive to saving for someone on a modest income. Anybody on a lower level of income will now end up with a fund that will deliver them less income in retirement than somebody on income support. That is the result of the Government's reform and that is why they will end up with greater dependency.
      All that has happened when that process has been employed in the past is that more and more people have found more and more ways to get round it. More of the lobby groups cry out with cases of hardship, and successive Governments have found more and more ways of increasing the benefit. It is a shrill set of rhetoric that will lead to more and more intervention in the future.
      The Government's big argument is that there is a serious problem and that some people, apparently, should not be on incapacity benefit. This measure does not deal with that; it leaves those people on the benefit and deals only with those who might receive it in the future.
      Worse, the Government are failing in their attack on fraud. Each target has been undershot. They may talk about fraud, but they are failing to deal with it. They talk about people who should not be on incapacity benefit, but they are leaving them on it—if they know who they are—and telling everybody else that it would be wrong for them to be on it.
      If the Government's answer is means-testing and more means-testing, clearly they have asked the wrong questions. No matter what the outcome or whether Labour Members decide to support the Government, abstain or vote against them, the Government have lost the argument. I will recommend that in another place every effort be made to return the matter to us.
      Mr. Darling:I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) very far down the road he took. His arguments against the means test might just have a little more substance if it were not for the fact that the Conservatives doubled means-testing during their 18 years in office. The only thing that I found interesting in the hon. Gentleman's speech is that he has confirmed that the Conservative party is against the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. That means that 1.5 million poor pensioners would lose out if the Conservatives were ever to get back into power.
      I should first speak briefly to Government amendment No. 31—which is a drafting amendment to clause 54, removing an unnecessary cross-reference to the definition of personal pensions. I shall not say anything more about it, as no one else has.
      I should like to set the debate in context, deal with all the points that have been made and, of course, deal with the points that have been made on our proposed reform of incapacity benefit. However, I should first make the
      1284
      preliminary point—especially for those outside the House who will read reports of our proceedings—that the debate has, on both sides of the House, been very good natured. I realise that right hon. and hon. Members hold different opinions on these matters, but they have very temperately expressed those opinions. It has been a very good quality debate.
      The proposals that we published last October, and which essentially are made in the Bill, have two overriding objectives. First, we want to ensure that we provide every possible help to enable those who can work to do so. Work on a decent wage—which we are ensuring through the national minimum wage—is the best way of combating poverty, the causes of poverty, and especially persistent poverty, which is one of the main problems that we have inherited. Disabled people want to work—2 million already do, and 1 million more on benefits say that they want to work. We want to help them to do that.
      Our second overriding objective is to provide far greater security than we have provided in the past for some of the most vulnerable people in society who will never work in their lives. The proposals in the Bill are a key part of that strategy and mark a radical change of direction from what the Tories did in their 18 years in office.
      I do not want to say much about the Tories. However, I find it very hard to take when they parade before us as the party of the dispossessed, the poor and the disabled, an advocacy that they masked particularly well in their 18 years in office, and when the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) tells us that they have all been to Damascus—it is just as well that it is not in Europe, or they could not have gone there at all—and tries to tell us that he now stands shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise).
      Mr. Letwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Darling: Let us hear about Damascus.
      Mr. Letwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman advancing the argument that two wrongs make a right?
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman was wrong for 18 years, and he is wrong again today.
      We remember how the Tories filibustered and tried to block the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) to give rights to disabled people. It is this Government who introduced legislation—which was recently given a Second Reading—establishing the Disability Rights Commission.
      For the Tories, it did not really matter whether someone was unemployed, sick or disabled. Indeed, for them unemployment and sickness were completely interchangeable—it did not matter. That is why they cynically moved people—a whole generation of people—from unemployment on to incapacity benefit. That is why one quarter of men—double the number of 20 years ago—over 60 are now on incapacity benefit. Those people were only statistics to the Tories, whose record speaks for itself. Therefore, some of us find it very hard to take the Tories' protestations and invitation to some of my hon. Friends to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the Lobby today.
      I do take seriously many of the concerns expressed, both inside and outside the Chamber, by many of my hon. Friends, and I realise the sincerity with which my

      1285
      hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and, particularly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) expressed their views. However, I profoundly disagree with them, for reasons that I shall explain later.
      I also realise that many of the concerns expressed in the House today stem from the effects of long-term structural unemployment—people have low skills and low expectations; a second generation of people are growing up who really do not expect any better for themselves or their children; and children do not expect to do any better than their parents. The Tories saw that as the natural order of things—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they did. No one should be left to languish on benefits for years.
      5.15 pm
      We are changing the culture of the system. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said that we needed a change of culture. I hope that he has noticed the single gateway, which will ensure for the first time that everyone of working age gets the help that they need, with a personal adviser to help them improve their skills, get into work if they can and get the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled. That is an important change of culture.
      In our welfare reforms across the board, we are tackling poverty and the causes of poverty in every way possible through the help that we give and the benefits that we provide.
      Mr. Julian Brazier:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Darling:The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the afternoon. I should like to make a little more progress, because I anticipate that there will be interventions on other matters that I want to deal with.
      I shall set out what the Government are doing to help people get into work. We introduced the new deal. It was opposed by the Conservatives and the funding was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. In 15 areas we are piloting—
      Mr. Duncan Smith:Get on to the amendments.
      Mr. Darling:The Conservatives do not want to hear this. We are helping disabled people get into work. We are making work pay. The minimum wage will bring 700,000 women into the national insurance system. The disabled persons tax credit—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. There should be silence, with the exception of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Darling:The disabled persons tax credit is worth £155 a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) said, we have extended the linking rules that allow people to try out work before they lose their entitlement to benefit. Under the Tories, they had only eight weeks. Under the arrangements that we have introduced, disabled people can try out work for up to two years without losing their original benefit. This week we have extended the disabled
      1286
      persons tax credit. Someone who has left work because of a disability or an injury and returns to work earning 20 per cent. less than they would have done otherwise will have access to the disabled persons tax credit. The Tories did none of that. All the measures that I have mentioned are new and show the qualitative difference between our approach and that of the Conservatives.
      Our second objective is to provide security, because we recognise that there are some who cannot work. The system clearly does not do enough for the most severely disabled people. We are increasing child benefit for everyone. We have invested £2 billion in the new state second pension for carers and for disabled people with broken work records. Costs have been referred to a lot this afternoon. That measure alone represents a £2 billion investment that has not been made before. It is not true that our reforms for disabled people are driven by a desire to save money. We shall save unnecessary expenditure and concentrate help where it is needed. We have a new £22 child credit for children of disabled parents. The disability income guarantee will benefit 175,000 people. The extension of disability living allowance to three and four-year-olds is worth another £35 a week. Our reforms to the severe disablement allowance give more help to severely disabled young people by up to £26 a week. Our approach to SDA—
      Mr. Edward Gamier:What about the amendments?
      Mr. Darling:The subject is covered by amendments Nos. 7 and 86. Just sit back and listen.
      Severe disablement allowance is paid at the rate of £54.40 a week. It is so low that 70 per cent. of people on it have to claim income support. Their SDA does not help them, because every penny of it is taken into account in calculating their income support. The original purpose of the benefit was to help people who never had a chance to work because they were disabled at birth or early in life. That is why we are increasing the benefit for young people from £54 to more than £80 a week. That is an example of looking at benefits, asking whether they serve the purpose for which they were intended and increasing them. Some 175,000 people will gain from that. They also have access to the universal, non-means-tested DLA, which is worth up to £89.95 for the most severely disabled people. We wanted to provide more security for people who, by any view, need our help, and we are doing that.
      I wish to refer to the amendments that we are making in relation to incapacity benefit and, in so doing, deal with amendment No. 12 and the others that have been mentioned. While we are providing more help for severely disabled people and more help to get people into work, we want to ensure that the system is brought up to date to reflect changing conditions. As in all of our reforms, none of the changes that we are making will affect people currently getting incapacity benefit. Unfortunately, the newspapers sometimes forget to mention that, but I hope that people will bear it in mind.
      We intend to restore the benefit to its original intention, which was to replace income that people lost as a result of sickness and disability. I want to set out how, under the new rules, people will qualify, because there seems to be some misunderstanding—certainly among the Opposition. Under our proposals, people will still be

      1287
      eligible for incapacity benefit after two years—or, in some circumstances, for as much as three and a half years after becoming unemployed. I believe that the conditions are fair. Someone on average earnings can work for as little as four weeks in all during a two-year period prior to a claim, or 12 weeks for someone earning the national minimum wage.
      It is right to link eligibility for incapacity benefit to recent work. There are thousands of people now who satisfy the medical tests for incapacity benefit, but not the contribution conditions—I will return to them shortly—who are on income support, which can, in some circumstances, provide £73 a week, more than the £66 a week for incapacity benefit. The most severely disabled people on income support would also get help from the new disability income guarantee and disability living allowance, which can provide help of up to £90 a week, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said.
      The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to the medical test, as have one or two of my hon. Friends. Throughout this afternoon, there has been much talk of a perceived lack of consultation. One of the things that I considered was whether we ought to amend the medical test. We are doing so in one way, to which I shall refer in a moment. If anyone thinks that there is some unrest about what we are doing, I can assure them-this was made clear to me by the disability organisations to whom I talked—that if those organisations had thought for one minute that we would try to solve a perceived problem by ratcheting up the medical test to make it more difficult to qualify medically, there would have been just as much trouble. That is not the right thing to do.
      We know that there are problems with the all-work test, which is patently subjective. I do not think that the option of ratcheting it up would be right. As part of our reforms in the Bill, we are introducing a new personal capability assessment. What was wrong with the all-work test—a bit of a misnomer—was that it concentrated on what one could not do, rather than on what one could do. Surely our proposal is the sensible way to go.
      The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to someone suffering from multiple sclerosis or a similar degenerative condition. Because of the way in which the contribution conditions are structured, anyone knowing that they were slowly going to come out of the labour market—given what I have said about the number of contributions that would have to be made in the preceding two years—could easily manage their departure from the labour market.
      The disabled persons tax credit and the national minimum wage mean that somebody coming out of the labour market that way has more purchasing power and more national insurance contributions than otherwise. Of course, the Conservatives are against the national minimum wage and the disabled persons tax credit—both of which are helping people.
      Many hon. Members today have spoken about one of the difficulties, in that people on low wages or with low national insurance contributions will not qualify. Of course, part of the problem is that they do not qualify now. In many ways, this comes to the crux of the problem with the contributory system, which excludes many people who earn low wages. I made it clear in the welfare reform Green Paper—as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Red Book—that we want to look at
      1288
      the relationship between pay and contributions and entitlement to benefit. I can confirm that that study has been going on for some time, because we have to look at the link between low, part-time earnings and benefits in that context. We have already given young women on low earnings access to maternity allowance; it was one of the changes included in the Budget earlier this year.
      I want to do more, because we should certainly help those who deserve to be rewarded for doing a little bit of work. I have in mind people who have retired because they are not well, but continue to do a little work. I am not in a position to make an announcement today, but we are certainly considering the problem.
      Ms Joan Walley:Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that in some of our manufacturing heartlands there is greater unemployment? In my area, we have lost 2,300 jobs in the past 12 months. Will the study take account of the people who are out of work and cannot qualify for IB, although they may be unfit and could be eligible in other parts of the country? Will the Government consider linking the benefit to jobseeker's allowance?
      Mr. Darling:My hon. Friend has taken the trouble to send me some very detailed proposals and I repeat that I will certainly consider them, but I do not want to give undertakings that I cannot deliver. My point was that we need to consider the cases in which people do a very limited amount of work for which they get no credit whatever. The clear message must be that if people are able to work and make that effort, we should be able to reward them.
      The fact that we intend to take some account of occupational pensions when considering claims for incapacity benefit is the change that has been the subject of the most attention today. When I have explained the background, I will be happy to answer questions from right hon. and hon. Members.
      In 1953, 28 per cent. of people had occupational pensions; now the figure for men is 86 per cent. and for women working full-time about 77 per cent. We have to bear in mind that nearly half the people who retire early on IB, with an occupational pension, are in the higher income bracket—in the top 40 per cent. It is right in principle that there should be a partnership between individuals and the state to share in providing for early retirement because of sickness or injury. There must be an insurance against such early retirement. We should take account of the changed circumstances and create that partnership.
      If one were designing a system today, one could not and would not ignore the fact that, for example, almost 100,000 people on IB have an average pension of £230 a week, with incapacity benefit of £66 on top. I do not regard those as the most vulnerable people, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said. We are taking account of the fact that people are making their own provision for the eventuality. The principle of partnership, allowing us to direct more resources to people who need the help, seems right to me.

      1289
      The change will affect only a minority, who will, after all still be £50 a week better off than if they were getting IB alone. I believe that that approach is right. During the debate, many hon. Members expressed concern about the £50 threshold and its taper.
      Dr. Lynne Jones:My right hon. Friend omitted to mention that 140,000 people on IB have a pension of between £50 and £100 a week. They will be penalised by the changes. He also did not mention that only a third of disabled people—much lower than the average—have occupational pensions. He talks about people being in the higher income bracket. Will he confirm that that includes disability living allowance, which is supposed to recognise such people's additional costs? if we took off that amount, they would be unrepresented in the higher income bracket.
      Mr. Darling:I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but possibly not in the way that she intended. She was leafleting us in the Lobby last night, and I was handed a copy of the leaflet by a well wisher. The figures I have quoted do take account of the DLA. When the Government consulted on the figure of £50, we took account of the fact that 80 per cent. of people on IB have incomes of less than £50. The vast majority will therefore not be affected by the proposal. The Bill will not come into force until April 2001, and it was with that in mind that I told the House earlier this year that
      "the £50 threshold will be kept under review".—[Official Report, 23 February 1999: Vol. 326, c. 222.]
      When the Bill was drafted in January, I wanted to ensure that the £50 level, and the taper, could be kept under review, and that is why the numbers do not appear in the Bill. I was determined to ensure that the principle of partnership was clearly established.
      Mr. Chris Mullin:My right hon. Friend rightly identifies this issue as one on which Labour Members feel much unease, including those of us who feel we can live with targeting. What assurance can he give us today that the concern expressed in the House has been listened to?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Darling:Concern has been expressed, which is why I said in February that I would keep the issue under review. I will have to lay regulations bringing in an appropriate figure towards the end of next year. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall listen to what people have to say. I am bound to consult on the matter and I shall propose a number to the House that I believe is fair and reasonable. I have no hesitation in giving my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.
      Mr. Mullin:For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to confirm that my right hon. Friend is saying that the £50 that is presently proposed—and the rate of clawback—could be adjusted when he brings the regulations to the House in around a year's time?
      Mr. Darling:I said that on 23 February. The number does not appear in the Bill because it was always within
      1290
      my contemplation that it would have to be increased on occasion—[Interruption.] Conservative Members complain about that, but if the number stayed stuck at the same level it would start to cut into people's incomes. I confirm that my hon. Friend's understanding of the position is correct. The principle of partnership and sharing is what is important. The Government will make proposals on the actual amount and the rate of the taper in the second part of next year and the House will have ample time to debate them.
      Dr. Nick Palmer rose—
      Dr. Godman rose—
      Dr. Desmond Turner rose—
      Mr. Darling:I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and then I must make some progress, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood needs to reply.
      Dr. Turner:I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend has plans to be flexible about the level and the tapers, but will he explain why the only income that will be taken into account for means-testing purposes is pension income to which the person has contributed?
      Mr. Darling:It is because people contribute to their pensions and other such savings precisely to make provision for such contingencies. I repeat that it is right that there should be a partnership between individuals and the state to make provision in such cases, although I recognise that some of my hon. Friends disagree with me—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. The Secretary of State would assist me if he faced the Chair. Interventions are not helpful at this stage [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] I am talking about sedentary interventions. I request some quiet while the right hon. Gentleman is delivering his speech.
      Mr. Connarty:rose—
      Mr. Darling:I would dearly love to give way to my hon. Friend, without any knowledge of what he is going to say, but as I refused to take an intervention from two of my hon. Friends earlier, I cannot give way to him.
      I want to cover one further point, spending—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like that one bit, and that is why they are heckling. Let me put the Bill in context. This year, we will spend £25 billion on benefits for the sick and disabled. The sum will increase by about £2 billion during this Parliament, mainly because of the growth of disability living allowance.
      I ask the House to consider our proposals in the round, including the proposal to give carers and disabled people with broken work records access to the new state second pension, which will be of great benefit to low-paid people. Someone earning £;6,000 a year at present who is on the state earnings-related pension scheme would receive only £13 a week as a pension. Under our proposal, that person would receive £46 a week. That is just one example of how the Government, unlike our predecessor, are helping people who need it most.

      1291
      Our pension proposals will cost a further £2 billion over the years. The whole package that we are proposing and all that the Government are doing for the disabled are, on any view, fair, balanced and right things to do. They are right in principle and they are right in practice. No matter what the Tories say today, they told us at the weekend that they would pay for their tax cuts by slashing welfare handouts, as they call them. We know that there is a £6 billion black hole in their sums.
      Nearly 80 per cent. of DSS spending goes on pensioners, disabled people and children. Before the Tories try to share a Lobby with some of my hon. Friends, they ought to tell us which benefit they intend to cut. Their pretence that they are on the side of the disabled—or anyone else—rings hollow.
      The Labour party built the welfare state just after the second world war. It was one of our proudest achievements. One reason why the Government were elected was our determination to safeguard the future of the welfare state. We believe in it. We believe in helping people who have a disadvantage to overcome that disadvantage. We believe in doing more to help them. Hon. Members must look at the whole package in the Bill and at everything that we are doing to help people—the Disability Rights Commission, the disabled persons tax credit, help to stay in the workplace, more money for the severely disabled—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.
      Mr. Darling:The Tories do not like what I am saying. No matter what the reservations of some of my hon. Friends, they know that when it comes to the test, the Government will do more for people with disabilities than the Tories would ever do.
      What we propose is fair and reasonable. It does more for the young severely disabled. It does more to help people into work. It brings the benefits system up to date. Such action can be difficult, but it is essential that we do it if we are to maintain people's confidence in and support for the welfare state.
      I acknowledge that many of my colleagues have specific concerns. I have tried to deal with some of them today. I shall try to deal with others in the future. The process of reform takes time, but the amendments, which strike out a substantial part of the Bill, cannot be justified. I ask my hon. Friends to think very carefully before supporting them. Labour Members—even those who support the amendments—have acknowledged all the good that the Government are doing. It is important that the country should understand the good that we are doing, not only for disabled people but for others.
      To my colleagues and to the House as a whole, I can say only this: judge us in the round and support our approach today.
      Mr. Berry:I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He said that the debate had been good natured. That is true, but there are honestly and passionately held differences of opinion on both sides of the debate. I will depart from being good natured only to repeat a point that I made earlier. I will take no lectures from Conservative Members of Parliament about the Government's policy on disabled people.
      This Government have done far more than any other for disabled people and they deserve our support. They have the support of all hon. Members who signed amendment No. 12. Indeed, many of us have spent day after day expressing support for the new deal, the Disability Rights Commission, and similar initiatives. I do not want the excellent work that our Government are doing to support equal rights and equal opportunities for disabled people to be cast aside by the public, who will look at clauses 53 and 54 and wonder why a Government who are delivering so well on everything else are planning to cut incapacity benefit for disabled people who are unable to work.
      The one thing that we have agreed this afternoon is that this is a debate about benefits for disabled people who are unable to work. What the Tories might or might not have done to shuffle people on to incapacity benefit is totally irrelevant to this debate and has been recognised as such for the simple reason that the clauses are about future, not past, claimants.
      If there is an issue about entitlement to incapacity benefit in the sense of whether people are capable of work or not, we should be looking at the all-work test or its successor. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that disability organisations—through the Disability Benefits Consortium, for example—have consistently said to me and in public, "If your worry is about people swinging the lead, or whatever expression you want to use, then let's discuss that gateway." However, a concern about that is no reason for taking the right to claim benefit away from 170,000 people who are disabled and cannot work because they have not paid contributions in the past two years. It is no case for means-testing either.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley rose—
      Mr. Berry:With respect, I do not have time to give way. According to the Department's figures, a total of 335,000 disabled people who are unable to work will lose out. I appreciate the Secretary of State's reference to possible further consideration of the threshold.
      I would simply say this to right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill now has to go to the other place, where there will be an opportunity for further debate. I hope that it will be as constructive a debate as we have had this afternoon. I earnestly desire—this is the wish of all those who signed amendment No. 12 and other supporters who did not sign it—that when the Bill returns from the other place, we will be 100 per cent. proud of it and not merely 98 per cent. I earnestly believe that the best way of ensuring—that is too strong a term—or of helping bring that about is to support amendment No. 12 in the Lobby and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 310.

      Division No. 191]

      [5.43 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ballard, Jackie

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Barnes, Harry

      Amess, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bercow, John

      Baker, Norman

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      1292

      1293

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Best, Harold

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gale Roger

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Garnier, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brake, Tom

      Gibb, Nick

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Gill, Christopher

      Breed, Colin

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burnett, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      Burns, Simon

      Gray, James

      Burstow, Paul

      Green, Damian

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, John

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Grieve, Dominic

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hammond, Philip

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hancock, Mike

      Cann, Jamie

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Cash, William

      Harvey, Nick

      Caton, Martin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Heald, Oliver

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Chaytor, David

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Chidgey, David

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clappison, James

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Horam, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Collins, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Colvin, Michael

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cotter, Brian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cran, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Crausby, David

      Johnson Smith,

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      (Perth)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Keetch, Paul

      Davidson, Ian

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Key, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice &Howden)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Day, Stephen

      Kirk Bride, Miss Julie

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Duncan, Alan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lansley, Andrew

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Leigh, Edward

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Letwin, Oliver

      Etherington, Bill

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Evans, Nigel

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Faber, David

      Lidington, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fallon, Michael

      Livsey, Richard

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fisher, Mark

      Loughton, Tim

      Flight, Howard

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Flynn, Paul

      McAllion, John

      Forsythe, Clifford

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      McDonnell, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      1294

      Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew

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

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Mc Loughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Mc Namara, Kevin

      Spring, Richard

      Madel, Sir David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stevenson, George

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stott, Roger

      Maples, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Swinney, John

      Mates, Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Thompson, William

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Moss, Malcolm

      Townend, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Oaten, Mark

      Tyler, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Wallace, James

      Paice, James

      Walter, Robert

      Paterson, Owen

      Wardle, Charles

      Pickles, Eric

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pollard, Kerry

      Waterson, Nigel

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Webb, Steve

      Prior, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Randall, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Rendel, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wilkinson, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Willis, Phil

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilshire, David

      Ruffley, David

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wise, Audrey

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wood, Mike

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Bill Michie and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mr. Jim Cousins.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ainger, Nick

      Benton, Joe

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blackman, Liz

      Allen, Graham

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Ashton, Joe

      Boateng, Paul

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Borrow, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Battle, John

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Beard, Nigel

      (Dunfermline E)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      1295

      Browne, Desmond

      Healey, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Burden, Richard

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Heppell, John

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Hesford, Stephen

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hill, Keith

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Campbell —Savours, Dale

      Hoey, Kate

      Caplin, Ivor

      Home Robertson, John

      Casale, Roger

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Capman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hope, Phil

      Church, Ms Judith

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Howarth, George (knowsley N)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Howells, Dr Kim

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley Stretford)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clelland, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hutton, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cohen, Harry

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Colman, Tony

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jamieson, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cranston, Ross

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      (Copeland)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Curtis —Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C,)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Denham, John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Doran, Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Follett, Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foulkes, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Galbraith, Sam

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lock, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Love, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McCabe, Steve

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCartnev, Rt Hon Ian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      (Makerfield)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grocott, Bruce

      Macdonald, Calum

      Grogan, John

      McFall, John

      Gunnell, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hain, Peter

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McLeish, Henry

      Hanson, David

      McNulty, Tony

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      MacShane, Denis

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      1296

      Mallaber, Judy

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Salter, Martin

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Martlew, Eric

      Sawford, Phil

      Maxton, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Meale, Alan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Merron, Gillian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Singh, Marsha

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islilngton S)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Soley, Clive

      Mountford, Kali

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Spellar, John

      Mudie, George

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Norris, Dan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stoatea, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Olner, Bill

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Pearson, Ian

      (Dewsbury)

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Temple — Morris, peter

      Pickthall, Cohn

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike, Peter L

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pond, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pope, Greg

      Todd, Mark

      Pound, Stephen

      Touhig, Don

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Vaz, Keith

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Radice, Giles

      Watts, David

      Rammell, Bill

      White, Brian

      Rapson, Syd

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wills, Michael

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Wilson, Brian

      (Hamilton S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Woolas, Phil

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      >Tellers for the Noes:

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 53, line 48, leave out from 'annuities)' to end of line 2 on page 54.— [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have today witnessed a most significant disaffection in the House. The governing party is split over an important issue affecting severely disabled people. Is it not right that the Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box to explain what he will do to change the legislation?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no views about such matters.

    New Clause 13

      DUTY AS AN EMPLOYER TO OFFER PAYROLL DEDUCTION FACILITY
      '.—(1) It shall be the duty of an employer to offer all employees a payroll deduction facility under which he shall, at the request of the employee, deduct contributions to any approved pensions scheme from that employee's remuneration, net of tax.
      (2) No charge shall be made to any employee or to any approved pensions scheme in connection with the provision of this facility.—
      (3) An approved pensions scheme, for the purposes of this section, means any pensions scheme which shall have been —

      (i) approved by the Inland Revenue under Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; and

      (ii) registered for this purpose by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority or by the Financial Services Authority.'.—[Mr. Quentin Davies.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 83, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end add —
      '(10) Approved Group Personal Pensions shall be deemed to be stakeholder pensions for the purposes of this Part.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
      No. 80, in clause 3, page 3, line 41, at end insert —
      '(5A) The fifth requirement is that the employer shall require a certificate from the designated scheme to the effect that none of his employees will be admitted to membership of that scheme without evidence that that employee has taken independent advice in relation to his pension provision.'.
      No. 81, in page 3, line 41, at end insert —
      '(5B) The sixth requirement is that, for the purpose of calculating the income tax payable to the Inland Revenue under PAYE in respect of an employee exercising his option under subsection (5) above the employer shall disregard —

      (i) the first £5,000 per annum of any pensions payments made under this section, or

      (ii) such amounts as shall be calculated by reference to age-related tables supplied by the Inland Revenue showing the percentage of earnings which may be claimed as tax-deductible contributions to personal pensions schemes,
      1298
      provided that the employee shall be given the right to choose between £5,000 per annum and the relevant age X2013;related percentage of earnings.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 44, 28 and 46.
      Mr. Davies: It has been a very dramatic afternoon. Almost anything that occurred — [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The business of the House is continuing. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.
      Mr. Davies: Almost anything that occurred after this afternoon's events would be an anticlimax. Indeed, the events of this afternoon are without precedent in this Parliament —and for quite a long time before that.
      The Government have tried to muzzle Parliament using a disgraceful guillotine motion, which denies the House the right to vote individually on Government amendments. We are not allowed to take issue with Government amendments, to select between them or to move our own amendments. If the many countries around the world that so admire British democracy were to learn of the way in which we conduct our proceedings in this place —a Government with a substantial majority have forced through an obnoxious measure affecting disabled people by the use of a guillotine —they would be quite shocked. They would wonder what kind of Parliament we have.
      Nevertheless, the voice of Parliament has been heard. It is clear that there is grave concern on both sides of the House about the damage the Government are doing to our welfare system, our national insurance system and to the interests of some very vulnerable people in this country. We have the good fortune to have a two-Chamber legislature in this country, and we all hope that the business that this House has so unfortunately and dramatically left unfinished this afternoon will be taken up in another place and that the right decisions will be made.
      6 pm
      It now falls to me to speak to new clause 13 and amendments Nos. 83, 80 and 81 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 13 is in some ways a summation of the Conservative Opposition's views on the Government's stakeholder pension proposals, so it might be sensible if I were to address that last, and proceed to it by dealing first with the other amendments.
      Amendment No. 80 deals with the vital matter of the advice that people need when they make the decision, which is crucial to their future, as to whether they should invest in a pension, and if so, what kind of pension. The Government have clearly effected an amusing U-turn on that matter.
      Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that, as he begins to address a series of important matters, the Secretary of State has left the Chamber? Does my hon. Friend think that the right hon. Gentleman has done so in something of a huff?
      Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman has any human feelings —I am sure that he has —he must be feeling intensely embarrassed. As my hon. Friend knows,

      1299
      when one feels intensely embarrassed and one has got oneself and one's party into a terrible mess, one tends to avoid other human company, particularly in places as public as the Chamber. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have all this arguing and shouting across the Floor of the Chamber.
      Mr. Davies: We can all feel some sympathy for the Secretary of State's wish to hide his face at this juncture.
      Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Davies: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but the hon. Lady, who played such a charming part in our Committee proceedings, caught my eye first.
      Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way —he is always courteous. Will he describe to the House the embarrassment that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, must also be suffering?
      Mr. Davies: I have no idea to what the hon. Lady is referring. No Conservative Member is suffering embarrassment about this afternoon's proceedings; far from it. There is no gloating, because this is an important matter and we have not succeeded in securing the necessary protection for the interests of disabled people, but our attitude is clearly far from being one of embarrassment. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) if he still wants to intervene.
      Mr. Bennett: It seems odd that Conservative Members are making a fuss about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State leaving the Chamber when the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) did exactly the same. Obviously, he had decided that this is not a key issue.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman not only gives me the opportunity but almost obliges me to make a point that I did not intend to make because I do not want to add to the Secretary of State's discomfort at a difficult moment for him. However, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I must remind the House —we were all here and witnessed it —that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was here throughout the proceedings that lasted from Monday night until Tuesday morning. He may have left, as I did, for a few minutes at a time for particular reasons, but he was here for almost 14 hours, as many of us were. The Secretary of State managed four minutes in the Chamber, so embarrassed was he already at the growing storm created by his clumsy and insensitive handling of the matter.
      I must return to the important issue of advice. Labour Members sprung up to try to intervene on my speech and divert me from my course because, as I said, the Government have performed a hilarious U-turn on the matter. I would be the last person to try to take advantage
      1300
      of someone who had honestly changed their mind, provided they had the straightforwardness and honesty to say so and, if carrying out public responsibilities —as the Government self-evidently are —to explain to the House and the public why they have changed their mind. Instead, we have had a 180 deg U-turn on advice, with the Government pretending that it has not been a U-turn.
      I shall read one or two quotations to make it absolutely plain how the Government's position on advice has changed so much. I shall start with the Green Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions", which the Government produced as recently as December 1998 —the document that we have had occasion to refer to in our proceedings several times, and which I do not doubt that we shall have to refer to again. On page 56, at paragraph 48, it says:
      "We intend to reduce, as far as possible, the need for individuals to seek financial advice when they consider joining a stakeholder pension scheme."
      That was very plain, and it is clear that the Minister of State continued in that frame of mind for at least another few months because, on 30 January, he was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying:
      "we can enable more people to make a reasonable decision about joining a pension scheme without the need for detailed individual advice."
      Once we got into Committee, I made it plain to the Minister that it was thoroughly irresponsible to think of people taking a decision on a matter as important as their pension without detailed individual financial advice. I also made it plain to him that the Government, by their ham-handedness and incompetence, had introduced into pensions a degree of gratuitous complexity, fragmentation and detail, which made it even more necessary for people to seek advice.
      The Minister obviously took notice of those points, because he started subtly to nuance his position and then began to do a complete volte-face. For example, in Committee he said exactly the opposite of what he had told The Daily Telegraph only two months before. He said:
      "It is vital that people can seek financial advice when they consider joining a pension scheme and that they will receive good and accurate advice." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 March 1999; c. 113.]
      I quite agree with him about that. By 27 April, his boss, the Secretary of State, whom I mentioned just now in a different context, said:
      "Certainly on something like a pension, which is more important than buying a house," —
      he is right about that —
      "there has got to be some provision for advice".
      Recently, the Minister of State gave a written answer to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, in which he said:
      "Appropriate information and advice for those who need it will be an important part of the decision-making process for individuals considering a stakeholder pension scheme." —[Official Report,
      10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 53.]
      Therefore it is absolutely plain that the Government have fundamentally changed their mind. I am glad that they have changed their mind, but I wish that they had had the straightforwardness, and perhaps the modesty —not a quality that has been pre-eminent in the present Government —to admit that they were wrong in the first place, and that they have come round.

      1301
      I emphasise, as I did in Committee —causing the Government to change their mind —that it is now much more problematic than it ever has been for people on modest or small earnings to decide whether they should save for a pension at all. 1 have previously set out in the House, my calculation that one needs to save at least £80,000 in one's pension scheme before the annuity that one would get at the age of 60 will equal the minimum income guarantee that the Government have introduced for pensioners —which is means-tested —plus the other means-tested benefits: housing benefit, council tax relief and so on. If one did have —80,000, one would have an annuity exactly equal to what one would have got if one had never saved at all, and one would have lost —80,000 of consumption in the course of one's life. That means that one's family and oneself would have gone without a lot of things that everyone might have enjoyed.
      The threshold is much higher than £80,000 and is growing all the time as it is bound to, not least because of the Government's foolish decision to promise that the minimum income guarantee will be indexed to earnings and will rise with them. The state retirement pension rises in line with prices. That is another thoroughly irresponsible decision and one which is deeply destructive of the principle of national insurance. The Government are basically saying that they will review and revalue a means-tested payment for which no one has contributed at a higher rate than payments for which people have contributed through the national insurance system.
      Mr. Webb: I bring the hon. Gentleman back t) amendment No. 80, which he started to describe. I accept that it is desirable for advice to be available and that the giving of advice should be encouraged, but, as 1 read it, amendment No. 80 makes it compulsory to take advice. Is that his intention and should people be forced to take advice, even if they are well informed and do not need it?
      Mr. Davies: Amendment No. 80 makes taking advice compulsory in the sense that, as at present, anyone who is selling a pension must make sure that the sale is appropriate, that the purchaser has received advice and that someone has taken a view on whether the pension is appropriate. People can simply walk into a life office and buy a pension, as long as the office is convinced that they have taken independent advice. However, it is up to those who are selling pensions to know their customers and to determine that what they are selling is appropriate. That is the basis of the rules applied by the financial regulators.
      The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case, and I look forward to responding to it. Does he take the view that people joining occupational pension schemes should also take advice?
      Mr. Davies: I take the view that trustees of occupational pension schemes must get it quite clear in their own minds, as part of their fiduciary responsibility to their pensioners, that the product that is being sold is appropriate. By definition, an employer-only contribution scheme is a good deal for the pensioner because it involves him receiving something that he would not otherwise receive. If an employee is also making
      1302
      contributions, the trustees clearly have a fundamental duty to make sure that the scheme is a good deal for the pensioners involved.
      There is protection, and we want to make sure that exactly the same kind of protection exists in stakeholder pension schemes. We want to make sure that that fundamental principle is safeguarded when employers provide a pension facility or when the pensions industry provides a pension, in the stakeholder context or in any other context.
      Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: Yes, but we have little time at our disposal. This is the last intervention that I will take.
      Mrs. Browning: People on lower incomes, who the Government say are their targets for such pensions, could have earnings from more than one part-time job. Is not it crucial that they receive the right advice about their pension input?
      Mr. Davies: It is indeed important that those people receive advice about pension input. Even if the earnings from their individual jobs are below the lower earnings limit, the sum of their earnings may be such that it would not make sense, in the light of this extension of means-testing, for them to make any provision for themselves at all. That position is sad and ironic —it is not one that we would have wanted to get into, but, unfortunately, it is one into which the Government are putting an ever-wider range of our citizens. That is the great problem —they still have not seen that one, even though they appear to have accepted the arguments about advice in principle.
      I set out a number of other specific cases in our pensions debate last week. People obviously need complex, individual, targeted and tailored advice. For example, someone earning £9,000, who would be on the borderline for the proposed state second pension, would need advice on whether to stay in that scheme. People earning slightly more than £9,000 would also need advice on whether to stay with that scheme and on where the cut-off point comes. They would need advice on whether to join an occupational pension scheme or whether to take a personal or a stakeholder pension. These are complicated issues and the specifics of the individual must be taken into account. Generalised answers cannot be given. A young person expecting to change jobs or to become self-employed might well do much better to opt for a money purchase scheme rather than a final salary scheme, while someone expecting to stay for a long time might do better to opt for a final salary scheme.
      6.15 pm
      Higher up the income scale —the scale from, say, £9,000 to £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000, which has been targeted for the purpose of stakeholder pensions —complicated individual decisions must still be made. People must ask themselves whether they should take out a personal pension or a stakeholder pension. They may already have a personal pension with costs that are apparently higher —but those costs may have been paid at the outset. In terms of the marginal, or incremental, costs, a personal pension may be a much better option than a stakeholder pension.

      1303
      All those decisions require professional advice —actuarial advice. It is monstrous of the Government to suggest, as they have in a number of recent statements, that it is satisfactory for people to be left to pay for that advice themselves. It is cruel and cynical to tell someone with an income of £9,000 a year to consult an actuary or accountant: the cost of such professional advice would almost certainly enter into the equation, and influence the decision about whether the person should save for a pension at all.
      If the advice is not given, however, two things will happen. The person concerned may well be wasting his or her money —and it is particularly sad if someone with low earnings is led by the Government into wasting his or her hard-earned money. Moreover, employers who, if the Bill ever becomes law, may be forced to designate a pension scheme, and the pension companies that might provide the schemes, may be open to a charge of mis-selling unless the advice is provided.
      Amendment No.80 proposes that, before a pension is sold, the employer must ensure that the person concerned has been properly advised. Employers may sometimes be able to discharge the responsibility themselves by ensuring that independent advice is available, but such a responsibility would impose an unreasonable burden and an unreasonable cost on smaller employers. Trade unions and similar bodies might be able to help, and we would welcome that; but we insist that advice should be given, and that the principle currently applying in the pensions market should apply in this instance.
      The purpose of those rules in the pensions market is to prevent further mis-selling. As we all recognise, we had a bad mis-selling scandal in the 1980s, and I hope that we have learned some lessons from it. Until a couple of months ago, the Government did not appear to have learned any lessons, but they have learned one lesson now: they know that there will be terrible mis-selling —mis-selling on an unprecedented scale —unless the issue of advice is dealt with properly. They say that they now accept the need for advice, but they still have not told anyone how they will pay for it.
      Let me now deal with amendment No.81, which concerns tax. One of the stupidest things that the Government have done has been to introduce, unnecessarily and gratuitously, a second tax regime for pensions —a second set of rules determining tax deductibility in the case of those who join stakeholder schemes. The Government say that those who join such schemes will be able to deduct £3,600 from their income by way of a tax credit, whereas the existing Inland Revenue sliding scale —involving a percentage of earnings increasing with age —will continue to apply to those who opt for personal pension schemes.
      The Government are so incompetent that they do not seem to have taken into account what will result from the mere fact of having two different tax regimes. I shall say more shortly about the merits or otherwise of their proposed regimes, but the existence of two regimes in itself will increase the uncertainty and the complexity of the calculations that will need to be made, and will make it even more difficult for people to decide whether to opt for particular pension schemes.
      I trust that the Minister has finally understood the point about advice. Perhaps he will now understand the point about tax. He is certainly not a foolish individual, and he
      1304
      has a good business record himself. Perhaps his hands are tied — and his feet, and his mouth —by his bosses, or by the Treasury. In that case, I hope that he will be a bit more vigorous in persuading them to be more sensible.
      Let us look at the case of someone who is considering going into a pension scheme and is thinking of a stakeholder or a personal pension. If his income is £20,000 or less, he has decided that he needs a funded individual pension and he never expects to earn more than that in real terms, no doubt, the £3,600 is totally adequate. However, he may hope to get promotion, a pay increase or bonuses for good performance. We want a society and economy where people have a chance to increase their earnings, particularly through higher performance. We want people to be able to use their bonuses to fund a pension, savings and so forth. At least I think we do; Conservative Members certainly do. In that case, clearly, he should not go into a scheme where the tax deductibility of pension contributions is limited to £3,600 a year. He might want to make contributions that will give him greater tax deductibility and tax relief on the Inland Revenue sliding scale. That would be a reason to take out not a stakeholder, but a personal pension.
      The worse scenario would be to take out a stakeholder pension, to meet the costs of setting up that scheme and, a few years later, to have to close that, to move into a personal pension and to pay a whole lot of new transactional costs to set up a new scheme. That would not make any sense. Again, it is deplorable that the Government have not been able to work that one out themselves.
      Amendment No. 83 deals with group personal pensions. [Interruption.] Someone took away my copy of the Green Paper. That took my breath away, at least for a moment or two. On group personal pensions, another wonderful U-turn is in process; at least I hope it is because the Government's initial proposals were deeply damaging.
      Page 53, paragraph 29 of the Green Paper makes it plain —it could not be plainer in the English language:
      "Existing personal pensions will not therefore be able to describe themselves as stakeholder pension schemes."
      Personal pensions will not be able to be passported into, in the modern jargon, the stakeholder system. People who have a personal pension of any type could not treat that as their stakeholder pension. Employers who had set up a group personal pension scheme could not treat that as the discharge of the obligation, which is placed on them in clause 3, to set up a stakeholder scheme.
      That is extremely regrettable because it will mean that many good pension schemes, including group personal pensions, which invariably, in every example known to me, involve an employer contribution, will have to be wound down. Employers would then have to set up another stakeholder scheme, which does not require an employer contribution at all.
      Therefore, if employers are feeling slightly less generous, or are simply exasperated by the Government forcing them to run down one good pension scheme for their employees and to set up another, they might take the opportunity either to reduce, or to eliminate their contribution altogether. That would be terrible for the employees concerned and a great blow to pensions.
      That is thoughtlessness at best. At worst, it would have been a deliberate attempt to destroy at a stroke a valuable part of our pension structure, but I think that

      1305
      the Government are guilty more of ignorance and incompetence than deliberate destructiveness. You will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am capable of being very kind to the Government.
      Mr. Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is a generous man.
      Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend kindly says, I am a generous man. I hope that that characterisation is always justified by my conduct in the House and, indeed, elsewhere.
      The U-turn, which is perhaps now taking place, has not been announced to the House. Such things are announced in the press or the media, but never to the House. On 28 April, the Secretary of State gave an interview to the Financial Times and said:
      "Some group personal pensions may be allowed to label themselves as stakeholder pensions. Alistair Darling, the Social Security Secretary has said. That could remove the need for employers to separate stakeholder pensions to their employees".
      In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, the Minister of State said:
      "Group personal pensions will be able to register as stakeholder pension schemes provided they meet the required conditions for such schemes." —[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 53.]
      That is an even stronger move sin the direction of allowing personal pensions to count as stakeholder pensions. That is a 180 deg contrast with the statement in the Green Paper.
      We have tabled our amendments because of all the U-turns by the Government. There has been no explicit acknowledgement by the Government that they have got it wrong. I do not want to labour that because, if they are not big enough to admit that they occasionally make mistakes, that is too bad for them. They should at least come to the House to make these announcements plainly and unambiguously because they are creating great uncertainty outside.
      People in the pensions industry look at the Green Paper, which they are entitled to believe represents Government policy until it is changed, and they then see newspaper articles and remarks attributed to Ministers, and they do not know where they are. It is contributing to an unfortunate crisis which is paralysing our pensions market. Employers and pension funds are frightened to move forward and sell stakeholder pensions because of the danger of mis-selling, to which I have already referred, and the absence of any assurance that there will be independent advice. They do not know what the rules of the scheme will be because they do not know what the Government mean with their confusing proposals such as stakeholders, LISAs —lifelong individual savings accounts —and so on. Also, individuals are rightly and reasonably confused and hesitate to make decisions in the absence of advice.
      We are tabling our amendment to remove the uncertainty, at least in relation to group personal pensions, to give companies the confidence to continue with these schemes and, I hope, to encourage companies who do not have existing provisions for their employees to start them.
      1306
      The amendment would make the regime clear within the Bill. If we achieve some clarity after six months of debate that will be an achievement of some kind.
      I described new clause 13 as a summation of our views on stakeholder pensions. It incorporates many of the lessons learned from the Government's extraordinarily shambolic treatment of the matter over the past few months. We do not start on a completely blank sheet of paper, nor should we. However regrettable and unfortunate it may be for many people from the pensions industry right through to the disabled, the Labour Government are in power. They have a democratic mandate and have produced a Bill to set up a stakeholder pension system. We are looking positively to see whether there is something that we can save from the wreck or on which we can build a constructive and worthwhile structure. We are perfectly happy with the idea of employer obligations to set up a payroll deduction facility.
      In the pensions debate last week, the Government asked my hon. Friends and myself, perfectly reasonably, about the Conservative party's policy on pensions. They now have it in black and white in new clause 13 and I hope that they will accept it. It is a stakeholder pension scheme based on the employer obligation to provide a free payroll deduction facility for payments into any approved pension vehicle.
      6.30 pm
      Hon. Members should note that the new clause would oblige employers to establish a specific payment facility on a payroll-deduction basis, as they currently administer the pay-as-you-earn and national insurance systems. It would not replicate the obligation, imposed in clause 3 of the Bill, on employers to designate a scheme. As I said, that would be an unreasonably onerous task to impose on small employers —or on any employer. I do not believe that it is an employer's function to take charge of his or her employee's private life or financial affairs.
      We therefore do not propose designation, but simply to establish the facility, which will be available for payment into any approved pension scheme — as defined by the Inland Revenue under chapter 14 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
      In our new clause, we get away entirely from fragmentation. We are not saying, for example, that people may pay only into schemes established on the basis of trust law. We should be equally happy with personal and other pensions that are set up on a deed-poll basis. The facility could be used to invest in a personal pension; a stakeholder pension, as the Government are suggesting; or in a lifetime individual savings account —the rival Treasury product —which we think has considerable merit and attraction.
      Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I cannot give way now, as I am trying to bring my remarks to a close. I have already taken a number of interventions, including one from the hon. Gentleman, as he will remember.
      The essence of our proposal is that it would avoid all gratuitous fragmentation and include a unified tax regime. The regime would be unified in that employees benefiting

      1307
      from the facility would be able to take an annual deduction of £5,000— we are a little more generous than the Government, and choose a round figure— without any questions being asked about how it might relate to his or her income or, if he or she prefers, to apply the current Inland Revenue sliding scale of income percentage rising with age.
      Clearly, employees will choose whatever suits them best in any one year, and there will be no difficulty about employees whose circumstance might change in future, when they will be able to make higher contributions. We want them to be able to do that, and therefore to receive the corresponding tax deductions. However, to achieve that goal, we shall have to avoid the creation of unnecessary barriers and fragmentation.
      In a few words, we are offering a single, unified and coherent structure that really will advance the cause of United Kingdom pensions — to which we have been, and always will be, most sincerely committed.
      Mr. Flight: I should like to stress two specific points, on the necessity of advice. The first point—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) alludedc—is that 8 million people currently have personal pension schemes and have already paid for the up-front marketing costs, whatever those might have been. As Ministers will know— with the introduction of the Green Paper and the great white hope of the new stakeholder schemes — the number of people dropping out of personal pension schemes is increasing substantially, probably very much to their detriment. It is, therefore, crucial that people should receive very clear quantitative advice when deciding whether to participate in a new stakeholder scheme or to remain in their current pension scheme.
      The second point has not yet been made in the debate. There is a very high probability that — because of the CAT-marking arrangements to keep charges low — most stakeholder schemes offered by companies will invest in index trackers. Although I do not want to get into a debate on the merits of active versus index tracker management, individuals will have to make the important decision on which they should opt for.
      The pension assets in index tracker schemes will go up and down with markets. Those with a personal pension scheme usually have a choice of different funds to invest in, and can make their scheme more or less cautious and change according to circumstances. It is important that people should know and get advice when choosing between their existing personal scheme and the new stakeholder. They should know the significance of the likely index tracker investment versus active investment management.
      As I understand it, the tax deductible sum for stakeholder schemes is not a simple £ 3,600 per annum, but the lesser of that figure or 100 per cent. of salary. I do not understand the reason for the second part of the formula. Working out which is the lesser and keeping records of people's salaries to no apparent end will be a waste of time and money, resulting in unnecessary extra charges for stakeholders. I support our proposal for a tax regime that would be the same for all pension schemes
      1308
      irrespective of their category. The stakeholder proposals simply add costs. Those are some specific points on the two key areas that we are advancing.
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned four issues: advice, tax relief, the treatment of group personal pensions and access through employers to all pension schemes. Perhaps it will be helpful if I address those four points in the sequence in which he raised them.
      We all agree that pensions are complicated and it is important that people are well informed when they make choices. To that extent, I have common ground with the hon. Gentleman. All the quotes that he read out were about the importance of access to good advice — I have no problem with that — but the substance of his proposals, as I think that he more or less accepted, is that people should be compelled to take advice. Amendment No. 80 says that the employer should ask the person running the stakeholder scheme to issue a certificate saying that he will not let any employees into the scheme unless they prove that they have taken independent advice.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent my words to imply that we suggest that the law should place a charge on people to seek advice regardless of whether they want a pension. We are simply saying that when a pension is sold, the responsibility must lie with the seller — or the employer if they are designating or sponsoring the scheme — to make sure that the individual concerned has been properly advised before taking out the pension. Without that provision, there would be a recipe for the most appalling mis-selling. That would be particularly cruel for people on lower incomes, whom we are most concerned about.
      Mr. Webb: That may be the hon. Gentleman's intention, but it is not the effect of his amendments. Amendment No. 80 says that an employee will not be admitted to the stakeholder scheme that the employer is associated with unless the scheme provider can prove that independent advice has been taken by each person who goes into the scheme. That is appropriate for some people, but for others who are well informed and for whom the stakeholder scheme provided by the employer is self-evidently the right scheme, particularly if there is an employer contribution, there is no reason for a legal obligation. It seems a very un-Conservative proposal— although that is not a reason for opposing it — to require even the well informed to take advice. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but amendment No. 80 clearly does not do that.
      The same is true of amendment No. 81 about tax relief. The amendment raises two issues. The first is whether the £ 3,600 figure is high enough. I have some interest in the hon. Gentleman's point that it may not be. However, the amendment goes on to propose not a simple £ 5,000, but £ 5,000 or the amount allowed under the age-related rebate scheme
      "provided that the employee shall be given the right to choose".
      The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to simplify the tax regime, but that he wanted people to choose which tax regime they preferred. The tax regime for stakeholder

      1309
      schemes will be different from that for occupational schemes, which appear not to be covered by the amendment.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is having great difficulty in understanding something very simple. If the employee chooses, there is no fragmentation of the market from the employee's point of view. It does not matter which tax regime he chooses this year, because he can choose another next year if that is more appropriate to his circumstances. Therefore, we are reducing the complexity of choice and the danger of a mis-choice or a mis-sell.
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is introducing a new choice. If I take out a pension at the moment, I have no choice about the tax regime that applies to my contributions. The amendment introduces a choice of whether I want the lump sum cap on my contributions to get tax relief or some percentage of my salary. That seems to create greater complexity.
      My colleagues and I would like a single annual amount, allowable against tax, for all sorts of pension savings — not choices between different schemes. I fear that that would introduce new complexity, contrary to what is intended.
      On group personal pensions, the issues are more difficult. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his party want to allow group personal pensions to be eligible for stakeholder status. Amendment No. 83 says:
      "Approved Group Personal Pensions shall be deemed to be stakeholder pensions for the purposes of this Part."
      It does not say, "some shall, provided they satisfy the standards of stakeholder schemes." One wonders what the point of the first 40-odd clauses of the Bill is if an existing form of pension provision will automatically come under the new category.
      Clearly, some existing group personal pensions may or may not be good value for money for their members, and the charging structure may be unfavourable to those who are likely to leave early, for example. Simply to say that they will come under the stakeholder scheme and get all the associated advantages is rather difficult. If the amendment were more extensive, and said that they can count as stakeholder schemes if they meet the relevant criteria, we might have had more sympathy. However, as it stands, I am afraid that we do not.
      The first time I saw new clause 13 I thought that it was eminently sensible. However, when the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford explained it, 1 went off the idea. I wanted some clarification from the hon. Gentleman during his speech, and perhaps he will intervene on me in a moment to explain the point — briefly, I hope.
      Under new clause 13, an employer with 3,000 employees would be obliged to provide free of charge a facility to every employee to deduct at source a pension contribution, and to pay that contribution to the pension scheme of the employee's choosing. The Government are proposing one scheme — that the employer would provide access to one stakeholder scheme. It is reasonable to suppose that the employer would then take all the contributions in one go and pass them in one envelope, metaphorically, to the scheme.
      1310
      As I understand it, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is saying that the employer, at his own cost, will have to pay contributions to every different scheme of which any individual employee is a member. Clearly, individual employees can be members of dozens of different schemes — particularly if there is no company scheme. At a medium-sized firm with no company scheme, individuals could be members of dozens of different pensions schemes.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that employers already must have the software set up to enable them to make such payments under earnings attachment orders and so forth, and these may go in different directions. That is not the great burden — of costs on an employer. The great burden — which our amendment avoids, but the Government's formulation unfortunately involves employers in — is the burden of designating the right scheme. That is an enormous responsibility, and involves spending money on actuaries and advisers, and receiving bids from different pension groups, and then on making a choice between them. That is what we want to avoid. It is an unreasonable burden on the employer, and a dangerous situation in which an employer can find himself.
      Mr. Webb: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not feel that that is what his amendment is about or would achieve.
      Mrs. Browning: Is not it the case that members of staff of Members of Parliament have, at present, a scheme through the Fees Office where they elect to go into a personal pension with a variety of companies, and on which they are responsible for taking financial advice about whether the scheme to which they are signing up is in their best interests? Surely in terms of administration on the employer — in this case, the Fees Office of the House of Commons — that is complex, when one thinks that there are 650 Members of Parliament. However, it does it. Surely it would simply be a matter of putting the money into a stakeholder scheme rather than into a personal pension as at present. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about the complexity of administration.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Webb: That is an interesting parallel and I accept that each hon. Member could have one or more employees, each choosing a different personal pension, which could place a considerable administrative burden on the Fees Office.
      Mrs. Browning: That happens now.
      Mr. Webb: Indeed, but is it a considerable administrative burden? I suspect that it may well be. Do we know how many people the Fees Office employs to administer those payments? Some Conservative Members here today served with me in Committee on the Tax Credits Bill, where we argued against the burden on business of employers having to pass on tax credits. Under the new clause, employers would have to pass on not only one payment from the Inland Revenue to their employees;

      1311
      they might have to make dozens of payments to dozens of different companies. I accept that there is a parallel, but we do not how much work is created or what it costs.
      Mr. Flight: Surely all that is required is for the employer to give a list of instructions to his bank to make regular standing order payments to the various banks of the recipients' pension schemes. Once that was done, there would be no more work involved. That is what the Fees Office does.
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. He and I have both attacked the working families tax credit, which is a single payment from the Inland Revenue through the employer to the employee, regarding it as a burden on business. We are now talking about a system that involves as many employees as there are in the firm and as many pension companies as there are in the land. Contrary to what he said, the payments need not be the same every month: people might want to increase their payments following a pay rise or to contribute a lump sum.
      We have to form a judgment about the burden placed on business. Intriguingly, Conservative Members do not think that there will be a burden; strangely, I think that there will. We certainly want to facilitate access to pension saving. The Government have got it right in using the mechanism of employers — there are many fewer employers than employees — to deliver to a specified scheme. In my judgment, that is much less of a burden.
      Mr. Brazier: I served in Committee on the Bill, and we are nearing the end of a process that has gone on for two and a half months. Following the emotionally charged and important debate on incapacity benefit, we can see once again how wrong it was to cram so many different subjects into one Bill, as hon. Members of various parties said on Second Reading. The new clause and the amendments grouped with it are very important, dealing with pension arrangements for people who can only just afford to provide for themselves, but we have a small turnout because this discussion follows a mass of other important subjects.
      We are suffering once again from the fact that, because the Government are trying to cram a gallon into a pint pot, there is far too much reliance on regulation. We are trying to pin down what should be done, but much is unclear because of the excessive use of regulation. The regulations and the ideas behind them stem from several different consultations, including the consultation on this part of the Bill, which was not even completed when we began our proceedings in Committee.
      In other parts of the Bill, Labour party manifesto commitments — on means-testing and on the contributory principle, for example — were abandoned. The Government's refusal to accept the new clause and associated amendments represents the abandonment of another good principle: that we should seek to simplify the social security and pensions system. Absurdly, with the stakeholder plan, the Government are trying to start again with a completely new edifice which is separate from the Treasury's edifice. That is not completely new, but builds on existing plans, and for that reason, it is mostly welcomed by the Opposition.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) missed the point of the interventions by my hon. Friends. The point about the working families tax credit, on which we
      1312
      stood shoulder to shoulder with the Liberal Democrats, is that it is potentially adjustable twice a year on the basis of a complicated calculation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) pointed out, the arrangements suggested in new clause 13 would be in place for good once a simple standing order had been set up. In the case of the House of Commons scheme, it would be pegged to 10 per cent. of salary. The arrangements would not involve the complexities to which we objected in another context.
      By trying to set up such a complicated system, which contained the germ of a good idea when the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) first proposed it, the Government are setting themselves against the pensions industry and against those who would like to provide better for those at the bottom end of the earnings scale, who will be specifically targeted by the measure. I suspect that the rival Treasury product will be much more successful.
      My final point is really a Third Reading point, but I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it looks unlikely that we will get to Third Reading. It is very sad that we should be debating all these amendments at the end of proceedings on this Bill. We are dancing round on the head of a pin while the entire debate on pensions policy is crushed between two halves of a nutcracker — one being the devastating blow that was wreaked upon ordinary company, personal and other pensions by the shameful removal of tax credits, and the other being the knowledge that among the low paid, people who do not provide for themselves may end up doing better. That point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I strongly support new clause 13 which would go a long way towards improving a rotten, muddled and confused scheme.
      Miss McIntosh: I strongly associate myself with new clause 13, which was eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I wish to address two situations. The first is where an employer already operates an occupational pension scheme. Some employers may be tempted to close their occupational pension scheme to new entrants and simply offer access to stakeholder schemes. Small and large employers alike believe that that would be a regrettable move and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will address that point.
      The second situation is where an employer does not already operate an occupational pension scheme. Most employers without such a scheme would admit that they lack the financial skills necessary to choose such a scheme. If they choose the wrong scheme, many fear adverse consequences for themselves and their employees. I hope that the Minister supports the suggestion that employers should be required to provide access only via a pensions clearing house.
      Mrs. May: For the record, I should declare that I have placed in the Register of Members' Interests a non-registerable shareholding in the Prudential corporation.
      Before I make a couple of points about the amendments and the stakeholder scheme, I want to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). I am sorry that I was inadvertently out of the Chamber when

      1313
      he began to speak, but I came in as he was taking interventions on the extent to which proposals for employee payroll deduction facilities in new clause 13 would be a burden on business and difficult to operate.
      As a former employee of the Association for Payment Clearing Services, I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman thinks that providing that sort of facility is beyond the scope of the banking sector, he should take a trip to the former de Havilland aircraft site at Edgware to visit BACS — formerly the Bankers Automated Clearing Services company — and see the number of deductions and payments that pass through the system every day. The banking sector is well able to cope with the proposal contained in new clause 13.
      Mr. Webb: I have absolutely no doubt that the banking sector can cope. My question was what would be the cost to employers of accessing the services.
      Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is not possible for the hon. Gentleman to intervene on an intervention.
      Mrs. May: I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) wanted to intervene before I answered the intervention. I am happy to give way to him.
      Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being as courteous as ever. The point that I tried to make earlier to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) perhaps needs to be reiterated. The cost and complexity arises not from making a payment, but from having to do the calculation every six months for people whose earnings vary from week to week.
      Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the point that he made earlier. My point is that the banking sector can cope. Businesses produce tapes or telecoms data for banks to put to BACS. Significant numbers of such payments are being made, and if the hon. Member for Northavon is suggesting that new clause 13 should be cast aside on such a technical point, he should visit BACS to see how companies input such information and deal with such payments.
      I have two points to make about stakeholders which relate to amendment No. 80. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), and by pension providers and bodies that represent employers. The Government's stakeholder pension schemes may result in the closure of some occupational pension schemes to new members. Employers will tell employees that they are not carrying on with occupational pension scheme provision, providing instead for the stakeholder pension because that is what the Government say is good.
      The way in which we have built up our occupational pension scheme funds is one of the jewels in this country's crown. It places us in a far better position than many other countries to deal with future pension provision. We should not attack that position. I accept that the Government do not
      1314
      intend to attack occupational pension schemes, but I fear that the law of unintended consequences could very well bring about that result.
      Finally, I want to reiterate a point that I made in the Chamber last week on pensions. I am particularly concerned about the impact of the Government's proposals on women. Women are just getting a foot on the ladder of occupational pension schemes, and some schemes may be taken from them. Secondly, many women are concerned already that they do not receive adequate advice about pension proposals. If no advice is provided on stakeholder pension schemes, many women will be disadvantaged in future. I support amendment No. 80 because independent pensions advice is important for all employees, but particularly for women.
      7 pm
      Mrs. Browning: I contribute to this section of the debate with some sadness. Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I followed the Hansard record of those deliberations. On the one hand, I must welcome the fact that the new Labour Government have undergone a conversion in respect of personal pensions and pension input per se. Many of us remember how, in the 1980s, every time the Conservatives introduced a Budget to give tax breaks to individuals to encourage them to input into pensions, whether personal or corporate, the Labour party consistently voted against those provisions, which have made Britain one of the strongest countries in Europe for pension funds and provision for old age. Notwithstanding that, the Labour party said time after time before the Labour Government were elected that if it came to office it would make fundamental changes to increase the scope of pension provision for a wider range of individuals and to tighten up aspects where it felt there needed to be more security for the person investing in a pension.
      The Committee deliberated and we waited a long while to get proper confirmation from the Government about what they were proposing. Even though we now have a Bill in front of us, the Government still seem unable to answer many questions. I will raise some different issues from those raised by my hon. Friends, and perhaps we will hear one or two answers from the Government.
      Given some of the problems, such as pensions mis-selling and the Maxwell scandal, many people may well be concerned about being a part of a group pension of whatever denomination. The Government therefore said that they want to enhance the role of trustees. That is important. However, as the Bill has proceeded, the Government have not been clear about their intentions for trustees.
      The Minister of State was adamant in Committee, saying:
      "We want member-nominated trustees to be appointed to the board of stakeholder pension schemes."— [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 March 1999; c. 52
      Despite persistent questioning by my Conservative colleagues, the Government failed to explain who will be the trustees and how they will be chosen. That question seems fundamental. If the Government's new stakeholder pensions are to be widely welcomed and, more important, taken up — particularly if they are to receive the support of employers in the workplace — it is extremely important for that sort of detail to be available.

      1315
      It is not the sort of detail that should be left to secondary legislation. if we have learned one thing in the past two years it is that many major Bills have been ill thought out — almost cobbled together on the hoof as they progress through Committee. Later, when we are faced with statutory instruments and secondary legislation that put the detail into the Bill, we find that the Government are doing something quite different from what they said in Committee.
      I tell the Government and the Minister, who was adamant about trustees in stakeholder pensions, that if they want those pensions to be successful, they should tonight give the House the details of how those trustees will be appointed and take their place on the board.
      Mr. Timms: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) demonstrated again this evening his remarkable ability to make material that is worth five minutes last for 35. The House will have enjoyed that, although why it was necessary for him to do it on this occasion, I am not sure.
      Stakeholder pension schemes are at the heart of our plans to modernise the pension system. They will provide — for many people for the first time — affordable funded pensions so that they can look forward to a secure income in retirement. There has been wide support for their introduction from those who responded to the Green Paper and others, both for the aims of the policy and for the structure that we have put in place to achieve them. We are working closely with the industry to ensure their success.
      The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked about trustees. The Bill provides for stakeholder pensions to be run in a way that puts members' interests first. Trust-based schemes run by a board of trustees will do exactly that. We will consult between now and the summer on the details of how the trustee arrangements will work. If I understood her correctly, she supports the involvement of trustees in the schemes. I agree, but, as I said in Committee, we want to retain flexibility. That is why we have not ruled out possible alternative governance structures if they can deliver comparable protection.
      In the Labour party manifesto, we promised to introduce a framework for stakeholder pensions to meet the needs of those who could not join a good-value second pension. We said that schemes would be approved to receive people's savings only if they met high standards and provided value for money, flexibility and security. The framework in the Bill fulfils that commitment. Contrary to what Conservative Members said, there have been no U-turns. Our position on group personal pensions is the one set out in the Green Paper; we asked for views on it on page 59. We are listening to those views and will reach a conclusion on that basis. That is what we always said that we would do, and we will do it.
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: My hon. Friend knows that I want to raise the issue of Christian conscience. He is aware that many Christians cannot take up pension plans under existing or proposed legislation. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken the matter up with the Treasury. Can he reassure me that any regulations under the Bill will take account of Christian conscience regarding the appropriate pension offered,
      1316
      contributions to a scheme and the rights of employees to refuse on Christian conscience grounds any scheme offered?
      Mr. Timms: I am well aware of those issues. My hon. Friend put one of his constituents in touch with me. A group from the Plymouth Brethren came to discuss those points with me. Nothing in the Bill or any of our proposals would require employers to contribute to pension schemes on behalf of their employees. We are consulting on the possibility of making it a condition of employment that people should join their occupational scheme, if there is one. That would need to be subject to opt-out arrangements. We will carefully consider my hon. Friend's point in deciding them. I think that the people who have been in touch with him and me will feel generally content about our way forward on this.
      Mr. Leigh: I am sorry to labour the point, but the Plymouth Brethren are a tiny group. No one in the House supports their views, which is all the more reason why we should be careful to ensure that their conscience is protected. They cannot join any existing pension scheme, except the basic state pension, because of their religious belief. The Minister must reassure them that they will not be forced into a stakeholder pension against their conscience.
      Mr. Timms: I can categorically assure the hon. Gentleman that no one will be forced into a stakeholder pension if they do not wish to join one. The Plymouth Brethren are not that small a group. I much enjoyed the meeting that took place on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
      Let me briefly deal with some of the points raised in the debate. New clause 13 would compel employers to offer payroll deduction facilities for almost all pension arrangements. Conservative Members appear to believe that that would provide an adequate replacement for stakeholder pensions. In reality, providing access to other sorts of scheme would not be a substitute for the benefits that we expect for members from stakeholder pension schemes. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is right to say that the proposals would place a substantial, additional burden on business. Businesses would have to send out regular payments to an unlimited number of pension schemes — depending on how many people work in the organisation. That is not sensible.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made a much more interesting suggestion. I commend her for raising the point because it seems to have eluded her hon. Friends.
      There is a possibility of making a clearing-house arrangement under which employers would make a single payment to a clearing house. The clearing house would then sort out which company the payments should be passed on to. That proposal is favoured by the Confederation of British Industry, for example. It is one of the possibilities on which we shall consult between now and the summer.
      Amendment No. 83 would enable existing group personal pensions to qualify as stakeholder pension schemes. Again, we have been absolutely consistent on that point. We do not want to undermine good-value existing provision, but personal pensions do not have many of the features that will make stakeholder pension schemes a good deal for their members.

      1317
      Stakeholder pension schemes will provide a better-value, more flexible alternative for many of those who cannot join an occupational scheme. The proposed governance structure is an important part of that; we are determined that stakeholder schemes will be run in their members' interests. It is here that personal pension schemes often fall short of the high standards that we want for stakeholder pension schemes. We are keen not to discourage high-quality provision and will be consulting further on our specific proposals as to how we could best incorporate into the new regime arrangements that meet our high standards and offer good-quality provision.
      Amendment No. 80 deals with advice. It is right that people considering joining any pension scheme should have access to good, accurate financial information and advice. We have said that throughout, and our commitment to that should not be in doubt. Since we came to office, one of our priorities has been to ensure that pension companies and advisers clear up the mis-selling scandal that we inherited from the previous Government. The arrangements instituted by the Conservative Government created an enormous number of problems — not least by, wrongly, inducing many people to leave good occupational schemes of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and to enter personal schemes that were much less advantageous.
      The amendment would require stakeholder pension schemes to certify that all applicants who want to join their employer's designated scheme have received independent financial advice. That goes much too far. Individual advice has a cost. In many cases, that cost is worth paying, but, given the right information, many potential members will be perfectly capable of making an appropriate choice for themselves.
      We expect that significant numbers of those joining stakeholder schemes will do so through their employers. To require all those applicants to receive independent advice would impose excessive costs on schemes if they had to meet the costs of its provision — as they will in many cases.
      Amendment No. 81 would require a higher limit on contributions to stakeholder pension schemes than the £ 3,600 that we proposed, and proposes that, as an alternative, the limit could be set by reference to the relevant personal pension limit. Our proposal is intended to provide a simple, clear system. I can assure hon. Members that contribution limits are one of the aspects of the schemes on which we shall be carrying out further detailed consultation between now and the summer, in the light of the representations that we have received to date. Following that consultation, all aspects of the tax regime — including the maximum level of contributions — will, as is normal, be set out in a Finance Bill or tax regulations as appropriate, but they will not be included in this Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 420.

      Division No. 193]

      [7.29 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coaker, Vernon

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coleman, lain

      Alexander, Douglas

      Colman, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Corbett, Robin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Cox, Tom

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cranston, Ross

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Crausby, David

      Austin, John

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Banks, Tony

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cummings, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darvill, Keith

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dawson, Hilton

      Berry, Roger

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Best, Harold

      Denham, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Doran, Frank

      Boateng, Paul

      Dowd, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Drew, David

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Etherington, Bill

      Browne, Desmond

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fisher. Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Flint, Caroline

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Flynn, Paul

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cann, Jamie

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gapes, Mike

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caton, Martin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Church, Ms Judith

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gunnell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hain, Peter

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      1323

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hanson, David

      McCabe, Steve

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Healey, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McDonnell, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McFall, John

      Heppell, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hesford, Stephen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hill, Keith

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hoey, Kate

      McNulty, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      McWalter, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Maxton, John

      Hurst, Alan

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hutton, John

      Meale, Alan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Merron, Gillian

      Illsley, Eric

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jenkins, Brian

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Norris, Dan

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Olner, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Khabra, Piara S

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Kidney, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pearson, Ian

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pendry, Tom

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pike, Peter L

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Plaskitt, James

      Laxton, Bob

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lepper, David

      Pond, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pope, Greg

      Levitt, Tom

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Linton, Martin

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lock, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Love, Andrew

      Quinn, Lawrie

      McAllion, John

      Radice, Giles

      1324

      Rammell, Bill

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Rapson, Syd

      Stringer, Graham

      Raynsford, Nick

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Rooker, Jeff

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tipping, Paddy

      Roy, Frank

      Todd, Mark

      Ruane, Chris

      Touhig, Don

      Ruddock, Joan

      Trickett, Jon

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Turner, Dennis, (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sawford, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Singh, Marsha

      Watts, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      White, Brian

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wilson, Brian

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Spellar, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wood, Mike

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Woolas, Phil

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Teller for the Ayes:

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      (NE Fife)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cash, William

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chidgey, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Chope, Chirstopher

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clappison, James

      Bercow, John

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Colvin, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cotter, Brian

      Boswell, Tim

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brake, Tom

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Day, Stephen

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Burnett, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Burns, Simon

      Faber, David

      Butterfill, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fallon, Michael

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Fearn, Ronnie

      1325

      Flight, Howard

      Oaten, Mark

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Öpik, Lembit

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Page, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gray, James

      Rendel, David

      Green, Damian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Hammond, Philip

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Harvey, Nick

      Ruffley, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Horam, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Syms, Robert

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Thompson, William

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tredinnick, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Trend, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyler, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Viggers, Peter

      Letwin, Oliver

      Walter, Robert

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Wardle, Charles

      Lidington, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Webb, Steve

      Livsey, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Willis, Phil

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Woodward, Shaun

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Yeo, Tim

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Norman, Archie

      Mr. Tim Collins and

      Mr. Oliver Heald.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question put, That the remaining Government amendments be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 381, Nose 153.
      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 2

      REGISTRATION OF STAKEHOLDER PENSION SCHEMES
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 2, line 41, leave out from 'of to 'if' in line 42 and insert
      'a pension scheme which is or has been registered under this section, and section 10 of that Act applies to any person prescribed in relation to such a scheme,'.
      No. 43, in page 2, line 44, after 'scheme' insert
      'or (as the case may be) while the scheme was so registered he failed to take all such steps as were reasonable to secure that each of those conditions was so fulfilled'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 9

      MONITORING OF EMPLOYERS' PAYMENTS TO PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—
      '() If—

      (a) subsection (6) or (7) is not complied with, and

      (b) the scheme—

      (i) is established under a trust, and

      (ii) is or has been registered under section 2 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (stakeholder schemes),

      section 3 of the Pensions Act 1995 (power of the Regulatory Authority to remove trustees) applies to any trustee of the scheme who has failed to take all such steps as are reasonable to secure compliance.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 10

      LATE PAYMENTS BY EMPLOYERS TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 10, line 36, at end insert—
      '() If in any case subsection (9)(b) is not complied with—

      (a) section 3 applies to any trustee who has failed to take all such steps as are reasonable to secure compliance; and

      (b) section 10 applies to any trustee or manager who has failed to take all such steps.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 11

      EFFECT OF PERSON'S INSOLVENCY ON HIS PENSION RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 12, line 25, leave out
      'in good faith by the trustees or managers of the scheme in question before'
      and insert
      by the trustees or managers of the scheme in question—

      (a) in good faith, and

      (b) without notice of'.

      No. 53, in page 12, line 44, at end insert—
      '(12) For the purposes of this section a person shall be treated as having a right under an approved pension arrangement where—

      (a) he is entitled to a credit under section 23(1)(b) as against the person responsible for the arrangement (within the meaning of Chapter I of Part IV), and

      (b) the person so responsible has not discharged his liability in respect of the credit:.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 12

      EFFECT OF INSOLVENCY ON UNAPPROVED PENSION RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 54, in page 12, line 46, leave out
      'rights of a person under unapproved pension arrangements'
      and insert
      'or in connection with enabling rights of a person under an unapproved pension arrangement'.
      No. 55, in page 13, line 1, leave out from 'under' to `future' in line 4 and insert
      'this section may, in particular, make provision—

      (a) for rights under an unapproved pension arrangement to be excluded from a person's estate—

      (i) by an order made on his application by a prescribed court, or

      (ii) in accordance with a qualifying agreement made between him and his trustee in bankruptcy;

      (b) for the court's decision whether to make such an order in relation to a person to be made by reference to— (i)".

      No. 56, in page 13, line 5, leave out
      '(b) the extent to which any pension and other benefits'
      and insert
      '(ii) whether any benefits (by way of a pension or otherwise) are'.
      No. 57, in page 13, line 6, at end insert
      `and (if so) the extent to which they'.
      No. 58, in page 13, line 7, at end insert—
      `(c) for the prescribed persons in the case of any pension arrangement to provide a person or his trustee in bankruptcy on request with information reasonably required by that person or trustee for, or in connection with, the making of such applications and agreements as are mentioned in paragraph (a).'.
      No. 59, in page 13, line 8, after 'section' insert—
      ' "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section;
      "qualifying agreement" means an agreement entered into in such circumstances, and satisfying such requirements, as may be prescribed;'.
      No. 60, in page 13, line 12, leave out from 'a' to end of line 13 and insert 'prescribed description.'.
      No. 61, in page 13, line 13, at end insert—
      '(4) For the purposes of this section a person shall be treated as having a right under an unapproved pension arrangement where—

      (a) he is entitled to a credit under section 23(1)(b) as against the person responsible for the arrangement (within the meaning of Chapter I of Part IV), and

      (b) the person so responsible has not discharged his liability in respect of
      the credit?.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 14

      FORFEITURE OF RIGHTS UNDER PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 62, in page 13, line 41, after `section' insert—
      '(a) a person shall be treated as having a right under a personal pension scheme where—

      (i) he is entitled to a credit under section 23(1)(b) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (sharing of rights on divorce etc.),

      (ii) he is so entitled as against the person responsible for the scheme (within the meaning of Chapter I of Part IV of that Act), and

      (iii) the person so responsible has not discharged his liability in respect of the credit; and

      (b)". —[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 2

      PENSIONS: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 66, in page 72, line 28, at end insert—
      `Income payments orders against pension payments
      1YA. In section 32(2) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration), at the beginning insert "Notwithstanding anything in section 11 or 12 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999,".
      1ZA. In section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (bankrupt's income against which income payments orders may be made includes certain payments under pension schemes), after "employment and" insert "(despite anything in section 11 or 12 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999)".'.
      No. 67, in page 73, line 22, at end insert—
      'Effect of certain orders on guaranteed minimum pensions
      . In section 47 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (entitlement to guaranteed minimum pension for the purposes of the relationship with social security benefits), after subsection (6) (which is inserted by section 26(4) of this Act) add—
      "(7) For the purposes of section 46, a person shall be treated as entitled to any guaranteed minimum pension to which he would have been entitled but for any order under section 342A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (recovery of excessive pension contributions) or under section 36A of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985."'.
      No. 46, in page 74, line 31, at end insert—
      '5A. In section 3(2)(b) of the Pensions Act 1995 (power of Authority to remove pension scheme trustee to whom section 3 applies by virtue of any other provision of Part I of the Act), for "this Part" substitute "this or any other Act".'.
      No. 32, in page 76, line 10, at end insert—
      `Diligence against pensions: Scotland
      12A. In section 94(3) of the Pensions Act 1995 (application of sections 91 and 92 to Scotland), at the end insert—
      "(f) after subsection 91(4) there is inserted—
      "(4A) Subject to section 73(3)(d) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, nothing in this section prevents any diligence mentioned in section 46 of that Act being done against a pension under an occupational pension scheme?'"' '.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 3

      PENSION SHARING ORDERS: ENGLAND AND WALES
      Amendments made: No. 33, in page 79, line 8, leave out 'rules' and insert 'regulations'.
      No. 34, in page 79, line 9, leave out 'rules' and insert `regulations'.
      No. 35, in page 79, line 37, leave out 'rules' and insert 'regulations'.
      No. 36, in page 80, line 5, leave out 'rules' and insert `regulations'.
      No. 37, in page 80, line 28, at end insert—
      `() In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above whether a person has acted to his detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order, the appeal court may disregard any detriment which in its opinion is insignificant?.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 4

      AMENDMENTS OF SECTIONS 25B TO 25D OF THE MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1973
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 82, line 8, leave out 'second' and insert 'new'.
      No. 39, in page 83, line 4, leave out from `to' to end of line 5 and insert
      'any of the court's powers under this Part of this Act,'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 22

      ACTIVATION OF PENSION SHARING
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 19, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '(b) such information relating to the transferor and transferee as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations under section 28(1)(b)(ii).'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 37

      POWER TO EXTEND JUDICIAL PENSION SCHEMES
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 36, line 24, at end insert
      ',including subordinate legislation which provides for calculation of the value of rights in accordance with guidance from time to time prepared by a person specified in the subordinate legislation.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 42

      ACTIVATION OF BENEFIT SHARING
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 40, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '(b) such information relating to the transferor and transferee as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations under section 28(1)(b)(ii).'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 48

      ENTITLEMENTS TO CATEGORY B RETIREMENT PENSION BY REFERENCE TO NEW ALLOWANCES
      Amendments made: No. 63, in page 46, line 23, leave out
      'time of the spouse's death'
      and insert 'relevant time'.
      No. 64, in page 46, line 29, at end insert—
      '(8A) In subsection (8) above "the relevant time" means—

      (a) where the pensioner became entitled to a widowed parent's allowance in consequence of the death of the spouse, the time when the pensioner's entitlement to that allowance ended; and

      (b) otherwise, the time of the spouse's death.'.

      No. 65, in page 46, line 31, leave out '(8)' and insert '(8A)'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 49

      CLAIM OR FULL ENTITLEMENT TO CERTAIN BENEFITS CONDITIONAL ON WORK-FOCUSED INTERVIEW
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 49, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
      '(b) a person providing services to the Secretary of State,
      (c) a local authority,
      (d) a person providing services to, or authorised to exercise any function of, any such authority;'.
      No. 17, in page 49, line 23, leave out '(6))' and insert '(7))'.
      No. 78, in page 49, line 34, at end insert—
      `and the purposes which may be so specified include purposes connected with a person's existing or future employment or training prospects or needs, and (in particular) assisting or encouraging a person to enhance his employment prospects.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 7

      JOINT CLAIM FOR JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE
      Amendments made: No. 92, in page 93, line 21, at end insert—
      `() Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to section 4A(2A) and (4A).'.
      No. 93, in page 93, line 45, after 'couple' insert
      `or a member of such a couple'.
      No. 94, in page 93, line 45, leave out from 'which' to `applies' in line 46 and insert
      `contains corresponding provisions relating to joint-claim couples,'.
      No. 95, in page 93, line 48, leave out from '4A' to `have' in line 51 and insert—
      '(1ZA) This section applies where—

      (a) a joint-claim couple are entitled to a joint-claim jobseeker's
      allowance, and

      (b) one or each of the members of the couple is in addition entitled to a contribution—based jobseeker's allowance;

      and in such a case the provisions of this section have effect in relation to the couple in place of section 4(3A).
      (1) If a joint-claim couple falling within subsection (1ZA)'.
      No. 96, in page 94, line 6, leave out
      `to a couple to whom subsection (1) applies'
      and insert
      `in accordance with subsection (1)'.
      No. 97, in page 94, line 13, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where the amount payable in accordance with subsection (1) is the couple's personal rate, then—

      (a) if each member of the couple is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, an amount equal to the member's own personal rate shall be payable in respect of the member by way of such an allowance;

      (b) if only one of them is so entitled, an amount equal to that member's personal rate shall be payable in respect of the member by way of such an allowance;

      and in either case nothing shall be payable in respect of the couple by way of a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance.'.
      No. 98, in page 94, line 14, leave out from '(3)' to `shall' in line 17 and insert
      'If a joint-claim couple falling within subsection (1ZA) have an income, the amount payable in respect of the couple by way of a jobseeker's allowance'.
      No. 99, in page 94, line 23, leave out
      'to a couple to whom subsection (3) applies'
      and insert
      'in accordance with subsection (3)'.
      No. 100, in page 94, line 32, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where the amount payable in accordance with subsection (3) is the couple's personal rate, subsection (2A) shall apply as it applies in a case where the amount payable in accordance with subsection (1) is that rate.'.
      No. 101, in page 94, line 38, leave out 'satisfies the contribution-based conditions,' and insert
      `is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance,'.
      No. 102, in page 94, line 39, leave out 'a contribution-based jobseeker's' and insert 'such an'.
      No. 103, in page 94, line 41, leave out 'satisfies those conditions,' and insert
      'is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance,'.
      No. 104, in page 94, line 51, leave out 'satisfies the contribution-based conditions,' and insert
      'is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance,'.
      No. 105, in page 95, line 1, leave out 'satisfies those conditions,' and insert
      'is entitled to such an allowance,'.
      No. 40, in page 95, line 2, at end insert—
      '6A.—(l) Section 8 (power to make regulations requiring attendance etc.) is amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1), after "claimant" insert "(other than a joint-claim couple claiming a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance)".
      (3) After subsection (1) insert—
      "(IA) Regulations may make provision—

      (a) for requiring each member of a joint-claim couple claiming a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance to attend at such place and such time as the Secretary of State may specify;

      (b) for requiring a member of such a couple to provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to his circumstances, his availability for employment and the extent to which he is actively seeking employment;

      (c) for requiring such a couple to jointly provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to the circumstances of each or either member of the couple, the availability for employment of each or either member of the couple and the extent to which each or either member of the couple is actively seeking employment;

      (d) where any requirement to provide information or evidence is imposed on such a couple by virtue of paragraph (c), for the joint obligation of the couple to be capable of being discharged by the provision of the information or evidence by one member of the couple."

      (4) In subsection (2), after "Regulations under subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)".
      (5) In subsection (2)(a) (cases where entitlement to allowance may cease on account of non-compliance), after "in the case of a claimant who" insert ", or (as the case may be) a joint-claim couple claiming a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance a member of which,".
      (6) In subsection (2)(b) (cases where entitlement to allowance may cease by reference to the time expired since the claimant's last attendance)—

      (a) after "he" insert "or, as the case may be, a member of the joint-claim couple"; and

      (b) after "subsection (1)(a)" insert "or (1A)(a)".

      (7) For paragraph (c) of subsection (2) (provision for entitlement not to cease where good cause shown) substitute—
      "(c) provide for entitlement not to cease if the claimant or (as the case may be) either member of the joint-claim couple shows, within a prescribed period of the failure to comply on the part of the claimant or (as the
      1332
      case may be) a member of the couple, that the claimant or (as the case may be) the defaulting member of the couple had good cause for that failure; and".'.
      No. 91, in page 99, line 21, at end insert—
      '() After paragraph 9 insert—
      "Continuity of claims and awards: persons ceasing to be a joint-claim couple
      9A.—(1) Regulations may make provision about the entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance of persons ("ex-members") who cease to be members of a joint-claim couple.
      (2) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, provide—

      (a) for treating each or either of the ex-members as having made any claim made by the couple or, alternatively, for any such claim to lapse;

      (b) for any award made in respect of the couple to be replaced by an award (a "replacement award") in respect of each or either of the ex-members of the couple or, alternatively, for any such award to lapse.

      Continuity of claims and awards: persons again becoming a joint-claim couple
      9B.—(1) Regulations may make provision about the entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance of persons ("ex-members") who, having ceased to be members of a joint-claim couple, again become the members of a joint-claim couple.
      (2) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, provide—

      (a) for any claim made by the ex-members when they were previously a joint-claim couple to be revived or otherwise given effect as a claim made by the couple;

      (b) for any award made in respect of the ex-members when they were previously a joint-claim couple to be restored;

      (c) for any such award, or any replacement award (within the meaning of paragraph 9A) made in respect of either of them, to be replaced by an award (a
      "new award") in respect of the couple.

      Continuity of claims and awards: couple becoming a joint-claim couple
      9C.—(1) Regulations may make provision about the entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance of persons who become members of a joint-claim couple as a result of the married or unmarried couple of which they are members becoming a joint-claim couple.
      (2) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, provide—

      (a) for any claim made by either member of the couple before the couple became a joint-claim couple to be given effect as a claim made by the couple;

      (b) for any award, or any replacement award (within the meaning of paragraph 9A), made in respect of either member of the couple before the couple became a joint-claim couple to be replaced by an award (a "new award") in respect of the couple.

      Paragraphs 9A to 9C: supplementary
      9D.—(1) Regulations may provide, in relation to any replacement award (within the meaning of paragraph 9A) or new award (within the meaning of paragraph 9B or 9C), for—

      (a) the award to be of an amount determined in a prescribed manner;

      (b) entitlement to the award to be subject to compliance with prescribed requirements as to the provision of information and evidence.

      (2) In paragraphs 9A to 9C and this paragraph—
      "award" means an award of a jobseeker's allowance;
      "claim" means a claim for a jobseeker's allowance."'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 51

      SPECIAL SCHEMES FOR CLAIMANTS FOR JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 51, line 13, at end insert—
      '(6A) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 26 of the Employment Act 1988 (status of trainees etc.) shall include power to make, in relation to—

      (a) persons participating in any scheme, and

      (b) payments received by them by virtue of subsection (5) above,

      provision corresponding to any provision which (by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of that section) may be made in relation to persons using such facilities, and to such payments received by them, as are mentioned in subsection (1) of that section.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 59

      CERTAIN OVERPAYMENTS OF BENEFIT NOT TO BE RECOVERABLE
      Amendment made: No. 47, in page 56, line 36, leave out
      `or section 30(2)(a) or (b)'
      and insert
      `, 30(2)(a) or (b) or 35(1)(a) or(b)'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 8

      WELFARE BENEFITS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 106, in page 105, line 4, at end insert—
      `() In section 4 (amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance), in each of subsections (6) and (8) (amount payable where claimant satisfies the contribution-based, and the income-based, conditions)—

      (a) for "satisfies both the contribution-based conditions and the income-based conditions" substitute "is entitled to both a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and an income-based jobseeker's allowance"; and

      (b) after "the amount payable" insert "by way of a jobseeker's allowance".'.

      No. 9, in page 105, line 12, at end insert—

      'PART VA

        MATERNITY ALLOWANCE
        Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c.4)
        29A. The Contributions and Benefits Act has effect subject to the following amendments.
        29B.—(1) Section 21 (contribution conditions) is amended as follows.

        (2) In subsection (1), after "30A below" insert ", maternity allowance under section 35 below".

        (3) In subsection (2), omit the entry relating to maternity allowance.

        1334

        (4) In subsection (4), omit ", other than maternity allowance,".

        29C. In section 176(1)(c) (parliamentary control), after "section 28(2)" insert—
        "section 35A(7);".'.
        No. 41, in page 105, line 27, after 'sections' insert `51,'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 63

      SUPPLY OF INFORMATION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES
      Amendment made: No. 48, in page 60, line 16, at end insert
      ', (Optional work focused interviews),'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 12
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 68, in page 130, line 11, at end insert—
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
        62A. The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows.
        62B. After section 342C there is inserted—
        "Recovery of excessive contributions in pensionsharing cases
        342D.—(1) For the purposes of sections 339, 341 and 342, a pension—sharing transaction shall be taken—

        (a) to be a transaction, entered into by the transferor with the transferee, by which the appropriate amount is transferred by the transferor to the transferee; and

        (b) to be capable of being a transaction entered into at an undervalue only so far as it is a transfer of so much of the appropriate amount as represents excessive contributions.

        (2) For the purposes of sections 340 to 342, a pension-sharing transaction shall be taken—

        (a) to be something (namely a transfer of the appropriate amount to the transferee) done by the transferor; and

        (b) to be capable of being a preference given to the transferee only so far as it is a transfer of so much of the appropriate amount as represents excessive contributions.

        (3) If on an application under section 339 or 340 any question arises as to whether, or the extent to which, the appropriate amount in the case of a pension-sharing transaction represents excessive contributions, the question shall be determined in accordance with subsections (4) to (8).
        (4) The court shall first determine the extent (if any) to which the transferor's rights under the shared arrangement at the time of the transaction appear to have been (whether directly or indirectly) the fruits of contributions ("personal contributions")—

        (a) which the transferor has at any time made on his own behalf, or

        (b) which have at any time been made on the transferor's behalf,
        to the shared arrangement or any other pension arrangement.

        (5) Where it appears that those rights were to any extent the fruits of personal contributions, the court shall then determine the extent (if any) to which those rights appear to have been the fruits of personal contributions whose making has unfairly prejudiced the transferor's creditors ("unfair contributions").
        (6) If it appears to the court that the extent to which those rights were the fruits of unfair contributions is such that the transfer of the appropriate amount could have been made out of rights under the shared arrangement which were not the fruits of unfair contributions, then the appropriate amount does not represent excessive contributions.
        (7) If it appears to the court that the transfer could not have been wholly so made, then the appropriate amount represents excessive contributions to the extent to which it appears to the court that the transfer could not have been so made.
        (8) In making the determination mentioned in subsection (5) the court shall consider in particular the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 342A(6).
        (9) In this section—
        "appropriate amount", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the appropriate amount in relation to that transaction for the purposes of section 23(1) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (creation of pension credits and debits);
        "pension-sharing transaction" means an order or provision falling within section 22(1) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (orders and agreements which activate pension-sharing);
        "shared arrangement", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the pension arrangement to which the transaction relates;
        "transferee", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the person for whose benefit the transaction is made;
        "transferor", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the person to whose rights the transaction relates."'.
        No. 69, in page 130, line 11, at end insert—
        '62C. In section 384(1) (meaning of "prescribed" in the second Group of Parts), after "Subject to the next subsection" insert "and section 342C(7) in Chapter V of Part IX".'.
        No. 108, in page 130, line 33, leave out 'as follows' and insert
        `in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)'.
        No. 49, in page 130, line 45, at end insert—
        'Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
        68A. After section 140E of the Administration Act insert—
        "Financing of other expenditure
        140EE.—(1) The Secretary of State may make to a local authority such payments as he thinks fit in respect of expenses incurred by the authority in connection with the carrying out of any relevant function—

        (a) by the authority,

        (b) by any person providing services to the authority, or

        (c) by any person authorised by the authority to carry out that function.

        (2) In subsection (1) "relevant function" means any function conferred by virtue of section 2A, 2C or 7A above.
        (3) The following provisions, namely—

        (a) in section 140B, subsections (1), (3), (4), (5)(b), (7)(b) and (8), and

        (b) section 140C,

        apply in relation to a payment under this section as in relation to a payment of subsidy.
        (4) The Secretary of State may (without prejudice to the generality of his powers in relation to the amount of subsidy) take into account the fact that an amount has been paid under this section in respect of costs falling within section 140B(4A)(a) above." '.
        No. 109, in page 130, line 45, at end insert—
        '(6) In paragraph 6 of that Schedule—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (5), for "section 159A" substitute "section 4A, 159A"; and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (6), after "relating" insert "to relevant payments or benefits within the meaning of section 4A above or (as the case may be).'.

        No. 111, in page 131, line 13, leave out 'as follows' and insert
        `in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)'.
        No. 112, in page 131, line 25, at end insert—
        '(6) In paragraph 6 of that Schedule—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (5), for "section 155A" substitute "section 4A, 155A"; and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (6), after "relating" insert "to relevant payments or benefits within the meaning of section 4A above or (as the case may be).'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 74

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 67, line 17, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
      '(9) Where an action of divorce or an action for declarator of nullity has been brought before the day on which section 18 comes into force—

      (a) no pension-sharing order may be made under section 8(1) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, and

      (b) neither paragraph (f) of section 22(1) nor paragraph (f) of section 42(1) shall apply,

      in relation to that divorce or declarator.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 13

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 131, leave out lines 31 to 35.
      No. 71, in page 132, line 24, column 3, at end insert—
      `Section 95.'.
      No. 10, in page 135, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

      `In section 21, in subsection (2) the entry relating to maternity allowance, and in subsection (4) the words ", other than maternity allowance,".

      In Schedule 3, in Part I, paragraph 3.

      In Schedule 4, in Part I, the entry relating to maternity allowance.'.

      No. 11, in page 135, line 14, at end insert—

      'S.I. 1994/1230.

      Maternity Allowance and Statutory

      Regulations 2(1), (2) and (4) and 6(2).'.

      Maternity Pay Regulations 1994.

      —[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 77

      COMMENCEMENT
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 68, line 14, at end insert—
      `() section 49;'.
      No. 51, in page 68, line 14, at end insert—
      '() section (Optional work-focused interviews);'.
      No. 50, in page 68, line 18, at end insert—
      '() section 73(1) so far as relating to paragraph 68A of Schedule 12;'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Clause 78

      EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 72, in page 68, line 30, at end insert—
      '() section (Excessive pension contributions made by persons who have become insolvent);'.
      No. 73, in page 68, line 30, at end insert—
      `() paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 2, and section 16 so far as relating thereto;'.
      No. 74, in page 68, line 32, after '5' insert 'and 62A to 62C'.
      No. 75, in page 68, line 36, after & 13' insert
      `and (Excessive pension contributions made by persons who have become insolvent: Scotland);'.
      No. 76, in page 68, line 36, leave out 'and' and insert—
      '() paragraph 1YA of Schedule 2, and section 16 so far as relating thereto;
      () section'.
      No. 77, in page 69, line 3, after 'paragraphs' insert '1YA, 1ZA,'.
      No. 107, in page 69, line 8, after '64', insert
      ',(Earnings of workers supplied by service companies etc.)'.
      No. 52, in page 69, line 12, leave out '68' and insert '68A'.
      No. 110, in page 69, line 33, after '65', insert
      ',(Earnings of workers supplied by service companies etc: Northern Ireland).'—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. David Davis(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The convention in the House is that Finance Bills are not guillotined—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I understand that the microphones are not on. They will be put on as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Davis: The effect of today's guillotine is that amendment No. 27, which would have removed clause 71 from the Bill, was incapable of being debated. Clause 71 has an effect greater than any Finance Bill, in that it removes the requirement for primary legislation prior to major expenditure by the lead Department today.
      Can you give me some assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that the House can be protected from that mechanism in the future? Is it possible for the substantive point within
      1338
      the amendment to be dealt with by the Government at some point? I see that there is a Minister on the Treasury Bench who may be able to help us.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but the House has agreed the guillotine motion and things have simply have transpired in the way that he has described.
      Mr. Timms: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important power which allows us to proceed with investment in new computer systems for changes to the benefit system. I understand that it would be helpful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, and to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, if we could agree an arrangement whereby the report, which will be submitted to the House to permit the expenditure to go ahead could, in normal circumstances, be looked at by those Committees before the House reaches a decision.
      Subject to discussion between us, I am sure that we could come up with a mechanism to ensure that that happens in normal circumstances.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister for his response.
      The House having divided: Ayes 360, Noes 142.

      Division No. 194]

      [7.45 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ainger, Nick

      Burden, Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Banks, Tony

      Cann, Jamie

      Barron, Kevin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Battle, John

      Casale, Roger

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caton, Martin

      Beard, Nigel

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Church, Ms Judith

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clapham, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Clelland, David

      Boateng, Paul

      Clwyd, Ann

      Borrow, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coleman, Iain

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Colman, Tony

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Corbett, Robin

      (Dunfermline E)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cox, Tom

      Browne, Desmond

      Cranston, Ross

      1339

      Crausby, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Hope, Phil

      (Copeland)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hutton, John

      Dawson, Hilton

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Illsley, Eric

      Denham, John

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jamieson, David

      Doran, Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dowd, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Drew, David

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Drown, Ms Julia

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Etherington, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fisher, Mark

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Flint, Caroline

      Kemp, Fraser

      Flynn, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Kidney, David

      Foulkes, George

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fyfe, Maria

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Galbraith, Sam

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Laxton, Bob

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lepper, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Leslie, Christopher

      Godsiff, Roger

      Levitt, Tom

      Goggins, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lock, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Love, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gunnell, John

      McCabe, Steve

      Hain, Peter

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      (Makerfield)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hanson, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McFall, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Healey, John

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      McLeish, Henry

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      McNulty, Tony

      Hill, Keith

      MacShane, Denis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      McWalter, Tony

      Hoey, Kate

      Mallaber, Judy

      Home Robertson, John

      1340

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Sawford, Phil

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Maxton, John

      Singh, Marsha

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Miller, Andrew

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Spellar, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mountford, Kali

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stevenson, George

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stott, Roger

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Norris, Dan

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Olner, Bill

      (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, David (NW Leis)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pendry, Tom

      Timms, Stephen

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Todd, Mark

      Pike, Peter L

      Touhig, Don

      Plaskitt, James

      Trickett, Jon

      Pollard, Kerry

      Truswell, Paul

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Vaz, Keith

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Radice, Giles

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rammell, Bill

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rapson, Syd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Raynsford, Nick

      (Swansea W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Wills, Michael

      (Hamilton S)

      Wilson, Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Rooney, Terry

      Woolas, Phil

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Roy, Frank

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Ruane, Chris

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ruddock, Joan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Salter, Martin

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      1341

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Evans, Nigel

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Flight, Howard

      Bercow, John

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Blunt, Crispin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gibb, Nick

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Brazier, Julian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gray, James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Green, Damian

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Burnett, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Burns, Simon

      Hawkins, Nick

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      (NE Fife)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cash, William

      Horam, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Chidgey, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cran, James

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Key, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Duncan, Alan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      1342

      Lansley, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Leigh, Edward

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lidington, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Livsey, Richard

      Syms, Robert

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Thompson, William

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Tredinnick, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Trend, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tyler, Paul

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Norman, Archie

      Walter, Robert

      Oaten, Mark

      Wardle, Charles

      Öpik, Lembit

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Webb, Steve

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Welsh, Andrew

      Paterson, Owen

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Pickles, Eric

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Prior, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Randall, John

      Willis, Phil

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Yeo, Tim

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Ruffley, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Shepherd, Richard

      Mr. Stephen Day.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  British Deaths (France)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: This is a serious subject that involves many people around the country. I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) hopes to catch your eye for a minute or two after my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall truncate them to give him an opportunity to speak.
  I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his promotion. I recognise that he is new to his present duties, which he took over in tragic circumstances following the departure of his much missed predecessor. I hope that he will be able to consider what I say seriously and reflect on some of the points that are raised.
  The first case that I should like to raise concerns the Allison family from my constituency. Mr. Clive Allison, the son of my constituents, disappeared on 25 April last year. He was working in Lyon and had been working in France for two years. He was 27 and worked at a bar. On the day he disappeared, the French police and the British consulate in Lyon were informed by English speaking and French friends of Mr. Allison that he had disappeared. Unfortunately, the British consulate did not notify his family in my constituency that he had disappeared. That is the first cause of their anxiety about the case.
  The second cause of the family's anxiety is that when they were informed four days later, my constituent Mr. Jim Allison telephoned the local French police and spoke to an officer who slammed the phone down on him shortly into the conversation, even though he was naturally distressed because he had just learned that his son had disappeared. The British consulate suggested that it must have been because my constituent was speaking to the French police officer in schoolboy French. In fact, he was speaking to a policeman who was fluent in English.
  The third incident in the chain of events is that when the friends of Mr. Clive Allison reported to the French police that he had disappeared, they were told that the French police were not prepared to mount a missing person's inquiry for him and that the friends would have to go round the local hospitals to see whether he had turned up in one of them.
  The next stage in this tragic tale is that the body of Mr. Allison was fished out of the local river in Lyon on 4 May and taken to the Government medical institute in the town. It was not tagged for three days so, at one point, it was reported missing. The body was subsequently recovered.
  When it was flown back to the UK aboard Air France, the accompanying paperwork disappeared. To this day, that paperwork has not been found. No direct apology has even been given by Air France to the family. Because of the absence of that paperwork, an entirely new post mortem had to be performed on the body when it arrived back in the UK.
  The final stage in this tragic set of occurrences was that the inquest into the death was adjourned on 25 September because the coroner in Barrow-in-Furness needed some paperwork from the French authorities to complete
  1344
  his inquiries. To this day, some eight months later, that paperwork has not been provided. In a letter from Mr. Ian Smith, the coroner at Barrow, he said that he shared the concerns of my constituent Mr. Jim Allison about the failure of the French authorities in this instance. He said:
  "regrettably what is happening in this particular case is a reflection of what happens in most cases where a British subject dies in France and the body is repatriated and an inquest results…I frequently find a lack of thorough investigation and a considerable delay in sending what little information is available. By way of contrast I have dealt with deaths from China, Hong Kong and Zambia amongst others and have received good quality information within a reasonable time and the Chinese authorities had even translated into English."
  My concern is that we are all citizens of the European Union. France is our nearest neighbouring member state of the EU, and it is important that the French authorities operate in circumstances relating to tragedies such as this at least as efficiently as countries such as Zambia or China.
  Sadly, this is not an isolated case. The merest glimpse at some recently publicised stories in our national newspapers would indicate that there have been a number of other cases. Perhaps the most highly publicised is that of Caroline Dickinson, and I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will wish to speak about that later.
  There was also the case of Roderick Henderson, who died after being kicked in the head in the Champs Elysées in October 1997. A report in The Daily Telegraph of the 15 July 1998 begins:
  "A coroner condemned the French authorities yesterday for erecting a 'brick wall of virtual silence' around the investigation"
  of that murder.
  I do not approach this matter with the view that somehow France is a different country where different standards apply. I certainly do not approach the matter with any hostility towards our neighbouring country. Indeed, this past weekend, I greatly enjoyed with my family an expedition to Paris which, thanks to Eurostar, is a great deal easier and quicker to reach from my London home than my own constituency in the UK.
  More and more British people are looking to spend time in France on holiday and on business. It is a neighbour, and it is important that we should have close relations with France and the clearest possible co-operation between the British and French authorities. That is why 1 tabled some parliamentary questions on the matter, and I was a little disappointed with some of the responses that I received.
  I received a helpful letter in February from Baroness Symons, the Foreign Office Minister. She told me that the materials that had been sent by the coroner in October had been passed through the British consulate because coroners' requests have to go through the Foreign Office. They were passed to the consulate in November, and passed to the French authorities. The French authorities notified the British consul at the beginning of February that the papers had been retrieved from the archive and that the file was on the desk of the relevant person. The family were told that it could be four months before the paperwork would be processed and passed on to the coroner. It is now nearly four months since the beginning of February, and certainly no papers have arrived.

  1345
  Mr. Jim Allison, Clive's father, has been a sufferer from multiple sclerosis for 17 years and he has said that the strain has meant that the past year has been much the worst for his condition. Additional stress on someone in those circumstances can make matters worse.
  I was pleased that the written answers that I received suggest that the Government have been addressing some of the issues. There was a ministerial meeting last November to consider some of the generic, systemic issues. I welcome that, but I was also told, in a written answer on 31 March, that the Allison case was not discussed in detail at that meeting and is not on the agenda for any future scheduled meeting; nor had Ministers discussed French co-operation with British coroners.
  The general conclusion was:
  "Co-operation is good; the French authorities have to comply with their own formalities."—[Official Report, 31 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 693.]
  The evidence of the Allison case and some other cases suggests that that may be too generous an assessment.
  I do not for one moment pretend that there is any ingrained hostility to British people in the way in which the French authorities approach these cases—it is conceivable that they are equally inefficient in cases relating to their own citizens—but it is clear that British coroners do not feel that the French respond to their requests as rapidly and efficiently as they could, or anything like as rapidly and efficiently as coroners in other countries, including less developed countries such as Zambia. The coroner in Barrow said that coroners throughout the country thought the same.
  I would be enormously grateful if the Minister took an interest in trying to get the French authorities to supply the papers to the coroner in Barrow. My constituents have now waited 13 months for a verdict on the cause of their son's death. The bureaucratic delay has made things worse for them and caused them further distress. I spoke to the father today. He said that the family do not want to sue. They are not interested in compensation, as they would regard it as blood money. They want justice and they want to know that their son can be laid to rest and the case can be closed so that they can begin to move on with their lives.
  Will the Minister please address the issue of the possible systemic problem that seems to have occurred in relationships between British coroners and the French authorities? Ministers have already addressed those issues in meetings with their French counterparts. I would be grateful to know whether there are any plans for further meetings.
  All the political parties have produced their manifestos for the European elections and all have said that they favour deepening European Union co-operation on interior and justice policy. Can we please begin to move from the rhetoric to the reality? If we are to have closer co-ordination on justice, could we please start with some justice for British citizens who have lost their loved ones in France?
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on securing this debate, and I am grateful
  1346
  to him for allowing me a few minutes to add to his remarks and, indeed, to endorse some of his concerns. I thank the Minister for agreeing to my speaking, and I, too, congratulate him most warmly on his new appointment.
  As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, Caroline Dickinson was a constituent of mine. I have worked closely with her parents, John and Sue Dickinson, to see whether we could not only help the French authorities to bring the culprit to justice, but learn some lessons to help others who may have faced similar appalling tragedies.
  Caroline was a young student from Launceston college who went on a school trip to the hostel in Pleine Fougeres, where she was murdered. We still do not know who was responsible for that deed. The initial experience that I and her parents had—on both sides of the channel, but especially with the French authorities—was disastrously bad, but it has greatly improved in recent months. As a result of the activities of Baroness Symons, who took an active interest in this case—I took the parents, and other relatives who had been similarly bereaved, to see her—and of the previous Government, who similarly afforded us the opportunity to talk to them about some of the lessons to be learned, the attitude of the French authorities improved distinctly.
  Unfortunately and all too often, the slow progress of an inquiry requires the intervention of the British Government before it is approached with more dispatch and effectiveness. In the Dickinson case, the investigative team did not give proper attention to trying to bring the public in France into their confidence and it did not pursue the issue of DNA until it was persuaded to do so by my constituent, Mr. Dickinson. When the team took the opportunity to work with the British police, the investigation advanced dramatically.
  I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. When a tragedy occurs, it requires the proactive interest of the British Government at the outset. We should not wait for things to go wrong. That is proved by the fact that when the Government took an interest, there was an immediate improvement both in the flow of information to my constituents and in the urgency with which the investigation was pursued.
  Attitudes to investigation procedures differ on either side of the channel. In this country, the police like to take the public into their confidence at the outset. The police try to give as much information as possible to the public and to gain as much information as they can using the media. That is not the French experience and, perhaps, informal steps could be taken, without trying to preach to them, to try to improve that situation.
  I wish to emphasise that the key lesson of all the examples with which I have been acquainted is the necessity for a flow of information, whether it be to the coroner's court, the bereaved relatives or the Foreign Office. In many cases, the flow of information has been disastrously slow. When people have suffered such a tragedy, not knowing what is happening—and having no confidence in the process of law in a country just a few miles away across the channel—adds much to the tragic circumstances. I am grateful to the Foreign Office, under this Government and the previous Government, for seeking to assist. I just wish that we had been more effective earlier and, therefore, had achieved better results.
  8.13 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) for his kind words. On behalf of the Government, I acknowledge his thoughtfulness and generosity in withdrawing his application for a debate last Friday to allow hon. Members to attend the funeral of Derek Fatchett. That was a generous and honourable action. I also thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his observations.
  I shall begin by explaining the roles of the French and British authorities following the death of a British national in France. When a British national dies in France, the French authorities promptly inform the nearest British consulate. If death is by natural causes, a death certificate is issued by the doctor who certifies the death. If the cause of death is not clear, accidental or violent, the French courts may request a judicial inquiry. The court appoints an investigating magistrate who will order a police investigation, which may take several months to complete. Once that investigation begins, the next of kin, if they want details of it, are required under French law to apply formally to the investigating magistrate to become civil parties to the case. That may take up to a week, during which time the next of kin will be able to obtain only limited information. I recognise that in the immediate aftermath of a death, that could be distressing to a family who might perceive a lack of co-operation on the part of the French authorities. However, it is a French legal requirement, and our consular representatives are not able to circumvent it.
  A further problem may be that British families are used to seeing precise causes of death on British death certificates. In France, the precise cause of death is considered confidential and it does not appear on the certificate issued by the doctor. The certificate amounts to a statement that a death has been registered. Again, this may appear curious to British families and may cause concern when appropriate clarification is not immediately forthcoming.
  If the next of kin wish to repatriate the body to the United Kingdom, they must apply to the public prosecutor's office for a permit. The undertakers retained by the next of kin usually take responsibility for seeking that. Once the investigating magistrate is satisfied that forensic examination is complete, permission to transport and bury is granted. When all judicial processes are complete, the bereaved family has to apply to a court for copies of any police report.
  In accordance with section 8(1) of the Coroners Act 1988, coroners in England and Wales are obliged to hold an inquest into the death of anyone whose body is brought back from abroad for burial in their jurisdiction. The purpose of the inquest is to ascertain who the deceased was and how, when and where the deceased died. Neither the coroner nor the jury can express an opinion on any other matter.
  The requirement to hold such inquests was introduced following difficulties with the case of Helen Smith, who died in unnatural circumstances in Saudi Arabia. If the coroner is satisfied that the cause of death has been established by the French authorities, permission is granted for burial. In Scotland, this role falls to the Scottish Office.
  1348
  If the coroner is not satisfied that the cause of death has been sufficiently established or believes that further investigation is required to establish the cause of death, he may request copies of the French police report and further investigations by the French authorities. British coroners have no direct contact with the French authorities and they ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to pass on formal requests. Requests for further investigation may take longer for the French to process, as a court will have to consider them and decide how best to respond. This may involve the re-interviewing of witnesses, whom the court may need to trace.
  Our consulates in France monitor the progress of investigations and are prepared to press the French authorities for further action if necessary. In response to the first point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I undertake to look afresh at that point to ensure that proper action is taken if necessary.
  Our consulates cannot, of course, intervene in investigations, direct them or suggest avenues that might be explored. Once the French authorities conclude the further investigations that the British coroner has requested, the consulate obtains a copy of the French report and forwards it to Her Majesty's coroner's office.
  Notwithstanding the views that have been set out, I maintain that co-operation between the French and British authorities over the death of British nationals in France is very good. Requests from coroners offices are dealt with sympathetically by the French authorities. Our consulates in France do not usually experience problems with the French police—the gendarmerie—over notification of deaths of British nationals. We have to acknowledge that the French have an entirely different procedure to our own, and that what some may characterise as unacceptable delay is wholly consistent with French procedure and not a matter of poor co-operation.
  I listened carefully to the second and third points that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made. I do not accept that there is a systemic problem. We all share the need to deepen justice in interior matters, but the member states of the European Union have a choice—they can seek to harmonise procedures, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman would not want that; or, and this is the approach that the British Government would pursue, we must accept that each country's procedures are different and recognise them for what they are.
  Mr. Collins: 1 accept that there are different traditions, but I hope that the Minister will accept that for many families—certainly my constituents—an appearance is created, I hope unintentionally, of indifference and a casual attitude. Would it be possible for him to take up that matter with the French authorities, suggesting that they could introduce standard procedures saying that they have a different tradition and that they do not seek to create an appearance of indifference?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible suggestion. It would be for the French authorities to decide whether it was appropriate to take that course of action. However, I must emphasise that there is no suggestion that, throughout the range of cases with which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to deal, there is that sort of difficulty.
  I appreciate that the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for North Cornwall raised different cases in which there have been particular problems at

  1349
  particular times. I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall would accept that subsequently the investigation of that particular case has been pursued vigorously and that the French have taken appropriate and necessary action.
  The British Government have been keen to ensure that the deaths of British nationals in France are properly investigated. Perhaps it will assist if I say that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to Madame Guigou, the French Minister of Justice, on 4 August 1998. My noble Friend stressed the importance of bringing to justice the murderers of British nationals in France and asked the French authorities to spare no efforts in seeking culprits. On 30 November 1998, she met senior officials in Paris from the Ministry of the Interior to discuss the handling of deaths of British nationals and to press for vigorous investigations by the French authorities.
  On 11 March, the Home Secretary discussed the investigation of Caroline Dickinson's murder with Monsieur Chevènement, the French Minister of the Interior. I can assure the House that we have an active dialogue with the French to satisfy ourselves that thorough investigations into the murders of British nationals in France are carried out in accordance with appropriate French procedures.
  I believe that the relationship between the next of kin of the deceased and the French authorities is generally a good one. Our consulates will certainly do all that they can to help. However, I recognise that the aftermath of a sudden death is not the easiest situation for anyone to deal with. The language barrier and an unfamiliar foreign bureaucracy can provide obstacles to achieving immediate
  1350
  understanding and a good working relationship. The need to become civil parties to the investigation, as I mentioned, and the initial delay to which I referred earlier, can lead to misunderstandings.
  Our consulates in France, and indeed all over the world, help next of kin who find difficulty coping with language and cultural differences. They offer guidance on local legislation and customs, and act as intermediaries between the relevant authorities and the next of kin. Our consulates are in continuous dialogue with authorities worldwide to improve working relationships. There is no evidence of systematic discrimination against British nationals in distressing circumstances anywhere, and certainly not in France.
  I have the utmost sympathy for those who have experienced the trauma of close relatives dying overseas, especially when the death has been wholly unexpected and untimely. Having to grapple with a foreign legal system, a foreign language, and with unexpected bureaucratic requirements when distraught with grief can clearly overwhelm even the strongest. I can well understand the despair of abiding seemingly endless rounds of investigations and inquiries before grieving relatives are able to feel that justice has been done.
  I know that my French counterparts are as anxious as any of us to resolve speedily and effectively all crimes, especially those involving deaths. I will certainly ensure that a further examination is made of the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and I will report to him accordingly. We will continue to work with the French authorities to address each of those issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to establish a Committee of Privy Counsellors to inquire into the circumstances of British involvement in the conflict in Serbia. [83832]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) today, column 401.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Committee of Privy Councillors to review the way in which the responsibilities of the Government in relation to British policy towards Kosovo were discharged in the period leading up to the start of the NATO action on 24 March, taking account of all such factors in previous years as are relevant, and to report; and if he will make a statement. [84887]

  The Prime Minister
  I see no need.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a Cabinet Committee on the provision of cancer treatment in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [84235]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government is firmly committed to improving the provision of cancer treatment in the UK and has made it one of its highest priorities. All people, wherever they live, should have access to high quality cancer services. This was the aim of the Calman/Hine report "A Policy Framework for commissioning Cancer Services". However, when the Calman/Hine principles were adopted in 1995, no machinery to monitor progress was established. We are now rectifying that omission.

  We have established a National Cancer Forum with a remit of acting as the focus for maintaining the strategic oversight of the Calman/Hine cancer services implementation programme, and to advise Ministers on specialised issues related to cancer.

  Other UK countries are represented on the National Cancer Forum and have similar strategies and initiatives to improve cancer services, and Ministers take a keen interest in progress.

  In recognition of the importance of cancer to the Government's agenda, we are also holding a high level cancer seminar today at 10 Downing Street. Those attending will cover the spectrum from prevention, screening, treatment, research, voluntary organisations, patient perspective and NHS implementation. The purpose of the seminar is to review where the UK's
  402
  performance stands in comparison to other countries, to consider the action we have already taken and are taking, to improve performance and identify further action to be taken in pursuit of our objectives. Our intention is to look across the complete pathway of the disease, from research to hospice care and from prevention to the application of the latest treatments.

  I do not believe a Cabinet Committee would improve the Government's ability to address this important issue.

  European Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy to assist in the development of a single economy and a single political unity within the European Union. [84212]

  The Prime Minister
  No. As I said in my speech in Aachen last week, this Government has made huge strides in improving Britain's relations with Europe. We will engage with Europe to push forward on the economic reform agenda, making ourselves more competitive, developing a European defence capability and a co-ordinated approach to foreign policy issues. I believe we need to integrate when necessary and decentralise where possible.

  Bilderberg Group
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 7 May 1999,Official Report, columns 476–77, on the Bilderberg Group, what official (i) transport and (ii) funds have been used to facilitate attendance at Bilderberg meetings of members of his Government; which members have attended meetings; what reports they have made on the meetings; and what subsequent communication they have had with others attending on subjects discussed at the meetings. [84213]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, only one member of this Government—the Defence Secretary—has attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group. He provided a detailed account of his attendance in answers to the hon. Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 609, and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 434.

  MI6
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what methods are used to identify and recruit MI6 personnel; and if he will make a statement. [84630]

  The Prime Minister
  The Secret Intelligence Service recruits a wide range of staff, including specialists, graduates and school leavers. Before an offer of appointment is confirmed, candidates are vetted to the highest level of security clearance, known as Developed Vetting. The Service adopts, as far as is practicable, the civil service code of practice on recruitment, to ensure that the procedures used are as open and as fair as possible. Recruitment policies are kept under constant review and a number of improvements have been made over the past three years to ensure that they remain effective and that a wide range of candidates is able to apply.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civilians have been killed as a result of the use of(a) British and (b) NATO weapons in operation Allied Force against Yugoslavia. [84644]

  The Prime Minister
  As I said in the House last week, we do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties and minimise damage to civilian property. The cases of injury and death among civilians which have nevertheless occurred by accident have been acknowledged by NATO and are deeply regretted; they are a regrettable consequence of having to use force to stop the violence which Milosevic has unleashed against the people of Kosovo. They stand in contrast to the deliberate murders and brutalities of the Milosevic regime. Verification of civilian casualties is not possible as access to sites is controlled by the Milosevic regime. Alleged evidence of fatalities claimed to arise from allied action should therefore always be treated with great caution.

  War Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 May 1999,Official Report, column 315, if he will make a statement on the progress of his review into the way in which war widows pensions relate to housing benefit. [84665]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The mandatory disregards for War Disablement and War Widows' Pensions that already exist in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit recognise the special nature of these pensions, and ensure that the pensioners receive preferential treatment. For example, a war pensioner can have between £10 and £181 a week of his pension disregarded on a statutory basis.

  We will keep this under review, but further extending existing disregards is not a main priority: A full disregard of War Disablement and War Widows' Pension in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit would cost in the region of an additional £70 million a year.

  Rural Representation
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 May 1999,Official Report, column 318, what was the basis for his statement relating to rural representation in the House. [84666]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The Boundary Commission defines as county constituencies those that are "primarily rural". 170 county constituencies are held by Labour, compared with 135 by the Conservatives and 32 by the Liberal Democrats.

  Cabinet Meetings
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what basis Cabinet meetings are held in his absence. [84768]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her in the House on Wednesday 19 May 1999,Official Report, column 1060.

  Secretary of State for Wales
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to announce his decision on the separation of the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary. [84796]

  The Prime Minister
  The functions of the Secretary of State for Wales which will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July are listed in the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999. The functions of the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales include those which are conferred by the Government of Wales Act 1998 and related legislation, but are otherwise a matter for the Assembly.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the Government's response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's report on Sierra Leone. [85205]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government has carefully considered the findings in the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report on the intelligence aspects of the counter-coup in Sierra Leone. The Government's response to the report is being published today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Activities
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when, where and by what means(a) Judge William Doyle, (b) Mr. Edgar Graham, (c) Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, (d) Resident Magistrate W. Staunton and (e) Resident Magistrate Martin McBirney were murdered; which terrorist organisation was responsible; how many persons have been brought before the courts for that crime; and what sentences were imposed. [81166]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]: The information requested is as follows:

  Judge William Doyle: At approximately 12.55 pm on 16 January 1983, Judge Doyle was shot in Derryvolgie Avenue, Belfast, having just left Mass at St. Brigid's Church. An elderly lady passenger in the vehicle was seriously injured. The murder was claimed by the Irish Republican Army. to date no person has been made amenable.

  Mr. Edgar Graham: At approximately 10.50 am on 7 December 1983, at University Square, Belfast, Mr. Graham was shot dead. The murder was claimed by the Irish Republican Army.

  RUC investigations resulted in one person being convicted of making property available and withholding information and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment suspended for 3 years. Another person, convicted of withholding information, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

  A number of other persons were arrested and interviewed in relation to this murder but released without charge.

  Lord Justice Sir Maurice Gibson and Lady Cecily Gibson: At approximately 8.40 am on 25 April 1987, an explosion occurred on the Dublin Road at Killeen, Newry. Lord Justice Gibson and his wife were fatally injured. They had been returning home from a short holiday in England and had travelled overnight on the car ferry from Liverpool to Dublin. Explosives had been placed in a vehicle parked at the roadside and were detonated as the Gibson's

  405
  car passed. The murders have been attributed to the Irish Republican Army but despite extensive inquiries no one to date has been made amenable.

  William John Staunton RM: At approximately 8.50 am on 11 October 1972, Mr. Staunton stopped his car outside St. Dominic's Convent Grammar School, Falls Road, Belfast. As his daughter and some school friends alighted from the vehicle to enter the school, a motor cycle drew up alongside and the pillion passenger shot Mr. Staunton. He was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery. He never regained consciousness and died at 9.55 pm on Thursday 25 January 1973.

  The murder was attributed to the Irish Republican Army. Two persons were arrested, interviewed and released without charge. To date no one has been made amenable.

  Robert Martin McBirney QC, RM: At approximately 8.20 am on 16 September 1974, Mr. McBirney was shot in his home at 172 Belmont Road, Belfast. A man was seen to get out of a car and walk to the rear of the McBirney home. The man was then observed leaving and getting back into the car which had two other occupants. The car was located some 500 yards from the scene of the murder. Its occupants were seen to drive off in another vehicle. The car used to convey the gunmen to and from the scene had been hi-jacked on the morning of the murder. It was attributed to the Irish Republican Army.

  Police investigations linked one person to the murder who was also identified as being the gunman. He was subsequently charged and convicted of murder and received a life sentence.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when, where and by what means Resident Magistrate Mr. Tom Travers and his wife were injured and their daughter murdered; which terrorist organisation was responsible; how many persons have been brought before the courts for that crime; and what sentences were imposed. [81167]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]: At approximately 1 pm on 8 April 1984, Mr. Thomas Travers RM, his wife and their daughter Mary were walking to their home having just attended Mass at St. Brigid's Church in Derryvolgie Avenue when they were attacked by two gunmen. As a result Mary Travers was fatally wounded and Thomas Travers was seriously wounded. Mrs. Travers escaped injury. The attack was attributed to the Irish Republican Army.

  Shortly after the incident police arrested a young woman in the Wellington Park area of the city. She was found to have two handguns in her possession. Both guns were later linked to the attack on the Travers family. She was subsequently convicted of the murder of Mary Travers and the attempted murder of Thomas Travers and received a life sentence.

  A second person was arrested some seven weeks later and was identified by Mr. Travers as being one of the gunmen. However, he was acquitted of all charges.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when, where, and by what means Judge Rory Conaghan was murdered; which terrorist organisation was responsible; how many persons have been brought before the courts for that crime; and what sentences were imposed. [81245]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]: At approximately 8.30 am on 16 September 1974, a person, posing as a postman, rang the doorbell of Judge Conaghan's home at 17 Beechlands, Malone Road, Belfast. The door was answered by Judge Conaghan. He was shot and fatally wounded. The gunman made off and
  406
  was seen to get into a car which was driven by another person. The car was later abandoned in Windsor Avenue, Belfast. Witnesses observed that two males and a girl were seen to leave the car. The vehicle had been taken from its owner in the Dermott Hill Road, Belfast earlier that day by a person claiming to be from the Irish Republican Army.

  To date, no one has been made amenable for Judge Conaghan's murder.

  Belfast Brook Pregnancy Advisory Clinic
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the amount of Government grants given to the Belfast Brook Pregnancy Advisory Clinic for each year since 1990(a) directly and (b) through health boards and trusts. [84409]

  Mr. McFall
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Directly: nil

  (b) Through boards and trusts:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  0

  1991–92

  30,000

  1992–93

  31,500

  1993–94

  31,500

  1994–95

  45,172

  1995–96

  49,847

  1996–97

  67,468

  1997–98

  72,340

  1998–99

  69,096

  Sports Funding
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public funding has been given to(a) the Irish Rugby Football Union, (b) the Irish Football Association, (c) the Northern Ireland Cricket Association and (d) the Irish Hockey Union in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [84323]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for funding sports organisations rests with the Sports Council of Northern Ireland, who have advised me that the total amount of public funding from normal funding and the Lottery for the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU), the Irish Football Association (IFA), the Northern Ireland Cricket Association (NICA) and the Irish Hockey Union (IHU) is as follows:

  £

  IRFU

  IFA

  NICA

  IHU

  1998–99

  10,073.85

  53,548.67

  41,384.02

  36,671.13

  1997–98

  23,544.45

  47,719.56

  25,866.20

  19,177.42

  1996–97

  5,829.75

  60,115.03

  24,799.46

  31,623.09

  1995–96

  3,631.35

  140,856.03

  24,357.75

  47,829.14

  1994–95

  6,973.70

  15,148.44

  23,865.75

  31,730.94

  1Includes a special capital grant of £3,811.38 from Department of Education

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the text of the(a) non-statutory assurances of confidentiality and

  407
  (b) 100-year extended closure given by the Registrar General on the householders' forms for the 20th century censuses of population for Northern Ireland. [84491]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The assurances on confidentiality listed on household forms for the 20th century censuses of population for Northern Ireland are as follows:

  1928 and 1937:

  All particulars given in the Return will be regarded as strictly confidential and will be issued only to prepare general census summaries.

  1951:

  All particulars given in this Return will be regarded as strictly confidential.

  1961:

  The contents of this Return are strictly confidential.

  1971:

  The information you give on the form will be treated as "Confidential" and used only for compiling statistics. No information about named individuals will be passed by the Census Office to any other Government Department or any other Authority or person.

  1981:

  The information which you give on the form will be treated as "Strictly Confidential" and will be used only for compiling statistics. No names and addresses will be fed into the computer and no information about named individuals will be passed by the Census Office to any other Government Department or to any other Authority or person.

  1991:

  Your answers will be treated in strict confidence and used only to produce statistics. No names and addresses will he put into the computer; only the postcode will be entered. The forms will be kept securely and treated as confidential. No information about named individuals will be passed by the Census Office to any other Government Department or to any other authority or person.

  Note:

  The Censuses of 1901 and 1911 were taken on an all Ireland basis. The original census records are held in Dublin.

  The Census Act (Northern Ireland, 1969 requires that information obtained from Northern Ireland censuses is to be used for census purposes only and that census records are to be kept closed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to section 123 of the White Paper on the 2001 Census, when she plans to bring forward proposals for an end to the permanent closure to public inspection of Northern Ireland census returns. [84499]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Census White Paper (cm 4253) indicated that consideration would be given to availing of a suitable legislative opportunity to introduce to Northern Ireland similar provisions to those in Great Britain on the closure of historic census records. To date, no suitable opportunity has arisen, but the position is kept under continuous review.

  Carryduff Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to grant Carryduff Primary School integrated status; and if she will make a statement. [84570]

  Mr. McFall
  The Department of Education is aware of local interest in the establishment of an integrated primary school in the Carryduff area, but I understand that 408
  developments are at a very early stage. The transformation of Carryduff Primary School to controlled integrated status is a matter for the school's Board of Governors and the South Eastern Education and Library Board to consider in the first instance. If the school decides to seek integrated status this would involve a ballot of parents and the publication of a statutory development proposal by the Education and Library Board.

  Military Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she intends to lay before Parliament Mr. Jim McDonald's annual report as Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. [85206]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Mr. McDonald's report is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library.

  I note that Mr. McDonald has said that the complaints procedures are given proper attention by the Army and are being operated fairly, I note also that there has been a marked decrease in the overall number of complaints received.

  The Report provides valuable reassurances to Government and the public that the Army's complaints procedures stand scrutiny.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Prison Service intends to publish its 1999–2002 Corporate and Business Plan; and what performance targets have been set for 1999–2000. [85207]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service's Corporate and Business Plan for 1999–2002 was published today. The following key performance targets have been set for 1999–2000:

  1. To ensure 100 per cent. security for prisoners in high and top risk categories.

  2. To ensure at least 99.5 per cent. security for prisoners in medium and low risk categories.

  3. To ensure that the number of significant breaches of order and control does not exceed 7.1 per 100 prisoners.

  4. To introduce a system of booked visits to a prison establishment by march 2000.

  5. To increase the target number of hours of constructive activity undertaken each week by prisoners by 3 per cent. from 22.85 hours to 23.5 hours.

  6. To offer sentence planning to all eligible prisoners and to achieve a 50 per cent. uptake.

  7. To achieve an average of 5 days training and development per member of staff.

  8. To ensure that the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed £83,4261

  1This figure is higher than in 1998–99, as the number of staffed prisoner places has reduced to 1,597 as a result of the closure of 2 Blocks at the Maze. The number may alter again during 1999–2000 in the light of developments. The target net operating costs for 1999–2000 are 3.4 per cent. lower in real terms than the target net operating costs for 1998-99, excluding the exceptional redundancy costs in both years.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Death Penalty (Commonwealth Countries)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 467, on the death penalty in Commonwealth countries for how long each of the appeals and applications for appeal in Trinidad and Tobago have been outstanding; and when each person was sentenced to death. [84683]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The seven appeals from Trinidad and Tobago referred to in my answer of 19 April were registered in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the following dates:

  P.C. Appeal number

  Registration date

  (1) 29 of 1998

  11 May 1998

  (2) 32 of 1998

  12 May 1998

  (3) 40 of 1998

  28 May 1998

  (4) 63 of 1998

  30 September 1998

  (5) 73 of 1998

  12 November 1998

  (6) 75 of 1998

  10 December 1998

  (7)4 of 1999

  12 February 1999

  The first three listed have since been heard and judgment is awaited.

  The 10 petitions for leave to appeal referred to in the answer of 19 April were lodged with the Judicial Committee Registry on the following dates:

  Petitions

  1

  15 July 1997

  2

  8 October 1997

  3

  19 February 1998

  4

  3 June 1998

  5

  16 February 1999

  6

  8 March 1999

  7

  8 March 1999

  8

  25 March 1999

  9

  30 March 1999

  10

  31 March 1999

  Five of these petitions have now been heard. Two have been granted, two have been dismissed and one has been adjourned to await the determination of another case. The sentence of death in each of the above appeals and petitions was passed on various dates between 12 February 1996 and 29 May 1998.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ICL Pathway Project
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices remain to be computerised under the ICL Pathway Project. [84253]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]: At the end of March 1999, the Post Office network comprised 18,775 offices. To date, 204 offices have been automated under the ICL Pathway Project.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions trends in harassment and nuisance arising from the misuse of fireworks; and if he will make an assessment of the risks to consumer safety arising from such misuse. [84691]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has no responsibility for the harassment and nuisance issues arising from fireworks.

  Firework incidents that occur in the street during the November firework season and require treatment by A&E departments are recorded in the DTI's census of firework injuries, which is conducted over a four-week period covering the run-up to 5 November and a few days afterwards. The summary report of firework injuries treated during the 1998 firework season—a copy of which is in the Library of the House—shows that there was a 12 per cent. drop, from 256 in 1997 to 226 in 1998. in hooligan-related injuries.

  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, among other things, introduced controls on the supply of certain fireworks, including some types that are most often misused. These controls, together with a targeted safety campaign, played a significant part in reducing the number of firework injuries and incidents of misuse during the last firework season.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are in place to ensure that imported fireworks placed on the market in the United Kingdom have received authorisation and categorisation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. [84692]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is a requirement in law that any commercial explosive, including fireworks be classified by the Health and Safety Executive before it is imported into the UK. It is also a requirement under section 40(9) of the Explosives Act 1875 for explosives to be authorised. The conditions for authorisation have been published by the HSE. In the case of fireworks, authorisation is conditional on compliance with the requirements of British Standard 7114:1988. This is also a requirement under the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 which are enforced by Local Authority Trading Standards officers.

  If satisfied with an application for classification, the HSE issues a Competent Authority Document assigning the fireworks to an appropriate Hazard Classification and United Nations Serial Number. The details of each classified firework are held on a database and published as a list from time to time. The Competent Authority Document also acts to authorise the fireworks but this is subject to the fireworks meeting the relevant conditions for authorisation. Any firework not meeting these conditions would be considered not to be Authorised.

  The HSE has enforcement powers under the applicable classification regulations and will take appropriate action where unclassified or unauthorised fireworks are found in the UK. Checks for compliance are made as part of the normal duties of the explosives inspectorate such as

  411
  inspection of explosives factories and magazines, checks of transport activity, liaison and support to local authorities and investigation of incidents and complaints.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the likely trends in the use of fireworks at the time of the millennium celebrations; and what plans he has to promote consumer safety associated with that use. [84690]

  Dr. Howells
  It is expected that fireworks will feature in Millennium celebrations, but it is not possible to predict patterns of use. DTI officials are currently working on a publicity strategy to address firework safety issues for the 1999 firework season and the Millennium celebrations. Discussions are also taking place with the fireworks industry about the period when fireworks should be sold and other safety issues associated with the use of fireworks over the Millennium.

  Utilities (Regulations)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers his Department retains to ensure that the plans of the utilities it regulates for asset replacement are consistent with(a) safety and (b) the national interest. [84766]

  Mr. Battle
  The Director-General of Electricity Supply and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State have duties under the Electricity Act to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or supply of electricity. The Director-General of Gas Supply and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have duties under the Gas Act to protect the public from dangers arising from the conveyance of gas through pipes or the use of such gas. Regulations made under these Acts, including the Electricity Supply Regulations, make further provision for these matters.

  The Department has no specific powers to regulate the plans of gas, electricity or telecommunications companies for asset replacement. Various aspects of the statutory or regulatory framework within which these industries operate may, however, constrain these plans. In general, the regulatory requirements focus on the outcomes which must be achieved; it is for the companies themselves to consider any implications for their asset replacement policies and act accordingly.

  The Gas, Electricity and Telecommunications Acts, other relevant legislation and licence conditions also provide appropriate protection for certain relevant matters for national interest reasons, in particular security of supply and maintenance of supplies or communications in emergencies.

  Mines Legislation
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation on the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts 1966 and 1974. [85231]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have concluded that no amendments to the legislation are required at present, although we shall monitor the application of these Acts to the individual minerals industries to determine whether any amendments might be desirable in the future.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the nations which have(a) agreed and (b) declined to participate in the nation a day theme in the Millennium Dome. [81751]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has invited countries from around the world to put forward their proposals for World Stage 2000. This will provide an opportunity for international participation in the Millennium Experience. A number of positive preliminary inquiries have been received and are the subject of discussion with NMEC. Firm proposals are expected in the next few weeks.

  Gwrych Castle
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Wales about the condition of Gwrych Castle; and if he will make a statement. [84736]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 19 May 1999]: None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for built heritage matters in Wales. This is a matter for which National Assembly of Wales will be responsible after devolution.

SCOTLAND

  East Lothian Local Plan
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the(a) duration and (b) cost of the inquiry into objections to the East Lothian Local Plan; if he will compensate East Lothian Council for the costs of the inquiry; and if he will make it his policy to require objectors with financial interests in proposed developments to contribute to the costs of inquiries. [84088]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The duration of the East Lothian Local Plan Inquiry is estimated to be 17 weeks, with less than 2 weeks to run.

  It is long established practice for parties to local inquiries to meet their own costs, except where unreasonable behaviour by another party justifies an award of expenses. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has no plans to compensate the Council for their costs.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were waiting in each of the queues for settlement entry clearance at each of the British posts in the Asian subcontinent at the latest available date. [84655]
  413
  Mr. Hoon
  The statistics requested are as follows. Figures are for the end of April 1999.

  Post

  Applicants

  Q11

  Q22

  Q33

  Q44

  Bombay

  633

  0

  427

  110

  96

  Calcutta

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Colombo

  56

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dhaka

  1,039

  31

  687

  14

  307

  Islamabad

  4,171

  93

  3,651

  258

  169

  Karachi

  114

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Madras

  30

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  New Delhi

  709

  6

  467

  199

  37

  1Right of Abode claimants; dependent relatives over 65; special compassionate cases.

  2 Spouses, children under 18.

  3 Fiance(e)s, other settlement categories.

  4Re-applicants.

  Note:

  Calcutta, Colombo, Karachi and Madras do not operate separate queues.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the income from entry clearance fees in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1995–96 at (i) each British post in the Asian subcontinent, (ii) Lagos, (iii) Abuja, (iv) Accra, (v) Manila, (vi) Moscow and (vii) Bogota; and what is the estimatedentry clearance fee income at each of those posts for (1) 1998–99 and (2) 1999–2000. [84662]

  Mr. Hoon
  Income for the entry clearance posts in question for the three years since 1996–97 is as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Abuja

  301,397

  382,986

  497,693

  Accra

  831,432

  877,599

  1,101,338

  Bogota

  50,588

  763,799

  862,794

  Bombay

  2,644,376

  3,128,548

  3,330,583

  Calcutta

  380,253

  412,918

  412,869

  Dhaka

  1,459,555

  1,657,039

  1,606,508

  Islamabad

  2,635,300

  3,483,264

  4,317,212

  Karachi

  1,155,776

  1,266,296

  1,406,598

  Lagos

  2,108,116

  1,816,027

  2,071,149

  Madras

  765,364

  954,617

  1,091,499

  Manila

  916,781

  920,567

  882,930

  Moscow

  2,624,607

  3,261,819

  2,650,806

  New Delhi

  2,366,637

  2,838,608

  3,022,050

  Details of income from entry clearance fees for the financial year 1995–96 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Based on previous trends, we would expect to see an increase in worldwide demand for visas in 1999–2000 of around 3 per cent. We are currently forecasting an increase in global income of about 2.6 per cent. for that year to £67.9 million. Because of the differences in application profiles we do not make estimate of income for individual posts.

  UN Special Rapporteur (Human Rights and States of Emergency)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the most recent communications he has(a) sent to and (b) received from the UN special rapporteur with responsibility for human rights and states of emergency. [84781]
  414
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There is no record of any communication either to or from the UN Special Rapporteur with responsibility for human rights and states of emergency since this Government came to power in May 1997.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Treaty of Amsterdam to come into force. [82714]

  Ms Quin
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 April 1999, c. 180]: An administrative error led to a mistake in my earlier answer to the hon. Member of 28 April. The correct answer is as follows.

  The process of ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam was completed on 30 March, when France deposited its instruments of ratification with the Italian Government.

  The Treaty entered into force on 1 May 1999, in accordance with Article 14(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of grammar schools have attained beacon school status. [84869]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Five grammar schools (3 per cent.) have now been awarded Beacon school status.

  Catering Job Vacancies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's estimate of current vacancies in the catering sector in(a) the North West of England and (b) Sefton. [84416]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Office for National Statistics publishes a seasonally unadjusted quarterly count of vacancies notified to Employment Service Jobcentres broken down by 1992 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC92) category—it combines catering and hotels.

  (a) Focusing on Jobcentres in the North West Government Office Region:

  in the 12 months ending April 1999, there were around 40,600 notified vacancies in the hotel and catering industry—representing approximately 15 per cent. of notified vacancies.

  in April 1999, there were around 4,400 unfilled vacancies in the hotels and catering industry.

  (b) Focusing on Jobcentres in the Sefton metropolitan district:

  in the 12 months ending April 1999, there were around 1,900 notified vacancies in the hotel and catering industry—representing approximately 14 per cent. of notified vacancies.

  in April 1999, there were around 200 unfilled vacancies in the hotels and catering industry.

  Not all vacancies are, however, notified to Employment Service Jobcentres.

  Class Sizes (Isle of Wight)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for schools in the Isle of Wight Local Education Authority the change in the average size of classes, taught by one teacher, between January 1998 and January 1999 for pupils in(a) nursery classes, (b) Key Stage Two and (c) secondary schools. [84718]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on class sizes for individual schools is not published centrally. The available information for Isle of Wight Local Education Authority area is shown in the table.

  The Government have pledged to reduce infant class sizes to 30 or below by September 2001 at the latest, and we are on course to meet that pledge.

  Average class size of one teacher classes, Isle of Wight local education authority area

  January each year

  1998

  1999

  Nursery classes

  36.7

  27.0

  Key Stage One

  25.7

  23.8

  Key Stage Two

  27.6

  28.3

  Overall Primary

  26.5

  25.6

  Secondary

  22.4

  22.4

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Fuel Duty Escalator
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 299, what methodology will be used to assess the impact of the fuel duty escalator on transport emissions and when an accurate assessment of impact will be prepared. [81619]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We draw on a number of forecasting techniques to estimate the impact of the fuel duty escalator on emissions. These techniques principally focus on the long-term, since the fuel duty escalator is a long-term policy. Our forecasting methods are kept under review, and adjustments are made as and when improved techniques or new data become available.

  To some degree all these methods rely on statistical analysis of historic data, and we suspect that we will need a number of further years' traffic and emissions data before we can make a definitive short-term assessment of the impact of fuel duty increases since 1996. Even then, such an assessment will remain reliant on forecasts of what would have happened had the increases not been implemented, and will not pick up the full effects of the policy which will only become apparent over the longer term. Work in this area continues, and we will make available short-term estimates to complement the longterm estimates we have already published, once these can be provided with an acceptable degree of reliability.

  National Land Use Database
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the National Land Use Data Base. [84365]
  416
  Mr. Caborn
  I am today publishing the first results of the National Land Use Database (NLUD). This shows that there are around 33,000 hectares of previously developed vacant and derelict land in England of which about a third could be recycled for housing. Another 23,000 hectares are currently in productive use but are planned or expected to become available for redevelopment. Together, this is capable of accommodating more than 710,000 dwellings.

  The Government's target is that 60 per cent. of additional homes should be built on previously developed land or should utilise existing buildings. We have always said that this target is tough but achievable. Latest figures show that we had reached 56 per cent. by 1996.

  The results of NLUD are a snap-shot in time and provide only part of the information about the position in reaching the target. The stock of land and buildings available for recycling is continually being added to, as well as being developed for housing and other purposes, and these changes have to be fully taken into account. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has therefore asked the Urban Task Force to review the future availability of recycled land and buildings, taking account of the NLUD data. The Task Force expects to present its report at the end of next month.

  Everybody has to have the opportunity of a decent home in which to live. New houses have to be built but in a sustainable way which helps put new life into our towns and cities, makes best use of land and does not squander the precious resource of our English countryside. Policies to achieve these objectives were set out in our revised Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing, which was issued for consultation at the end of March.

  Today's publication represents the first step towards a comprehensive National Land Use Database which my Department is developing in partnership with local government, English Partnerships and Ordnance Survey.

  The statistical bulletin released today gives national and regional results for different types of land, with information about planned uses and assessments of suitability for housing. Some results are also being made available for individual local planning authorities.

  This information will be valuable to all those concerned with planning and urban regeneration, including the regional planning conferences—who will be setting regional targets for the re-use of previously developed land for new housing, English Partnerships—who are doing further work on key sites, and the Regional Development Agencies and local authorities who have a key role in supporting the development of previously used sites.

  I want to thank local authorities for their splendid efforts in helping us assembly the new database. The data will be useful to them as well as us in seeking to make the very best use of recycled land. The intention now is to build on this work by working with them to develop a system to keep the information up to date, and to expand the scope of the database to encompass all land uses.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases
  417
  of nuisance caused by misuse of fireworks were reported to environmental service departments between January 1998 and January 1999. [84695]

  Mr. Meale
  Information on the number of cases reported to environmental service departments is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for authorisation and categorisation of fireworks to be imported to the United Kingdom there have been in each year since 1996; how many were(a) approved and (b) denied; and what were the categories involved in each case. [84696]

  Mr. Meale
  The applications received by the HSE for the classification and authorisation of fireworks since 1996 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Applications

  1996

  13

  1997

  54

  1998

  42

  1999

  14

  No applications were refused. The fireworks covered by these applications were in any of the four British Standards categories.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution which switching wherever practical to(a) energy-efficient light bulbs and (b) semiconductor (gallium nitride) illumination in traffic lights, would make toward meeting the UK' s obligations under the Kyoto Accord. [84549]

  Mr. Meale
  We have made no overall assessment of potential energy savings from improved traffic lights but we are aware of the developing technology in this area which could yield savings in the longer term. In particular, my Department participates in an International Energy Agency technology procurement agreement which includes a project to bring forward semi-conductor (Light Emitting Diode) traffic light technology. The first UK site trial was started last summer. Savings in both energy and replacement costs of as much as 60 per cent. are predicted but no firm figures are yet available. The trial was actively encouraged by the Highways Agency who formed a partnership, to promote this technology, with Bristol City Council and the manufacturer.

  Since then the traffic light developed from that trial has been approved against the national specification. Several local authorities have already installed the new signals. There is at present only the one company involved but the recent approval is encouraging several others, who are now actively engaged in the approval process.

  Airport Capacity
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on runway capacity at airports in the South of England; and if he will make a statement. [84561]
  418
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We receive a steady flow of correspondence from various organisations and members of the public, directly or indirectly relating to runway capacity at airports in the South of England. In its Eighth Report on Regional Air Services, published on 27 July 1998, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, stated that"The Government must address the question of capacity in the South-East as a matter of urgency".

  On 11 March 1999, Official Report, columns 360–61, we announced our decision to set in hand a study of airports issues in the South-East of England and the East of England. This study will consider future policies for these airports within the framework of the Government's sustainable development principles. The study will examine a wide range of options and, in accordance with the new approach to appraisal set out in the New Deal for Transport White Paper, will appraise their economic, environmental and social implications. The study will consider both terminal and runway capacity. Following completion of the study, there will be public consultation on options arising from this work. The results of the airport studies will be incorporated in a White Paper on UK airports policy looking some 30 years ahead. The White Paper will also reflect the Government's decisions in response to the Inspector's report on the Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry.

  Roads (Aggregates)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the aggregates and other material from redundant roads is recycled and used in new roads. [84686]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no comprehensive statistical source from which this percentage can be calculated. A 1995–96 OECD Survey on recycling of road by-products reported in "Recycling Strategies for Road Works" (OECD 1997) found that in the UK 90 per cent. of reclaimed asphalt and 75 per cent. of concrete derived from old road pavements were recycled, but not necessarily for use in roads.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress towards introducing a national concessionary travel scheme for pensioners. [84860]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We will bring forward legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits to provide for the minimum half-fare scheme for pensioners which we have already proposed. It is open to individual local authorities to introduce such a scheme on their own initiative, before legislation is introduced, for example if at present they provide a less generous scheme, or no scheme at all.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations of new landfill sites currently under planning consideration to receive household and organic waste. [84431]
  419
  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning applications for landfill sites to receive household and organic waste are normally dealt with by the local planning authority. The Secretary of State will become aware of such an application only if it is referred to him as a departure from the development plan, if he has called it in for his own determination, or is considering doing so, or if it is subject to an appeal. There are, at present, 12 landfill proposals which fall within the above categories. These are:

  1. Brogborough Tip, Brogborough, Bedfordshire;

  2. Bell House Landfill Site, Colchester, Essex;

  3. Alton Road Site, Waverley, Surrey;

  4. Lamberhurst Farm Site, Lamberhurst, Kent;

  5. Tiptree Farm, Sittingbourne, Kent;

  6. High Lane Void, Silverdale, Staffordshire;

  7. Hadley Quarry, Ketley, Shropshire;

  8. Buck Park Quarry, Bradford;

  9. Thurcroft Site, Thurcroft, Rotherham;

  10. Houghton Quarry, Houghton-le-Spring, Sunderland;

  11. Broadoak Site, Hamsterley, Northumberland;

  12. Round "O" Quarry, Skelmersdale.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list by local authority the local targets and current achievement for recycling of household waste; [84432]

  (2) if he will list those local authorities which run waste plastic collection and recycling schemes. [84514]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department does not require local authorities to set targets for recycling. Data from the municipal waste survey for the year 1997–98 are currently being validated against previous years' data. I hope to be able to let my hon. Friend have a full reply to his question on Friday 4 June.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures are in place for monitoring the accuracy of local authorities' waste recycling figures. [84433]

  Mr. Meale
  Data for each local authority collected from the Department's annual municipal waste survey are compared with previous years' figures, and with data from other comparable authorities.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to encourage the recycling of plastics. [84434]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have established a Market Development Group to consider the measures that could be taken to enhance the markets for recycled materials, including plastics, and to develop proposals to help overcome any barriers. The Group is considering a range of measures to improve stability and demand in the markets for recyclate, including the development of new markets and the use of economic instruments. The report of the Group will be published for consultation at the same time as the draft waste strategy.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much plastic waste has been imported into the UK each year since 1994. [84435]
  420
  Mr. Meale
  Plastic wastes are usually regarded as non-hazardous waste under Council Regulation (EEC) No.259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. Imports of such waste for recovery is subject to commercial controls only, and information is not therefore collated by the competent authorities. Nor is the information available on the imports/exports database held by the Department of Trade and Industry, since the entry that covers plastic "waste" also includes a large number of substances which are not waste.

  Whilst the Council Regulation requires imports of non-hazardous waste for disposal, and of hazardous wastes for disposal and recovery, to be notified to the competent authorities, information available to the competent authorities indicate that there have been no notified imports of plastic waste over this period.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the percentages of(a) metals other than aluminium, (b) aluminium, (c) paper, (d) plastics, (e) glass and (f) organic materials recycled in the last year for which figures are available. [84528]

  Mr. Meale
  The most recent data on recycling rates supplied to the Department for each of the following materials are as follows:

  Material

  Estimated recycling rate1 Percentage

  Date of estimate

  Copper

  37

  1997

  Lead

  68

  1997

  Zinc

  19

  1997

  Aluminium scrap

  44

  1996

  Ferrous scrap

  45

  1997

  Paper

  38

  1997

  Glass

  26

  1996

  1Material re-used as a percentage of consumption

  With regard to plastics and organic waste, we do not collect data on the amount recycled.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what legislation regulates the siting of television and mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [84871]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) grants a general planning permission for telecommunications masts, including those used for television broadcasting and those for mobile communications, providing

  the mast is erected by a telecommunications code system operator licensed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Telecommunications Act 1984;

  the mast does not exceed 15 metres in height;

  the mast is not erected in a National Park, area of outstanding natural beauty, conservation area, or the Broads; and

  the mast is not refused prior approval by the local planning authority within the period allowed under the Order. The authority must be given the opportunity to say whether they wish to
  421
  approve, within 28 days, details of the mast's siting and appearance. The authority may refuse approval if they consider there to be a serious threat to amenity.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning indicated in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis), on 16 November 1998, Official Report, columns 343–44, our intention to make a number of changes to the GPDO in respect of telecommunications development. We anticipate that these changes will be made shortly. A full application for planning permission is normally required for any mast which does not enjoy the general planning permission granted under permitted development rights.

HEALTH

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when funding for beta interferon will be available in all health districts. [81742]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 13 May 1999,Official Report, column 202.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of prescription charges to the NHS in the year 1998. [83334]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1997–98 the cost of dispensed prescriptions written by general practitioners in England was £4,085 million. A further £768 million was paid to dispensing contractors in respect of their prescriptions.

  Aricept
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ethical guidelines are given to Government-supported medical researchers into the Alzheimer's drug Aricept about administering placebos to patients who could benefit from the drug. [84261]

  Mr. Hutton
  All research involving patients and supported by the Department, the National Health Service or the Medical Research Council is required to obtain ethical approval from the appropriate research ethics committee(s). Scientific review mechanisms also consider ethical aspects of research, including the appropriateness of randomisation and other study designs, and the use of placebos.

  Guidance on research ethics is provided in the Department's Guidance for Local Research Ethics Committees and for Mulitcentre Research Ethics Committees, in conjunction with: the Royal College of Physicians' "Guidelines on the Practice of Ethics Committees in Medical Research involving Human Subjects"; and the Medical Research Council's "Guidelines for Good Practice in Clinical Trials". Copies of these will be placed in the Library.

  The AD2000 trial of Aricept is being supported through the NHS research and development programme. The protocol allows for patients to be randomly assigned to Aricept or a placebo when there is uncertainty (on
  422
  the basis of the known effects of Aricept and the characteristics of the patient), as to whether or not Aricept would offer the patient any overall benefit. The trial has been approved by the Regional Multi-Centre Research Ethics committee and the Local Research Ethics Committee for each particular centre at which the trial is being conducted.

  Oncologists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many oncologists are employed per head of population in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each EU country, (c) Canada, (d) the USA and (e) Japan; and if he will make a statement. [84238]

  Mr. Denham
  The whole-time equivalent number of Medical Oncology staff per head of 100,000 population in England is 0.441.

  The whole-time equivalent number of Clinical Oncology staff (Radiotherapists) per head of 100,000 population in England is 1.151.

  Numbers for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Numbers for European Union countries, Canada, the United States of America and Japan are not available centrally.

  1 Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce census at 30 September 1997. Office for National Statistics—Mid 1997 population estimates for England.

  PFI (Hospitals)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date the NHS Capital Prioritisation Group completed its assessment of the hospital development schemes currently seeking prioritisation for PFI funding; [84273]

  (2) for what reasons the announcements of the schemes to be implemented following the assessment by the NHS Capital Prioritisation Group of the proposals submitted has not yet been made; [84272]

  (3) on what date the NHS Capital Prioritisation Group's assessment of the hospital development schemes currently seeking prioritisation for PFI funding was made available to Ministers at his Department; [84271]

  (4) when the announcement as to which of the hospital development schemes currently seeking investment prioritisation have been successful will be made. [84276]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Capital Prioritisation Advisory Group completed its assessment of the 10 schemes currently seeking prioritisation on 4 December 1998. Its report was passed to Ministers on 17 December.

  An announcement will be made when Ministers have completed their consideration of all the proposals and fully assessed the implications for the NHS.

  NHS Direct and Walk-in Clinics
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means continuity of patients' notes will be kept between(a) NHS Direct and GPs and (b) walk-in clinics and GPs. [84374]

  Mr. Denham
  Walk-in centres will be expected to have links with local general practitioners' practices to ensure continuity of care for patients. For NHS Direct, national guidance will be issued in due course.

  Lung Cancer Deaths (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women died from lung cancer in the Greater London area in 1998. [84402]

  Screening unit name

  Physical location

  Health authority populations served

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  Victoria Centre, Romford

  Barking and Havering (and part South Essex)

  Central and East London

  St. Bartholomews Hospital

  Camden and Islington East London and The City

  Enfield and Haringey

  North Middlesex Hospital

  Enfield and Haringey

  North of London

  Edgware Hospital

  Barnet Brent and Harrow

  Whipps Cross

  Whipps Cross Hospital

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  West of London

  Charing Cross Hospital

  Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Hillingdon

  South East London

  Kings Healthcare Trust

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Bexley and Greenwich Bromley

  South West London

  St. Georges Trust

  Merton, Sutton, and Wandsworth Croydon Kingston and Richmond

  Note:

  The unit at Epping, in Eastern Region also currently serves part of the Redbridge and Waltham Forest population

  Free Sight Tests
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people over the age of 60 years have had free sight tests since January. [84400]

  Mr. Denham
  On the basis of activity levels in past years, we estimate that, in each of the months January to March 1999, people aged 60 and over will have received 0.35 million sight tests, of which just under half will have been National Health Service tests. The first statistics to show the impact of our decision to make everyone aged 60 and over eligible for free NHS sight tests with effect from 1 April 1999 will be available next February.

  Overtime Payments (Millennium Period)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding his Department has made available to cover the costs of overtime payments to National Health Service staff over the millennium celebration period; [84392]
  424
  Mr. Hutton
  Deaths from lung cancer (ICD9 1621) in Greater London in 1998 are as follows:

  2,239 males

  1,378 females.

  1 These are deaths that were registered in 1998 and certified with an underlying cause of death coded to 162 using the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision.

  These figures were supplied by the Office for National Statistics.

  Breast Screening Units (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the breast screening units in hospitals which serve the Greater London area. [84403]

  Mr. Hutton
  The breast screening units serving the greater London area are shown in the table.

  (2) what is his Department's estimate of the extra cost to the National Health Service of overtime payments to staff over the millennium celebration period. [84391]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for National Health Service trusts to decide individual staffing requirements for the millennium period, including any overtime they think necessary, to ensure effective patient services are in place. Enhanced payments are available for most staff groups who work on bank holidays. As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, funding for the NHS has risen to just under £40 billion in 1999–2000, a real terms increase of 5.1 per cent. over the previous year.

  Surgical Instruments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) deaths, (b) amputations and (c) other complications have been caused by surgical instruments or part of such remaining in patients following a surgical operation in each of the last three years. [84404]
  425
  Mr. Denham
  The table shows hospital inpatient activity for the financial years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 where a foreign body has accidentally been left in a body cavity or operation wound following a procedure.

  Finished consultant episodes

  Deaths

  1995–96

  841

  4

  1996–971

  756

  11

  1997–981

  749

  8

  1Figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are provisional

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Research Ethics Committees
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the operations of multi-centre Research Ethics Committees with the EU Clinical Trials Directive. [84347]

  Ms Jowell
  The European Union Clinical Trials Directive is still under negotiation and the text may change. It is therefore not possible to reach a final view of its compatibility with the operations of Research Ethics Committees in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time taken for ethics committee approval of research and clinical trial proposals in(a) the year before and (b) the period since the introduction of multi-centre research ethics committees. [84345]

  Ms Jowell
  The time taken for ethics approval of research and clinical trials is not data which was systematically collected before the introduction of multi-centre research ethics committees. An evaluation of the first full year of operation of multi-centre research ethics committees is currently being analysed and will be available later this year.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what review the Government have undertaken of the operation of local and multi-centre research ethics committees since their introduction; and what proposals he has to amend their method of operation. [84346]

  Ms Jowell
  Multi-Centre Research Ethics were introduced in 1997. Based on evolving experience with the operation of Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees, and the relationship between their work and that of Local Research Ethics Committees, the Department of Health is currently conducting a review of policy and practice with the intention of issuing revised guidance later this year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons a reply was not received by the hon. Member for Solihull to his letter of 18 January on behalf of his constitutent Mrs. Penny Anderson until 5 May (ref POH (2) 5422/22). [84352]

  Mr. Denham
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in replying. I wanted to ensure that we gave a full 426
  and informative response which included details of this year's National Health Service pay settlement. Ministers received a large volume of correspondence on this subject and it took longer than we would have wished to reply to it all.

  Primary Care
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for encouraging private sector involvement in the provision of primary care services. [84640]

  Mr. Denham
  Some primary care pilots include a National Health Service trust as a provider of patient services. Otherwise, general medical services and general dental services are provided by independent, self-employed contractors to the NHS. General ophthalmic services and pharmaceutical services are also provided by independent contractors, including single-handed practices, and local and national chains of opticians and chemists.

  Hospital Telephone Inquiry Line
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospital telephone inquiry numbers are free phone numbers. [84720]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service trusts may wish to set up telephone inquiry numbers for a variety of reasons and it is up to them to decide whether to use freephone numbers. An individual inquiry line will be set up to meet the needs of a particular set of local circumstances that may be relatively short-lived; the numbers will therefore fluctuate. NHS trusts are not required to notify the Department when they set up (or discontinue) such a line.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors worked more than 58 hours a week in each quarter since 1994. [84764]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. The New Deal on Junior Doctors' Hours monitors working hours compliance on a six-monthly basis according to whether or not junior doctors comply with a range of hours controls, including rest periods. Since 31 December 1994, there has been a requirement that no junior doctor should exceed a maximum average of 56 hours a week actual work. Data collated from regional task forces' reports is as follows:

  Monitoring date

  Number of juniors' posts

  Non-complying posts over 56 hours

  Percentage non-compliance

  September 1994

  27,184

  11,347

  41.3

  February 1995

  27,669

  8,268

  29.9

  September 1995

  27,994

  8,908

  31.8

  March 1996

  27,970

  6,579

  23.5

  September 1996

  28,342

  6,121

  21.6

  March 1997

  29,482

  6,485

  21.9

  September 1997

  29,572

  5,764

  19.5

  March 1998

  29,976

  4,999

  16.7

  September 1998

  29,584

  4,793

  16.2

  Incontinence Services
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to health authorities and local authorities on their responsibilities regarding incontinence aids and advice to residents in residential care and nursing homes. [84536]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on the provision of incontinence aids is contained in Health Service Guidance (92)50: Local authority contracts for residential and nursing home care: NHS related aspects.

  This circular sets out the continuing responsibility of the National Health Service in the provision of community health services to residents in local authority and independent residential care homes on the same basis as to people in their own homes. The circular also says that Local Authorities, since April 1993, are responsible for purchasing items as incontinence aids for residents they place in nursing homes. This guidance was reiterated in HSG(95)8, "NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs".

  Safety Syringes
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued to health authorities relating to the use of safety syringes; what assessment he has made of the extent of the current use of safety syringes by health trusts; and if he will make a statement. [84537]

  Ms Jowell
  At present, the use of safety syringes is not widespread within the healthcare sector, due to the limited range of sizes and types available. Consequently, the Department has not issued any guidelines to health trusts on the use of these devices, nor has it carried out any assessments on their current usage.

  The Department has issued guidance on the safe use and disposal of sharp instruments, including needles and syringes. Professional organisations and trusts have also issued local guidance.

  Glenthorne Centre
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals are under consideration for the future management of the Glenthorne Centre, Erdington. [84785]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre is managed by the Department and there are no current plans to change this.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the job evaluation and grading scheme report on operational and unit staff at the Glenthorne Centre, Erdington, in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [84784]

  Mr. Hutton
  An independent job evaluation review of the staffing posts at the Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre was undertaken last year for internal departmental management purposes. The findings of the report are still under consideration and no decision has yet been taken about publication.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research he has carried out into the possible effects of radiation emitted from television and mobile telephone masts on public health; what were the findings of that research; and if he will make a statement. [84870]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1996, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) evaluated an epidemiological study by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit. This study, undertaken on behalf of this and five other Government Departments, investigated the incidence of leukaemia near 20 high power TV/FM radio transmitters in Great Britain. The study found that living close to a transmitter was not associated with an increased risk of leukaemia. In their statement (copies of which are available in the Library) COMARE reiterated their previous advice that there is no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from television and radio mast emissions.

  The Department is currently contributing to the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project, which includes health effects of electromagnetic fields and is funding studies investigating possible biological effects from EMF generally. A three-year study in the United Kingdom of occupational exposure to radiofrequency fields, including those from TV and radio transmitters, was launched in November 1998. The Department is supporting this study.

  I have recently announced a working group to assess the current state of research into the health implications of mobile telephones usage. The chairman, members, terms of reference and time scale for reporting will be announced shortly.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his holding answer of 8 December and his further holding answer of 1 March, when he expects to provide a substantive answer to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. [84873]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government has pledged to tackle unacceptable levels of geographical variations in access to National Health Service infertility treatment and has set in train a programme of work to achieve that aim.

  A Department of Health survey of current health authority infertility service provision will take place shortly and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) will complete their third, and final, set of evidence based clinical guidelines on infertility in the autumn.

  The Department's survey will enable the cost implications of any policy changes to be estimated. It is important to wait for the RCOG guidelines to be completed and considered by the Department as they will indicate the circumstances in which infertility treatment can be most clinically effective.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners whose income made them not eligible for income support prior to April 1999 but who are now eligible to claim the minimum income guarantee in(a) Wythenshawe and Sale East, (b) Manchester, (c) Trafford and (d) the United Kingdom. [84331]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of pensioner benefit units that will become entitled to Income Support in Great Britain as a result of the increase in the Income Support rates in April this year is estimated to be 65,000. This figure cannot be apportioned with any reliability to constituency or local authority areas because the sample size is not large enough. Information relating to the numbers of pensioners in receipt of Income Support as of November 1998 (the latest date for which the data is available) is in the table.

  Income Support pensioners at November 1998

  Pensioner benefit units

  Wythenshawe and Sale East Parliamentary Constituency

  4,000

  Manchester Local Authority District

  17,000

  Trafford Local Authority District

  6,000

  Great Britain

  1,417,000

  Notes:

  1. "Pensioner benefit unit" means a single person aged 60 or over, or a couple where one or both members is aged 60 or over.

  2. The estimates exclude pensioners in residential care and nursing homes.

  3. Figures in the table are rounded to the nearest thousand cases, and are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  4. Parliamentary Constituency data relates to constituency boundaries as at 1 May 1997. Local Authority data relates to boundaries as at 31 December 1998.

  Lone Parents
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents have obtained jobs through the New Deal for Lone Parents in the unit of delivery area covering the Vale of York. [84555]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Deal for Lone Parents was launched nationally on 26 October 1998 and offers a whole range of services including training, childcare and access to Employment Service (ES) programmes, which help support lone parents on the route to work.

  In the North Yorkshire district, which covers the Vale of York, 71 lone parents moved into jobs between 26 October 1998 and 26 March 1999.

  Note:

  North Yorkshire district covers areas served by ES Jobcentres in York offices; Harrogate; Northallerton; Richmond; Ryedale; Scarborough; Selby and Whitby.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many local authorities(a) do and (b) do not disregard the whole amount of war widows' pensions and war disablement pensions for the purpose of housing benefit; [84559]
  430
  (2) if he will estimate the additional cost to (a) central Government and (b) local authorities, if every local authority disregarded the whole amount of war widows' pensions and war disablement pensions for the purposes of housing benefit. [84560]

  Angela Eagle
  The additional cost to central Government of a full disregard, on a statutory basis, of War Widows Pension and War Disablement Pension in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is estimated to be in the region of £70 million a year.

  Information on discretionary local schemes for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  Gold Reserves
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tons of gold from the national reserves have been sold since May 1997. [84285]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]: The only sales of gold since May 1997 have been gold sovereigns and other gold coins in response to demand amounting to some 52,500 ounces.

  Foreign Currency Reserves
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the United Kingdom's foreign currency reserves are currently held in euros. [84282]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]: The size and composition of the UK's reserves is set out in Table 2 in the Quarterly Report on the United Kingdom Official Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold for the period October to December 1998, published by the Treasury and Bank of England on 2 March 1999.

  Business Link
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) role in informing business on EMU, (b) the budget and (c) publications of Business Link. [83927]

  Ms Hewitt
  Business Link partnerships—and their equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—have a key role to play in making sure that small and medium-sized firms in the UK are equipped to meet the challenges resulting from the introduction of the euro in 11 European countries earlier this year. Business Links will bring their own experience and knowledge of local conditions to bear on this role, but are supported by the Euro Preparations Unit of the Treasury through training, publications, specialist guidance and advice.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which activities are covered in EU budget lines listed under the heading(a) Social Contacts Between Staff,(b) Early Childhood Centre and other Crèches and (c) Entertainment and Representation Expenses; what were the total costs expected under the last budget for these headings; and if he will make a statement. [82477]
  431
  Ms Hewitt
  The appropriations entered under these headings in the 1999 budget of each EU institution, including a guide to the range of activities covered by each individual budget item, is given in the "Official Journal of the European Communities", L39, Volume 42, 12 February 1999, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average price for a private medical insurance premium for each of the last five years. [84658]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Association of British Insurers' statistics on UK Private Medical Insurance indicate that the average price of an annual insurance premium, for each of the last five years, has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993

  257

  1994

  268

  1995

  267

  1996

  287

  1997

  307

  Statistics for 1998 have not yet been published.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the agenda of the ECOFIN Council of 25 May. [84684]

  Ms Hewitt
  The current draft agenda for the 25 May ECOFIN Council is as follows:

  1. Approval of the provisional agenda;

  2. Approval of the list of "A" items;

  3. Preparation of Cologne European Council

  (a) Broad Economic Policy Guidelines

  (b) European Employment Pact

  (c) Report on the Single Market for Financial Services

  (d) Progress Report on Reinforced Tax Policy Co-operation

  (e) Report on the improvements in the functioning of the international financial system

  (f) Report on the promotion of investment on European infrastructure and in human capital

  4. Taxation

  (a) Code of Conduct (Business Taxation)

  2 interim report from the Code of Conduct Group

  Council Conclusions

  (b) Taxation of Savings

  Council Conclusions

  (c) Taxation of interest and royalty payments

  (d) Energy Taxation

  Presidency Compromise

  (e) Excise Duties on Tobacco (Possible A Point)

  (f) VAT

  Telecom Services (Possible A Point)

  (g) VAT

  Reduced rate on labour intensive services
  432
  5. Efficient Financial Management/Fight against Fraud

  (a) Amended Proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) concerning investigations conducted by the Fraud Prevention Office—adoption

  Amended proposal for a Council Regulation (Euratom) concerning investigations conducted by the Fraud Prevention Office—adoption

  Interinstitutional Agreement concerning internal investigations conducted by the Fraud Prevention Office—approval

  Council decision concerning conditions and modalities of internal investigations relating to fight against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Communities—adoption

  Designation of the members of the Supervisory Committee foreseen in Art. 11 of the regulation

  (b) Fight against Fraud

  Working document on activities: Council conclusions

  (c) SEM 2000—Phase III

  Council conclusions

  6. AOB—Duty Free.

  Fuel Costs (Public Sector)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure on gas and electricity by the public sector for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [84309]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 20 May 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on total expenditure on gas and electricity by the public sector.
  The ONS does not publish information for Public Sector expenditure on gas and electricity. It does however publish information for such expenditure by General Government, which is the Public Sector excluding Public Corporations.
  This information is published in 'United Kingdom Input-Output supply and Use Balances, 1992–96', and is on each year's table 5. The product numbers are 85 for Electricity Production and Distribution and 86 for Gas Distribution. General Government expenditure on these products is shown in the 'Total Intermediate' column.
  The data are consistent with the 1998 edition of 'United Kingdom National Accounts' (The Blue Book).
  Both publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans any changes to the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee. [85208]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I have written to the Governor of the Bank of England confirming that the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee will remain unchanged. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases the Serious Fraud Office has prosecuted in the current year to date. [83881]

  The Attorney-General
  In the 12 months up to 7 May 1999, the Serious Fraud Office prosecuted 17 cases involving 35 defendants. Of the 35 defendants, 28 were convicted or pleaded guilty.

  Civil Procedures
  35. Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Treasury Solicitor has taken to ensure that his Department takes full advantage of the new civil procedures. [83882]

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor has ensured the availability of extensive training in the Civil Procedure Reforms, both to case officers involved in litigation and to those in his client departments responsible for pre-litigation conduct and for provision of instructions. The culture introduced by the reforms is wholly consistent with the aims of the Government Legal Service for litigation to be resolved speedily wherever possible and for Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques to be used in appropriate cases. The Treasury Solicitor and his staff welcome the opportunity provided by the new Rules to devote to litigation resources proportionate to the importance of the issues raised.

  Case Loads
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current case load of(a) the Serious Fraud Office and (b) the equivalent sections of the Crown Prosecution Service. [83884]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office currently has a caseload of 66 serious or complex fraud cases. In the year 1998–99, of 38 defendants whose cases were brought to trial, 31 were convicted and seven acquitted. The Crown Prosecution Service does not have a directly equivalent section. The majority of the more serious fraud cases handled by the CPS are handled by the Casework Directorate at CPS headquarters. The Casework Directorate currently has a caseload of 212 such cases.

  Racial Hatred (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of prosecutions there have been for incitement to racial hatred in each year since 1995. [83885]

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1995, 30 consents have been granted for prosecutions of incitement to racial hatred under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. I am arranging for a breakdown to be placed in the Library.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the target set by the Crown Prosecution Service for the length of time to consider a report laid before it by the Police Complaints Authority and to make a decision on whether to bring criminal charges; how many reports 434
  of the PCA the Crown Prosecution Service has considered in each of the past five years; what was the average length of time taken to consider a PCA report in each year; on how many occasions consideration of a PCA report has taken more than five months in each of the past five years; for what percentage of PCA reports considered by the CPS a decision was taken to bring criminal charges; and what was the average length of time taken to consider a report that (i) resulted in the placing of criminal charges and (ii) did not lead to criminal charges. [84874]

  The Attorney-General
  The Police Complaints Authority does not submit cases directly to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Police Complaints Authority may supervise a police investigation into a complaint and it is the police force which then submits a file to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown Prosecution Service then reviews the case in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has agreed with the Police Complaints Authority that the decisions, in all but the most serious and complex cases, will be made within 28 days of the receipt of the file from the police.

  There are no readily available co-ordinated statistics for the receipt, timeliness of decision and outcome of decision for cases which have Police Complaints Authority involvement. Such cases are spread across England and Wales. Accordingly, the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Diarmuid O'Neill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make the report of the Police Complaints Authority investigation into the death of Diarmuid O'Neill available to his family. [84875]

  The Attorney-General
  The Metropolitan Police conducted an investigation, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, into the death of Diarmuid O'Neill. The Police Complaints Authority issued a statutory statement that the investigation had been conducted to its satisfaction. The report produced by the Metropolitan Police investigating officer is confidential.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate Registry
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he intends to take to improve the service to people who require to use the offices of the Probate Registry. [84639]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Probate Registry regularly carries out customer surveys and has a Group Customer Service Officer to co-ordinate its customer service initiatives and deal with day to day inquiries from probate registry users. In particular, the Probate Registry is launching a National Telephone Number on 25 May 1999, which is to be published in all local telephone directories and on all Probate Service leaflets. This should make it easier for people to get through to the Probate Registry on the telephone.
  435
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people are employed at the offices of the Probate Registry. [84637]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are 29 staff in the Probate Department of the Principle Registry of the Family Division.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates he has made of the average time taken to answer a telephone call at the offices of the Probate Registry. [84636]

  Mr. Vaz
  This information is not collected. However, the Probate Registry aims to answer incoming telephone calls within the Courts' Charter promise of 30 seconds.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the new office of the Probate Registry in High Holborn. [84638]

  Mr. Vaz
  I am unable to provide a figure for the Probate Registry alone, as the figures available are for the cost of the entire Principal Registry of the Family Division of which the Probate Registry forms part. The annual rent for First Avenue house, High Holborn is £2.3 million and the rates are £524,276. The cost for the furniture and miscellaneous office equipment was £564,768.

DEFENCE

  Executive Agencies (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Medical Training Organisation for the financial year 1999–2000 [85235]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the DMTO for the financial year 1999–2000. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in April 1997 and are as follows:

  Key Target 1—Academic Success (Quality and Quantity)

  To achieve the following academic success rate:

  Common Core Course (CCC)—94 per cent.

  Specialist Registrars (SpR)—96 per cent.

  Pre Registration Nurses (Pre Reg Nurses)—96 per cent.

  Key Target 2—Academic Success (Timeliness)

  The following per cent. of trainees achieving academic success to be delivered on time agreed with the customer:

  CCC—96 per cent. (remainder within 6 weeks)

  SpR—96 per cent.

  Pre Reg Nurses—98 per cent.

  Key Target 3—Individual Medical Services Training

  Establish and agree with customers the baseline requirement for external medical services training by 31 march 2000.

  Key Target 4—Agreed Annual Training Requirement

  To achieve 1.5 per cent. efficiency gain in matching capacity to the Agreed Annual Training Requirement.

  Key Target 5—Systems Approach to Training

  To ensure comprehensive application of the Systems Approach to Training, to a minimum of 33 per cent. of all appropriate courses.
  436
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Secondary Care Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [85236]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the DSCA for the financial year 1999–2000. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in April 1996 and are as follows:

  Key Target 1—The Operational Requirement

  From within the personnel resources provided to DSCA by the single Services, to meet 100 per cent. of the requirement of the Commanders in Chief for secondary care trained personnel for operational deployments.

  Key Target 2—Outpatient Waiting Times

  To ensure that 50 per cent. of Service patients referred to the Agency are offered a first outpatient appointment within 4 weeks of receipt of a referral and 90 per cent. within 13 weeks.

  Key Target 3—Inpatient Waiting Times

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of Service patients are offered a treatment date which is within 13 weeks of the decision to give inpatient treatment.

  Key Target 4—Efficiency

  To put in place the systems required to calculate the new efficiency measure defined for the DSCA in financial year 1998–99 and confirm by 31 December 1999 that a baseline value for the reporting year as a whole can be established on which to calculate efficiency targets in subsequent years.

  Key Target 5—Quality

  The DSCA will carry out the NHS requirements for progress in clinical governance in the current year and, by 31 December 1999, will deliver specific reports on performance in the patients' understanding of treatment, the monitoring of complaints and the incidence of adverse occurrences.

  Key Target 6—Military Training

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of all DSCA personnel whose medical category permits, are released to receive their respective Service's annual mandatory military training.

  Key Target 7—Personnel for Exercises

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of DSCA based personnel nominated to established posts in their Service's operational core requirement are released to attend appropriate exercises.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [85237]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 1999–2000:

  Key Target 1:

  To deliver personnel to the trained strength (or to other training organisations) within 5 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  Key Target 2:

  To obtain 95 per cent. satisfactory assessments from the employers of NRTA trainees.

  Key Target 3:

  To maintain success rates of 95 per cent. in Career Training and 97 per cent. in examined Pre-joining training.

  Key Target 4:

  To reduce the variance between RNR Trained Strength and Trained Requirement to 39 per cent.
  437
  Key Target 5:

  To retain tasked capacity while operating NRTA within its 1999–2000 cash allocation.

  Key Target 6:

  To achieve net benefits of £8.1 million in Financial Year 1999–2000 from the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Ltd.

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Dental Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [85275]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the DDA for financial year 1999–2000. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in March 1996 and are as follows:

  Key Target 1: The Operational Requirement

  From within available personnel resources, achieve 100 per cent. of required professionally and militarily trained personnel, at the specified readiness required for deployment in support of the National Contingency Force.

  Key Target 2: Overall Dental Fitness

  For each Service, maintain the agreed fitness target of 75 per cent. of all Service personnel to be fit for deployment or such targets as may be decided by mutual agreement with the Agency's customers.

  Key Target 3: Treatment Needs

  To show a zero increase in the Treatment Needs Index.

  Key Target 4: Dental Fitness Category D

  To limit the number of personnel in dental fitness Category D4 (those personnel who have not received a dental inspection and charting for 12 months or more) to 14 per cent. of the total Service population.

  Key Target 5: Training

  To achieve a success rate for Vocational Dental Practitioner, Dental Hygienist and Basic Dental Support Specialist (DSS) training of 90 per cent. within the normal duration of each course.

  Mine Countermeasures Vessels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the time scale for the mine countermeasures vessels upgrading to(a) Royal Navy capabilities and (b) the long-term cost of the upgrade. [84506]

  Mr. Spellar
  The revised time scale for the sonar upgrade to the HUNT class mine countermeasures vessels will delay the planned improvement of the vessels minehunting performance. Although the delay will have an impact on operational capabilities, we assess that it is manageable in the context of current commitments. The Department's assessment of the impact of the delay on the long-term cost of the upgrade constitutes internal discussion and advice to Ministers, and the disclosure of such advice could prejudice the competitive position of the Department in negotiations with contractors and reveal commercially confidential data. I am therefore withholding this information under exemptions 2,7 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  NATO Task Forces
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (i) 16 and (ii) 17 year olds are currently deployed in(a) NATO task forces in the Adriatic, (b) Bosnia, (c) Macedonia and (d) Albania. [84719]
  438
  Mr. George Robertson
  As at 18 May, the latest date for which figures are available, there were no Naval Service personnel aged 16 and 24 Naval Service personnel aged 17 deployed in NATO task forces in the Adriatic. As at 1 April 1999, there were no Army personnel aged 16 and 27 Army personnel aged 17 deployed in the Former Yugoslavia.

  No RAF personnel under age 18 were deployed in any of the areas concerned.

  Submarines (Firth of Clyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 1999,Official Report, column 251, if the proposed changes to the current Submarine/Fishing Vessel Interaction Code of Practice are with the Scottish Fishermens Federation and the Clyde Fishermens Federation for ratification as well as with the National Federation of Fishermens Organisations; and if he will place a copy of the proposals in the Library. [84712]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The proposed changes to the Submarine/Fishing Vessel Interaction Code of Practice were drawn up following discussion with the Secretary to the Clyde Fishermens Association, who was also acting on behalf of the Scottish Fishermens Federation. These changes are now with the National Federation for ratification. A copy of the revised Code of Practice will be placed in the Library once consultation with the associations concerned is concluded.

  Captain Robert Nairac
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what protection was provided to Ms Oonagh Flynn following the death of Captain Robert Nairac; [84776]

  (2) what is the present whereabouts of videotape and cassette tape given to intelligence service agents by Ms Oonagh Flynn purporting to record Captain Robert Nairac's interrogation and death; [84778]

  (3) if he will set out the service career of Captain Robert Nairac, and list his assignments on each of his tours of duty in Northern Ireland; [84774]

  (4) what were the conclusions of the internal investigation of the circumstances of Captain Robert Nairac's death; what was his date of death as recorded on the death certificate; and what was his date of death as recorded at the Irish inquest; [84775]

  (5) if the four men who were reported by the Irish police to the Irish Coroner's inquest to have identified themselves as members of the British Intelligence services, and to have removed the corpse of Captain Robert Nairac from the car park of the Ravensdale House Inn, were on duty at the time. [84777]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Council Houses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the funds currently held by each local authority from the sale of council houses; and if he will make a statement [84291]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Receipts from the sale of council houses held at 31 March 1998

  £ million

  Amounts set-aside against credit

  liabilities

  Usable

  Total

  Isle of Anglesey

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  4.4

  0.6

  5.0

  Conwy

  7.3

  —

  7.3

  Denbighshire

  0.7

  0.1

  0.8

  Flintshire

  —

  0.2

  0.2

  Wrexham

  —

  0.1

  0.1

  Powys

  —

  1.2

  1.2

  Ceredigion

  9.5

  1.2

  10.7

  Pembrokeshire

  6.0

  2.1

  8.1

  Carmarthenshire

  11.6

  —

  11.6

  Swansea

  —

  1.2

  1.2

  Neath Port Talbot

  22.2

  —

  22.2

  Bidgend

  —

  1.1

  1.1

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  31.1

  0.1

  31.2

  Cardiff

  12.3

  0.5

  12.8

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  24.8

  —

  24.8

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6.4

  0.3

  6.7

  Caerphilly

  21.6

  —

  21.6

  Blaenau Gwent

  2.9

  2.9

  5.8

  Torfaen

  —

  2.6

  2.6

  Monmouthshire

  12.7

  1.7

  14.4

  Newport

  20.6

  —

  20.6

  All county/county borough councils

  194.1

  15.8

  209.9

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of council houses to be built in the years 1999 to 2003; and if he will make a statement. [84295]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no estimates of this figure. Local Authorities' plans for the period 1999–2002 will be set out in their Housing Strategies and Operational Plans, the latest versions of which are expected to be submitted by the end of May.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he gives to housing associations about their letting policies, with particular reference to the share of tenancies awarded to people who live in the area of the development; and if he will make a statement. [84292]
  440
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Housing associations which are registered with the Welsh Office are required to comply with "Regulatory Requirements". This publication includes mandatory standards on lettings policies and other aspects of access to housing.

  "Regulatory Requirements" stipulates that housing associations must not impose residency qualifications more onerous than those imposed by the relevant local authority.

  Housing associations are expected to adopt their own points-based scheme for the comparative assessment of the housing needs of applicants and to make allocations in accordance with that scheme. Additionally, 50 per cent. of lettings should be made available to nominations made by the local authority.

  The Welsh Office recognises that in some areas housing associations will wish to give priority to people living in the area through the points scheme, as a means of reflecting the need to maintain social support.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that his target for house building on brown- field sites is met; and if he will make a statement. [84357]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no targets for house building on brown-field sites in Wales. Planning policy guidance on maximising the use of reclaimable land for housing development is set out in the first revision of "Planning Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy" which was published on 7 April. In future, planning guidance on the use of brown-field sites in Wales will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Green-field Sites
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce new planning policy guidance on housing for the protection of green-field sites. [84563]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Planning policy guidance on the protection of green-field sites from housing development is set out in the first revision of "Planning Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy" which was published on 7 April. The introduction of future planning policy guidance will be a matter for the National Assembly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Non-genetically Modified Soya Beans
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports her Department has received concerning the efforts of the state Government of Rio Grande do Sul to guarantee non-genetically modified soya bean production throughout their state; and what plans his Department has to give assistance. [84502]
  441
  Mr. Foulkes
  No one from this Department has been in contact with the Brazilian delegation that met with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 13 May 1999.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 19 May 1999, Official Report, column 395.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Reoffending
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the appointment of a joint prisons/probation panel to accredit the design and delivery of work with offenders designed to reduce reoffending. [85232]

  Mr. Straw
  Sir Duncan Nichol has been appointed as Chair of the Panel. The members of the Panel are in the process of being appointed and their names will be announced in June. The Panel will start work by the autumn.

  British Board of Film Classification
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the British Board of Film Classification's Annual report for 1998 will be published; and if he will make a statement. [85233]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the Annual Report of the British Board of Film Classification for 1998, which gives details of the Board's financial accounts and activities for the year ended 31 December 1998.

  I welcome the Board's timely publication of its Annual Report.

  Schengen Acquis
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the United Kingdom's application to participate in the Schengen acquis. [85234]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today written to Herr. Schily, German Minister of the Interior and President of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, with the United Kingdom's formal application to participate in certain areas of the Schengen acquis as provided for by Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol. The application reflects my reply given to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 380–82. The text of the application has been placed in the Library and the draft Council Decision on our application will be submitted for Parliamentary scrutiny.

  Sergeant Virdi
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1999,Official Report, columns 488–89, for what reasons a POLSA team was instructed to search Sergeant Gurpal Virdi's house. [84654]
  442
  Kate Hoey
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that POLSA teams are specially trained in search techniques and in evidence gathering, and that such a team was used in the search of Sergeant Virdi's home because of the nature of the evidence that was being sought.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will agree to meet hon. Members to discuss the general issues raised by the case of Sergeant Gurpal Virdi. [84653]

  Kate Hoey
  I will, of course, in principle be willing to meet hon. Members to discuss general issues which they see arising from this case. As disciplinary proceedings have now been brought against Sergeant Virdi, and as the Home Secretary is appellate authority for police disciplinary matters, I would not, however, be able to discuss the Sergeant's case, certainly not before the disciplinary matters are concluded.

  Police Station Safes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often safes in police stations are checked and their contents noted. [84651]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is an operational matter for chief officers, but standard practice would be to check the contents of the station safe at each change of shift.

  CID (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many black and Asian Metropolitan Police officers have(a) applied to and (b) been accepted into the CID in each of the past four years. [84652]

  Kate Hoey
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that information is not available in the form requested. Information about the total numbers of ethnic minority officers in the Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department is as follows:

  Year to end March

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Detective Superintendent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Chief Inspector

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Inspector

  1

  1

  2

  1

  3

  Sergeant

  9

  10

  12

  12

  13

  Constable

  49

  54

  60

  77

  78

  Total

  60

  66

  76

  92

  97

  POLSA Teams
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates the homes of Metropolitan Police officers have been searched by POLSA teams since 1 May; and if he will list the reasons in each case. [84650]

  Kate Hoey
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that no POLSA team has been used for this purpose between 1 May and 19 May 1999 inclusive.

  HM Inspector of Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the recommendations made by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons in his report for 1998 have now been carried out. [84649]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons is not, by tradition, a forum for laying out recommendations, and therefore differs from his thematic and individual establishment reports. Any recommendations are, therefore, informal and do not automatically require a Prison Service response.

  The Chief Inspector produces his Annual Report to draw attention to what he sees as the key issues affecting the Prison Service. Ministers and officials pay close attention to the views and suggestions contained in the Annual Report.

  Landmines
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about breaches of the Landmines Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [84625]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received no representations about breaches of the Landmines Act 1998. Responsibility for administering the Act lies with the Department of Trade and Industry. Responsibility for enforcement action under the Act lies with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the police.

  Private Prosecutions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the procedure for authorisation of private prosecutions. [83883]

  Mr. Boateng
  Private prosecutions require authorisation only where the offence in question is subject to a consent provision. The Law Commission's Report on Consents to Prosecution, which was published in October 1998, made recommendations for rationalising such provisions, which are now being considered.

  Police Vehicles
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are currently in place which are intended to reduce the need for high-speed vehicle chases involving the police and car thieves; and if he will make a statement. [R] [84553]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is an operational matter for the Police Service. There is a nationally agreed Association of Chief Police Officer's (ACPO) Pursuit Code of Practice and work is going forward to implement recommendations from the recent ACPO report on police pursuit driver training. It is already policy to consider continuously the consequences of a pursuit and whether to break it off. Operational measures to avoid pursuits or curtail them include the use of helicopters, the early deployment of tyre deflation devices across the carriageway and tactical containment in which a number of police vehicles box in the target vehicle and bring it safely to a halt.
  444
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage chief constables to install black box recorders in police vehicles. [84626]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is an operational matter and it is for chief officers of police to decide whether to fit recording equipment. I understand that the Metropolitan Police Service has decided to fit such a device in many vehicles as a management tool to promote their economical and proper use. If any of these were to be involved in an accident, the equipment would be able to provide independent evidence of the vehicle's speed. I am sure that other forces will be taking a close interest in the Metropolitan Police approach.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by each police constabulary, the number of motor vehicles stolen in (i) 1998, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1996. [R] [84547]

  Mr. Boateng
  Overall figures for 1998 are not yet available. The information for 1996 and 1997 has been published in table 2.14 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1997", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Northern Ireland (State of Emergency)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the legal authority is for the declared state of emergency relating to the affairs of Northern Ireland; if he reviewed the continuance of the state of emergency as part of his deliberations on the renewal of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and what are the most recent communications he has (i) sent to and (ii) received from the UN special rapporteur with responsibility for human rights and states of emergency. [84780]

  Mr. Straw
  Article 15 of The European Convention on Human Rights enables any High Contracting Party in the circumstances laid down in the Article to take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. Under Article 15, the Government have derogated from Article 5(3) of the Convention in respect of powers of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Before coming to a decision in 1999 on renewal of that Act, I took into account all related matters, including the recommendation of the Act's Reviewer, John Rowe QC, who concluded in his report on the operation of the Act in 1998 that there is a continuing need for the statute for a further year. There is no record of any communication either to or from the United Nations special rapporteur with responsibility for human rights and states of emergency since I became Home Secretary in 1997.

  Ms Oonagh Flynn
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the findings of the 1984 police investigation into the break in at the home of Ms Oonagh Flynn. [84779]
  445
  Mr. Boateng
  It has not been possible to trace any record of this incident on the information available. The police records would not necessarily have been retained, in any case, for this length of time.

  Criminal Cases Review Committee
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Criminal Cases Review Committee is currently dealing with; what is the average length of time spent by the Criminal Cases Review Committee on each case; how many people are employed by the Criminal Cases Review Committee; and if he will make a statement. [84872]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that, at the end of April, 1,176 cases were awaiting review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and 444 cases were under active review. I also understand that for cases completed in April (other than those which the Commission determined did not meet the eligibility criteria laid down by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995), the average length of time taken, from receipt of the application to reaching a decision on the case, was 332 working days. The Commission has 14 members, some of whom work part-time, and it currently employs 60 staff.

  North Yorkshire Police
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on(a) police manpower, (b) ethnic minority recruitment to the police and (c) recruitment of women to the police, in North Yorkshire. [84551]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have not received any representations about police manpower or about the recruitment of ethnic minority or women police officers in North Yorkshire Police. We have received representations about North Yorkshire's funding settlement for 1999–2000 from the Treasurer of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, from the hon. Member for the Vale of York and the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Willis), which we have answered, but these made no specific reference to police numbers.

  K4 Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the business conducted at the K4 committee at its meeting in Brussels on 29 and 30 April; under what title that committee will continue to operate; and with what terms of reference and duties. [84657]

  Mr. Straw
  The agenda for the final meeting of the K4 Committee on 29–30 April covered 25 separate items. The most significant of those concerned implementing rules for Eurodac, re-admission agreements after the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, displaced persons from Kosovo, Europol' s budget, a United Kingdom proposal for a programme of work on mutual recognition of criminal court decisions and preparation of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting on 27–28 May.

  The United Kingdom paper on mutual recognition was given a generally warm welcome as an important contribution to the special European Council meeting on JHA matters to be held at Tampere in October.
  446
  Confirmation was given that Europol should be in a position formally to take up its activities before the end of the Germany Presidency.

  With the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May, the K4 Committee was replaced by a new co-ordinating committee, with broadly similar functions, established under Article 36 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The new committee' s terms of reference are set out in Article 36, and are limited to police (including customs) and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

  Matters relating to visas, asylum, immigration and certain other policies related to free movement of persons, now transferred to the First Pillar of the TEU, will in future be overseen by a new Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum, set up initially for a five-year transitional period and tasked to issue strategic guidelines in matters relating to immigration, frontiers and asylum; to deal with questions arising from Articles 62–64 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEU); and to give substantive input to Coreper's discussions.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) of 8 March 1999,Official Report,columns 33–34, on elections to the European Parliament, if the number of votes cast for each group of candidates in each parliamentary constituency will be made known to counting agents, or any candidates present, when they are forwarded to the respective regional returning and calculating officers; and what arrangements will be made for recounts in each parliamentary divisional count where a recount after the completion of an initial calculation has been granted. [84687]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The counting of votes cast in the European Parliamentary elections will be conducted at the Parliamentary constituency level, though where the same person is the acting returning officer for two or more Parliamentary constituencies, these constituencies may be combined for polling and counting purposes.

  Each registered political party and individual candidate will be entitled to be represented at each local count and to ask the local returning officer for a recount before the local result is transmitted to the regional returning officer. For this purpose, those entitled to be present will need to be informed of the provisional local result.

  Once the local returning officer has transmitted the local result to the regional returning officer, there can be no further recount.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Industrial Fisheries
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to protect wildlife from industrial fisheries. [83857]
  447
  Mr. Morley
  I am pressing the Commission to propose a closure of the industrial fishery for sand eels off the UK's East Coast between April and August to benefit those seabirds dependent on the stock during the breeding period.

  Organic Production Techniques
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to research into organic production techniques in 1999–2000. [83858]

  Mr. Morley
  We will be spending over £2 million on organic R&D in 1999–2000, increased from just under £1 million in 1997–98.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the fishing industry about the marketing of their products. [83859]

  Mr. Morley
  I most recently spoke to the industry about fish marketing at the Annual General Meeting of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (NFFO) on 8 May, when I stressed the need for them to improve quality and value added and to make the best use of the fish they catch.

  Date-based Export Scheme
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with the implementation of the date-based export scheme. [83860]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission inspected our operational arrangement for the date-based export scheme in the week 12 to 16 April. The Commission are now preparing a report of their inspection which will be presented to their Standing Veterinary Committee.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what long-term trends have been identified in his Department's study of farm incomes and farm support payments. [83861]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  In the short term there may be a small negative impact on aggregate incomes as the industry adjusts to the recent reforms to the CAP. The industry's long-term future is best secured by a policy of reduced reliance on production related support which the UK continues to press for.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of falling farm incomes on the rural economy. [83863]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The rural economy is best served by a competitive and efficient agriculture industry. Agenda 2000 represents a step in the right direction in achieving this. The scope to strengthen the environmental and rural development components of the CAP is particularly welcome.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure purchasers of pre-cooked foods are able to know whether they contain genetically modified ingredients. [83862]

  Mr. Rooker
  EC Regulation 1139/98, which came into force on 1 September 1998, requires all foods sold to the final consumer, including pre-cooked foods, to be labelled where they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients produced from GM soya and maize. In a move in which the UK leads the way in Europe, the controls will also apply to restaurants, cafes, bakers and delicatessens.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about changes to the British quota before the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002. [83864]

  Mr. Morley
  No changes are expected in the arrangements for establishing national quota shares of total allowable catches. They are based on the principle of relative stability, which we expect to continue after 2002.

  Hormone-treated Beef
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on permitting hormone-treated beef from the United States into the UK. [83865]

  Mr. Rooker
  The import from third countries of meat and meat products derived from animals treated with hormonal growth promoters has been banned within the European Community since 1988. The UK, like all other Member States, has fully implemented the ban and will continue to do so until the situation changes.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on liaison arrangements between his Ministry and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions with regard to genetically modified organisms. [83866]

  Mr. Rooker
  The statutory controls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, as amended, require that before GMOs can be released into the environment, the Secretary of State for the Environment must issue a consent. UK Agriculture Ministers act jointly with the Secretary of State where they have an interest. Both Departments also work closely together on all non-statutory matters relating to the potential impact of GMOs on the environment.

  Imports (USA)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions are placed on the import of agricultural products from the USA. [83867]
  449
  Mr. Rooker
  Imports of agricultural products from the USA—as from any third country—into the European Union may be restricted by import tariff duties and the application of measures to protect food safety and animal and plant health.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to encourage organic farming. [83868]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1999–2000, we plan to spend around £6 million in aid to farmers converting to organic agriculture, around £2 million on organic R&D, and over £500,000 in support for the Organic Conversion Information Service.

  Food Standards Bill
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responses he has received to the consultation on the draft Food Standards Bill. [83869]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many responses he has received to the consultation on the draft Food Standards Bill. [83875]

  Mr. Rooker
  Nine hundred and ninety eight responses were received by the end of the consultation period, in addition to the report from the Food Standards Select Committee. Copies of all the submissions will be placed in the Library of the House today.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average number of cattle passports issued each week by his Department. [83870]

  Mr. Rooker
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) has produced an average of 48,684 cattle passports per week since it assumed responsibility for this work on 28 September 1998.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  24. Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has commissioned on cross-pollination in relation to genetically modified crops. [83871]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Department has commissioned several studies related to pollen transfer under its programme to assess the risks to the agricultural environment from the release of genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the legal advice received by his Department relating to the imposition of a general moratorium on genetically modified crops. [84729]
  450
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 19 May 1999]: It is a well-established practice not to disclose the legal advice received by Ministers. I do not intend to depart from it.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. White
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consumer representatives have been appointed to his Department's advisory committees. [83872]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are 40 consumer or lay/public interest members of advisory committees advising my Department.

  Antibiotic Growth Promoters
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to limit the use of antibiotic growth promoters in animals. [83873]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government supported a ban on the use of bacitracin zinc, virginiamycin, spiramcyin and tylosin phosphate as antibiotic growth promoters which was adopted by the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 17 December 1998. The implementation of the ban, which takes effect on 1 July 1999, will leave four antibiotic growth promoters authorised for use. We are satisfied that these are not related to any therapeutic antibiotics currently used in human or veterinary medicine. However, we shall continue to keep the issue under review and be advised by our specialist advisory committees.

  Fur Farming
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ban fur farming in the United Kingdom. [83874]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government remains firmly committed to implementing its pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming and has therefore supported my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill on the prohibition of fur farming.

  Scallop Licensing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what legal authority the scallop licensing system is being introduced. [84175]

  Mr. Morley
  The licensing arrangements for scallop dredging, which came into operation on 19 April 1999, were introduced under the provisions of section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (1967 c.84) (as amended).

  Food Safety
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome can be used to ban the import of food products on grounds of public health and safety. [84713]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The treaty of Rome allows Member States to apply prohibitions or restrictions on the importation of foodstuffs where there is no relevant harmonised European Community provision for this purpose.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Human Rights Act: Implementation
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they anticipate that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be brought into force, and what is the reason for the current delay.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on Tuesday of this week, in answer to a Written Question, that the Human Rights Act would be brought into force on Monday 2nd October 2000.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, may I couple the conventional thanks for that Answer with my deep appreciation of the Minister's courtesy in informing me in advance of the Statement which was to be made and in drawing my attention to a Written Answer to a Written Question? Perhaps that was the least that one could expect from one former chairman of the Bar Council to another. Does the Minister recognise that there is a constitutional aspect to the Question? Does he recall the enthusiasm with which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor piloted so efficiently through your Lordships' House the Human Rights Act 1998? Does he agree that there was not the slightest hint that the Act, which had been so long delayed, would provide a speedy domestic remedy to its breaches? In those circumstances, what is the Executive's justification for frustrating the natural desire of Parliament to have the remedies available at the earliest possible moment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I certainly recall the proper enthusiasm of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. Undoubtedly it will be the flagship of the present administration. It is quite wrong to suggest that Parliament was not told that there would be a lead-in time to implementation. As long ago as 21st October 1998 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated in another place that implementation could not happen in the near future and that a precise date could not be given. My right honourable friend Jack Straw has asked me to chair the Human Rights Task Force. A vast amount of work needs to be done. It is better to get that work done properly than in a hurried way. When the date comes, we should be properly prepared for something which will be a complete transformation of the way in which public affairs are conducted in this country.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can my noble friend say what progress is being made with the training of the judiciary at all levels, as they will be confronted with human rights issues, sometimes in ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases and often without notice?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am able to give details to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. Some £4.5 million has been allocated to judicial training: £1.13 million to the full-time judiciary; £1.5 million for lay magistrates; £300,000 for tribunal members; and £1.5 million for court service costs. The Judicial Studies Board, to which I pay ready tribute, will have the largest training programme in its history. Training will be carried out mainly through a series of one-day seminars for 3,000 full and part-time judges; those seminars have already started. There will be a series of 54 seminars for the whole of the judiciary, arranged from January to July 2000, with a pilot seminar in Cardiff planned for the end of September of this year. The board is planning to carry out the training in good time before implementation. As to my noble and learned friend's further point about the judiciary at all levels, the board will oversee the training of 30,000 lay magistrates, who will be trained locally by the Magistrates' Courts Committees.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as the Minister will be well aware, as from today's date the decisions of those who prosecute in Scotland in the criminal courts will be subject to review against convention rights. That will entitle those who are accused and the victims of those who are accused to have the decisions of the prosecutor reviewed. The decision to defer implementation of the Act until October of next year will mean that those accused of crime and their victims in England and Wales will not enjoy similar rights. Does not that place the Government in breach of Article 14 of the convention which provides that the enjoyment of rights under the convention shall be secure without discrimination?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. I am well aware of the training that has gone on in Scotland. Indeed, the Lord Advocate was kind enough to invite me to the residential seminar which demonstrated the extremely careful preparation that the Advocates Depute have undergone. The mere fact that the legal obligation is not laid on the Crown Prosecution Service does not mean that it will not attend to convention issues when it is making decisions.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, now that the Government—
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is time for both questions.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, now that the Government have given a firm date for the implementation of the Act, will they take the next step and give it teeth by establishing a human rights commission?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it has been said many times that we are looking to the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses—if both Houses think it appropriate—to deal with issues of human rights. That remains the Government's position.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the Minister recall what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated in the course of the Third Reading debate on the Human Rights Bill? He stated that the Government,
"would consider designating military courts as the proper venue for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel".—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.]
Some 15 months later, can the Minister confirm that the Government are still happy that that would be the right approach?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I remember the observation made by my noble and learned friend; I was sitting next to him when the point was raised and when he answered it. As far as I am aware—I shall check the matter in more detail—that remains the position. If I am in error I shall, of course, write immediately to the noble and gallant Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, has the Minister identified within his department any laws or practices which should be changed before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act? If so, what are the principal ones?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have carried out an audit of information within the Home Office. The audit—which included questions relating to other departments and their responsibilities vis-à-vis legislation, whether primary or secondary—was prepared for the March meeting of the Human Rights Task Force. I placed that document and a record of relevant task force discussions in the Library, where it still remains available.

Slavery
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will increase their endeavours to promote the abolition of slavery in those countries where it persists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, slavery is outlawed by a substantial body of international law. Her Majesty's Government urge all countries to ratify the relevant instruments and to wipe out all forms of slavery.
At a practical level, we work to address this issue in international forums such as the UN and the International Labour Organisation—for example, in
402
support of the ILO's International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour—with EU partners, especially on Sudan, and in our bilateral relationships.
We strongly support the efforts of certain countries to eliminate the practice of slavery. We also provide practical help to tackle the poverty which breeds abusive labour practices.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, which contains some cause for hope, I should like to ask her whether this Government, who are committed to a foreign policy which takes account of human rights, are adequately addressing the scale of slavery in the modern world. For example, in addition to the evidence in the recent excellent report by Anti-Slavery International, we in Christian Solidarity Worldwide have freed more than 1,200 slaves in Sudan but we estimate that there are still tens of thousands of people enslaved in Sudan. I have just returned from Burma where I had the privilege of being with the Karen and the Kareni people, many of whom have been forced into labour in such harsh conditions that they are dying. Therefore, will the Minister give an assurance that this Government will follow in the tradition of William Wilberforce and make increased efforts to try to achieve an end to this abominable practice before we move into the next millennium?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may express the Government's appreciation of all the noble Baroness's valuable work on this issue and on a number of other wider human rights issues. Her Majesty's Government do not just proceed by exhortation on this issue, although we urge other countries to sign up to their international legal obligations. We also try to tackle these issues through the way in which we tackle poverty in different parts of the world.
The noble Baroness mentioned Sudan and Burma. Since our useful debate in your Lordships' House in December last year, there has been a constructive resolution on Sudan which was agreed by consensus—that consensus included Sudan itself—at the UN Commission on Human Rights which took place in Geneva in April. That calls among other things for investigations into the practice of forced labour and means to eradicate that practice. We shall be working closely with our EU partners on the follow-up to that resolution.
The noble Baroness also mentioned Burma. The ILO report last year made recommendations for implementation by the ruling State Police and Development Council. We are working, again with our partners, to co-ordinate action through the ILO on the Burmese regime's response. Recently, the SPDC responded to that pressure by announcing the suspension of certain legal provisions governing the use of forced labour.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, have the Government considered imposing an import ban on

403
artefacts known to have been manufactured wholly or partly by slave labour, or at least introducing a compulsory labelling scheme?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord raises a difficult point because the whole system of bonded labour, particularly the use of children in that way, is repellent and repugnant. But we have felt that the proper way to address this matter is through the focus that the Foreign Office and DflD endeavour to put on ending such labour practices as slavery and bonded labour. The Department for International Development is providing support for the ILO's programme for the elimination of child labour both in terms of the core funding and in terms of funding the south Asia regional and India country programmes. We are also providing £750,000 over the three-year period 1997–2000 for a programme run by the Save the Children Fund in Pakistan to tackle child labour, including the issue of bonded labour.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, will the Government take into the account the importance of the abolition of slavery when negotiating trade agreements with countries that have questionable human rights records?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the Government already do that. It is extremely important that we do not lose sight of such humanitarian considerations. It is the Government's belief that trade is very important. Trade may very often help the economic position of those who are most disadvantaged in certain countries. But the noble Lord is quite right: a balanced view has to be taken where we are certain that there are practices of slavery or bonded labour.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, bearing in mind the Government's principled position on an ethical foreign policy and on human rights, will the noble Baroness try to encourage governments in countries like Sudan, Pakistan and India which have laws against slavery to enforce those laws and to free all those people who are enslaved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government certainly pursue these issues. I was able to detail the issue of Sudan to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, a moment or two ago. The Government also pursue such issues with Pakistan, India and a number of other countries where we are concerned about their labour practices. It is extremely important that such issues are tackled not only by urging those countries to stop such practices but also by tackling the underlying poverty that gives rise to the practices in the first place. One of the most important ways in which we can do so is through the money that we are able to give in aid, particularly for the purpose of the education of women.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in addition to the ILO work outlined by the Minister, what priority are the Government giving to the need to combat one of the most pernicious and odious forms of slavery today,
404
the trafficking in women and girls, which has become one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises in the world, given that it is estimated that between 1 million and 2 million women and girls annually are forcibly moved around the world, usually for the purpose of forced labour, domestic servitude or sexual exploitation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Sexual slavery, including forced prostitution and forced marriage, is abhorrent. It is a violation of women's human rights and it limits women's autonomy, their freedom of movement and their right to decide for themselves on the pattern of their own sexual activity. The statute of the International Criminal Court includes sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, rape and certain other serious sex Jai crimes as crimes against humanity when they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations. However, it is important also to recognise that much of the exploitation of women has its roots in poverty and the exploitation of that poverty. Women are particularly vulnerable to poverty and exploitation. In all our development programmes we work with host governments and other departments to make gender considerations an integral part of development poi icy and planning. We provide direct support to women's groups. We concentrate on women's education, on health, on sanitation, on sexual education and on the education of their children.

American Bulldogs
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take immediate action to prevent the importation of American bulldogs.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are no plans at present to introduce a ban on the importation of the American bulldog. The Government are, however, keeping the situation regarding this type of dog under review, and to that end we are maintaining contact with the police and others.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a long time ago I asked a similar Question with regard to the pitbull terrier? The Government rejected the request and there followed horrid experiences, flawed legislation and considerable public expenditure? Is he further aware that this breed is a designer killer and is being imported for the purpose of dogfighting? That practice is the root cause of the problem and should be stamped out. Is my noble friend aware that action is desperately and urgently needed before a police officer, a dog warden or someone else is killed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, those concerns have been widely expressed. I hope that it is of some reassurance if I give up-to-date news. On Monday 24th May—this coming Monday—the Kennel Club is

405
hosting a seminar which will be given by the Metropolitan Police and directed solely to the problem of the American bulldog. Home Office officials will, of course, be present, as will representatives of police forces, the RSPCA, the National Canine Defence League, the Blue Cross and the Bulldog Breed Council, as well as representatives of the "dog press".
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, is the Minister aware, from his contact with the police, of their serious concern that these dogs, which have a record of inflicting serious, and in some cases fatal, injuries on grown adults, will be used by the criminal elements as violently aggressive bodyguards?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a most valuable point. I am aware of some incidents. For instance, the Metropolitan Police have seized three dogs which they believed to be bred or cross-bred from this particular animal. The first was indeed seized from a van where it was guarding drugs. It turned out not to be an American bulldog but a pit bull terrier. A second dog was also seized. That case has not yet come before the courts. A third dog was seized after it attacked horses and unseated a rider. The prosecution is ongoing and I should say no more about that.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that before any decision is taken to add the American bulldog to the list of proscribed dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act, there will be consultation with appropriate bodies, and that an opportunity will be given for representations to be made?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is an entirely reasonable request. There should not be any addition by way of prohibition without appropriate consultation. The noble Baroness will be one of the consultees. She is to be congratulated on vicariously steering through the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill. The Bill has completed its passage in another place and we hope that it will reach the statute book quickly. If it does, that will be almost entirely due to the noble Baroness's efforts.

Scottish Office Ministers: Responsibilities
3.21 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the specific responsibilities of the three junior Ministers at the Scottish Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, the allocation of responsibilities among the three remaining junior Ministers at the Scottish Office was announced
406
yesterday. It is as follows. My honourable friend Calum MacDonald is the Minister responsible for local government, housing, transport and home affairs. He will continue to have special responsibility for European affairs, and for Highlands and Islands issues and Gaelic. He is the House of Commons spokesman on matters across the range of Scottish Office business. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston is the Minister responsible for business and industry and education. He is also responsible for women's issues and children. I am the Minister responsible for agriculture, environment, fisheries and forestry. I am also responsible for health, social work and for sports and the arts. I have specific responsibility for social inclusion and I am the House of Lords spokesman on Scottish affairs.
Ministers at the Scottish Office remain responsible for the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland until the transfer of most functions to Scottish Ministers on 1st July. I apologise to the House for what is inevitably a detailed Answer to a specific Question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I congratulate him and his noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on surviving when three posts at the Scottish Office have now gone. Perhaps I may also congratulate him on acquiring a more amenable boss as Secretary of State for Scotland than had been rumoured in the press over the past few weeks. That is the mildest comment I can think of.
Some months ago, the noble Lord said in an answer to me that it was intended that in the future the Secretary of State for Scotland would focus on promoting communication between the Scottish Parliament and Ministers and the UK Parliament and Government on matters of mutual interest, and on representing Scottish interests in reserved areas. Does the noble Lord believe that there is enough work for a Secretary of State and three junior Ministers after 1st July?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—or Sir David Steel, as he is known in an alternative place—is present. I congratulate the noble Lord on his election as Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.
Returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I shall certainly not anticipate any decisions that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister may make about the ministerial composition of the Scottish Office. We explained in the White Paper, Scotland's Parliament, that there will remain various important functions for the Secretary of State following devolution: mainly to represent Scottish interests in the reserved business of the United Kingdom Government and to promote good communications between the governments and parliaments in London and Edinburgh. It is important that Scottish interests are effectively represented and that the people of Scotland continue to recognise the benefits of the Union.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we now have 22 Ministers and Law Officers in Scotland, 24 in all, and four Ministers in

407
London—28 in all—when six or seven Ministers did all the work in the past? Is that not a gross extravagance to be met by the United Kingdom taxpayer providing the Scottish Vote, bearing in mind that all these Ministers will require departments, private secretaries, spin doctors and the rest? Is the Minister not concerned that the taxpayer has been taken for a frightful ride over the past week?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, It is not for me to make any comment on the decisions of the Scottish Parliament in approving the list of ministerial appointments, as it did yesterday. As to Scottish Office Ministers here, I had fondly, but vainly, hoped that the noble Lord would make another point; namely, seeing that they have been reduced to four from seven, their remuneration could be revised upwards.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, during the dark days of the 1980s, when hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens lost their jobs, what did Employment Ministers in the previous administration do?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, they contributed to the darkness.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as it seems that these three members of the Government will have much time on their hands, might they not be usefully occupied in examining in depth and then explaining to the media and the public the meaning of the concept "the third way" which has so far baffled professors of politics and government? That would be a task force to be welcomed.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as a former—and perhaps future—professor of politics, I may return to that issue at some date in the future, and perhaps get a publication out of it. As matters stand, this House must recognise that there is important work to he done in the Scottish Office. It is absolutely vital that Ministers are responsible for the functions that presently remain within the Scottish Office and that Ministers are properly accountable to Parliament. I see it as one of my tasks—I am sure that fellow Ministers in the Scottish Office see it equally—to ensure the smooth transition of functional authority and responsibility on 1st July.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply on the position after 1st July, will he convey to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister the desire that I am sure is felt by the whole House that we should have at least one Scottish Office Minister here, answerable to this House? Furthermore, there are already more than enough professors in the world without adding one more!
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I think I can say I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord. I do not believe
408
it would be prudent to give an assurance that I shall personally pass on his comments; however, I am sure that the Prime Minister will be made aware of them.

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday next to allow the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Bill
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords. I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 2.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating (Valuation) Bill
3.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Rateable value]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved an amendment:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
("()At the end of paragraph 2 there shall be inserted—
"(11) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) "repairs" shall have the meaning ascribed to it by section 69(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and

(b) the term "reasonable repair" in any given case shall he determined by reference to what is reasonably to he expected having regard to all material considerations but regardless of who is actually responsible for repairs to the hereditament and references to "reasonable landlord" and "reasonable tenant" shall be construed accordingly."")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House any longer than is absolutely necessary. This Bill sets out to clarify the position regarding the treatment of repairs for the purposes of non-domestic rating valuation in the wake of the case of Anston Properties v. Benjamin (V.O.). The effects of this Bill have created ripples of consternation among the professional bodies concerned. I am glad to report that very considerable progress was made in Committee earlier this month. In

409
particular, the statement by the noble Baroness the Minister and her responses to queries raised at that time were extremely helpful and greatly clarified the purposes and objectives of the Bill. I am most grateful for the courtesy and consideration that the noble Baroness and her department has shown me throughout.
The clarification that the noble Baroness provided was of special relevance in that the meaning of the Bill and its wording appeared to be obscure. Because of this a practice note was—I suspect rather uniquely—drawn up. That practice note, now in its third draft, is intended to clarify the purposes and objectives of the Bill to ensure that previous valuation practice, as it is believed to have been understood prior to the Anston case, is retained.
Rating valuation is a precision instrument and clarity in the formula of words used in legislation that affects it is vitally important. The courts are littered with cases in which apparently simple words have had their meaning questioned. I did not want a Bill to proceed through this House that was in any way obscure in its meaning which would then possibly fall to the courts to determine.
The Government have made clear that they do not want to alter the precision with which the present wording of the Bill has been crafted. I understand that. But they also say that they do not want to alter the original understandings of the old corpus of legislation that precedes it. However, unless the non-statutory practice note—which, incidentally, could be torn up the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent—is a sufficiently compelling and inescapable part of the practical application of the Bill when it becomes law, there will be a risk of mischief-making, which I would regard as dangerous. I believe that every effort should be made to reach an agreement on the practice note before the Bill leaves this House.
My object in moving this amendment is to highlight two areas in which concerns remain; first, on the question of repairs. Noble Lords may be aware that want of repairs arising through normal year-on-year recurring maintenance is disregarded for the purposes of rating valuation, but other repairs may be much more intrusive or involve remediation of a more fundamental nature, in which case they may have to be taken into account in arriving at the annual rental value for rating purposes. In seeking to clarify this, the practice note at present appears to distinguish between repairs as a generic term for those things that should not be taken into account as opposed to,
"the replacement and renewal of damaged parts which may go beyond repair to constitute improvement",
which may be validly considered.
The term "repair" is a broad one. I do not believe that we are yet at the point where the correct test is being applied. I am also worried that the practice note states
410
that the first principle is that repairs are deemed to have been carried out,
"whatever the actual state of repair of the property".
That appears to go a lot further than the old law which in effect said that the valuer was to disregard those repairs which it was reasonable to expect a landlord or tenant to carry out. Further, the practice note does not appear to match the wording of the Bill. In strengthening the assumption to be made as to the effect of the Bill, the practice note probably makes the situation a little less clear rather than the converse.
I believe that all of this starts to look a bit complicated and, rather than go back to the old 1920s case law and pray that in aid in defining "repairs", my amendments suggests a definition that is already in legislation in Section 69(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The first leg of my amendment brings in that provision. It has the advantage that it will continue the philosophy of bringing the process of rating valuation nearer to the real world of landlord and tenant. The real world is now governed largely by the provisions of the 1954 Act.
The second leg of the amendment seeks to refocus the overarching test of reasonableness which has always been the hallmark of rating valuation. In the past this has followed the approximate formula of what is reasonably to be expected in any given circumstance. But we see that in the practice note the test appears to be sub-divided by applying it to a reasonable landlord, a reasonable tenant and a state of reasonable repair. I may be looking for problems where there are none, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to provide further reassurance about the Government's intentions as to that. However, in interpreting the new usage of words as an indication of what Parliament means potentially the courts may, in differentiating them from the old use of words, reach a different conclusion from that intended. I am nervous about the wandering use of the word "reasonable". Therefore, the second leg of my amendment is to try to put all of the tests of reasonableness back into the single overarching consideration that relates to the formula of words used in the General Rate Act 1967 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
As I have implied, I would be rather unhappy to let this Bill pass through all of its stages without knowing that the practice note was substantially agreed. I have already indicated elsewhere that I am prepared to give time and effort to ensure that that happens. I am aware that the noble Baroness does not want the Bill to be unduly delayed. That is particularly important because a revaluation is taking place at this moment and the Valuation Office needs to know where it stands. I am very much aware of that situation. But I hope that the Minister can give me some reassurance on the interaction between the practice note and what has been said in Committee and perhaps what I have said today and the response of the noble Baroness. I apologise to the House for addressing an issue related to a practice

411
note that is not before your Lordships rather than adhering strictly to the text of the Bill, but I believe that the two are very closely linked. I beg to move.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for placing the draft practice note, together with her speech in Grand Committee, in the Library. I understand that these will be used by the rating professionals in determining and discussing valuation practice. This is also a good opportunity to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on all his hard work on this subject. Noble Lords are aware that the noble Earl is one of the great experts on the matter in this House.
To paraphrase the noble Earl, he said that there was still confusion about this judgment and therefore it was imperative that any contradictions should be ironed out before the Bill became law. A number of noble Lords at other stages of the Bill have raised issues about definitions, particularly the meaning of "reasonable repairs". At other stages of the Bill the noble Baroness said that to include a definition could create more problems than it solved. I am still not certain why this is so and I hope that the Minister can clarify the point when she replies to the noble Earl.
The Minister also said in Grand Committee that the meaning of "repair" in the context of property and property valuations was well understood by professionals in that field. I believe that that is too great an assumption and that further clarity is required. I look forward to the reply of the noble Baroness and hope that this Bill can go through, perhaps with additions to the practice note.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too congratulate those professionals who have been advising the noble Earl. I know that he will be the first to acknowledge their help. I too appreciate their input and the willingness of officials to listen and to be involved in a string of meetings and discussions. The noble Earl is concerned about the Bill being enacted while the practice note is still either incomplete or, putting it at its lowest, a matter of concern.
When the Minister replies, perhaps she will explain when the Bill will come into force. I understand the point the noble Earl makes. Although the practice note can be subject to amendment during the life of the statute, it would be desirable for there to be a document which is widely agreed at the start of its life.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the Minister replies, perhaps she will help the amateurs among us by stating the relative weight given by the courts to the text of the Bill, the text of the practice note (in whatever form it may be at the time a case is brought) and the words that the noble Baroness is about to utter, under the terms of Pepper v. Hart.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may comment to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that had I been unaware that I was a lay person when I began this process, experience by this stage of the Bill
412
would inevitably have convinced me that I was—and it may not have ended yet. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, his advisers and noble Lords opposite who have taken part in the Bill have taught me how little I knew to begin with. I am grateful to the noble Earl. We had a careful and most useful discussion in Grand Committee of the aspects of the Bill to which this amendment is addressed. During the passage of the Bill, or in discussions outside this House, it was clarified that the paramount concern is the text of the Bill. But if there is difficulty following that, the assurances given in your Lordships' House take precedence over a practice note which, inevitably, due to circumstances over a period of time, may need to be amended.
In Committee—I think that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will agree—I said that the word "repair" was and is well understood among professionals. The noble Earl still suggests that it needs further definition. The amendment seeks first to insert in the Bill a definition of "repair". Parliament has sought to define "repair" in statute where there might be cause to doubt, at the margins, what it means in particular situations. As I said in Committee, we have not sought to do so in this Bill because, in practice, rating professionals have well understood what in principle has counted as a "repair" for the purposes of estimating rateable value, and what has counted (to take examples raised at earlier stages) as "improvement" and "alteration". If we were to attempt to define the term exhaustively, we would on one view be addressing a problem that has not been shown to exist. On another view, we would run the risk of introducing some nuance, some inference, which would unintentionally disturb the settled position. I believe that we have no need and no wish to do either of those things.
I believe that those are still the overriding aims on the issue. I therefore do not believe that the Bill would benefit from definition in the proper sense of the term. For those considerations, the amendment is not acceptable.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to expand on what is meant by "reasonable repair". I assure the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that he has no cause for concern regarding the use of the terms within this Bill. The first limb seems to be intended to require that what is "reasonable repair" is to be determined by what might reasonably be expected having regard to all material considerations. So far that seems unexceptionable, but it is not necessary to state it. It should go without saying that statutes are scattered with references to the concept of reasonableness but it is not normally found necessary to spell out that that means "reasonable in the light of all the surrounding circumstances so far as they are relevant". That would be a statement of the obvious. The material considerations will vary with the context, the purpose of the statute and the facts of the individual case.
However, the second limb asks us to disregard who is responsible for repairing the hereditament. Taken at face value, the amendment is wholly unnecessary as the identity of the parties is not an issue for most purposes when applying the valuation hypothesis to a case. However, I take it from what the noble Earl said about

413
the amendment that he intends it to refer to the assumed responsibility for repairs. What matters for the purpose of the hypothesis is who is to be assumed to be responsible. Reading the amendment in the light of what the noble Earl appears to intend, it would directly contradict the 1988 Act. At present, the tenant is assumed to be responsible for ongoing repairs during the life of the hypothetical tenancy. That is the express intention of the valuation hypothesis as enacted in 1988 and is rooted in the real world of commercial leases; and I cannot accept an amendment which could overturn this.
On another view, the Bill is undermined also if the identity of the person assumed to be liable for repairs is disregarded for the purpose of establishing what is reasonable.
It may assist the noble Earl—I do not think that there is anything between us—if I say again that the Bill is intended to effect as little change as possible to the position as it stood under valuation to gross value under the 1967 Act. Under gross value, valuations were undertaken on the basis of the hypothetical landlord carrying out any necessary repairs. To separate the landlord from that responsibility would risk the conclusion that no one was to be regarded as responsible for repairs. On that assumption, the Bill might not achieve its objective, given that if no one is to be deemed to be responsible for the repairs, they cannot be assumed to have been carried out. On that analysis also, the amendment could undermine—I am sure that it is not the noble Earl's intention—the basic purpose of the Bill.
I am sure that the noble Earl's only intention in proposing the amendment is to clarify the effect of the Bill. I hope that he feels able to accept my assurance that it is the Government's intention also that practice in this area should be clear and transparent. I am aware that the noble Earl has concerns about the way in which issues addressed by his amendment are dealt with in the current draft of the practice note. However, that is another matter. The note is still under discussion and the agency will be happy to discuss further with him the formulation of the note. I can assure the noble Earl that the Valuation Office Agency will give careful consideration to how the note might best be readjusted to reflect his concerns.
However, it may help if I reiterate points that were made earlier. I gave a detailed statement to the Committee on 5th May about the Government's intentions in introducing the Bill. I also gave a number of examples of valuation practice to illustrate why we believe that the Bill would not have practical implications for ratepayers. My intention is that the statement should be an aid to interpretation of the Rating (Valuation) Bill; and I am entirely happy that it should be read in that context. I am happy to make clear to noble Lords today and to the wider profession in their consideration of the practice note that that is so.
I can also assure the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the final practice note will reflect all the assurances I gave the House. I am sure that he will confirm that they were very detailed assurances. I understand that a meeting
414
with those in the wider profession to consider outstanding issues on the note has been arranged. As the noble Earl indicated, he will participate in that discussion, which I welcome. I remain available to meet him at any stage should that prove helpful.
I wish to place on record not only my thanks to the noble Earl, but to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. In regard to the timing and protection of current cases, the Bill will come into force on Royal Assent. Ratepayers who challenged their rating assessments before 12th March 1998, the date of the Anston judgment, will be entitled to have their cases decided on the basis of that judgment as set out in Clause 2.
I hope that I have been able to give noble Lords the assurances they have sought. I repeat that if it should be necessary or helpful to meet at any stage I should be only too happy to do so. I hope that in the light of those assurances the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she make clear beyond doubt that it is the Government's intention that on Royal Assent the Bill will come into force with the practice note, whatever state it is in? I was not clear, but I think that is what she meant.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes, that was what I intended. I hope I made equally clear that it is in the context of all the assurances I have been able to give and the necessity to update and amend the practice note in consultation and close co-operation with members of the professions.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that detailed response. As usual, she has answered with great clarity and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for their kind comments about my expertise in this field. I do not feel that I am an expert at all; indeed, the Minister made a good fist of demolishing my amendment on technical grounds. But such is life.
I am particularly heartened to know that what has been said in Committee and today will inform the production of the practice note. I am pleased to see the Minister nod in affirmation of that. Therefore, there will be a reasonably seamless approach between the provisions of the Bill, what was said in Committee, the Minister's reassurances today and the practice note.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if the Government do not accept that the Bill should be amended, any doubts about interpretation will have to be picked up in the practice note. Otherwise, if there is confusion about the meaning of the Bill and its meaning is not made clear in the practice note, matters will inevitably go back to the courts. That scenario brought about the need for the Bill in the first place. In the Government's view, the Anston Properties case altered the treatment of repair and today we are dealing with

415
the legislation. I should be fearful of that happening again and I hope that we can avoid it. I wish to ensure that the Bill is clearly understood by practitioners.
I feel that I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time today. I am grateful for the support of all noble Lords and to members of the outside professions who have been of enormous assistance to me. I look forward to discussing the production of the practice note with the Minister's department and the Valuation Office. There is a considerable degree of understanding between us. There will always be problems about the precise meaning of certain words, but provided that we have reached a sufficient level of understanding that will have to be taken on trust. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [General purpose and definitions]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 16, at end insert ("including activities in the territorial waters and the sea designated within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to a matter that we discussed in Committee and I undertake not to keep the House for more than a moment or two. At the end of that debate on 15th February, I asked the Government to confirm that the offshore oil and gas industry was covered by the Bill, because nowhere does that appear. Nor does it appear in the Council Directive 96/61/EC, which it is the purpose of the Bill to implement. An earlier environmental directive on large combustion plants expressly excluded plants on off-shore installations.
At the end of the Committee stage debate, the Minister made it abundantly clear:
"that legal advice in relation to the activities listed in the directive and the legal advice of the Commission is that it should apply to the Continental Shelf and beyond territorial waters unless there are indications to the contrary—and there are none—in the IPPC directive".—[Official Report, 15/2/99; col. 527.]
My point is that, for the first time, the Bill extends integrated pollution control—or, as it now is under the directive, integrated pollution and prevention control—to installations offshore. I say with a great deal of pleasure that the Government in their wisdom have decided, as we debated on Report, that there should be express mention of that in Clause 1 of the Bill. That is the reason why I have tabled Amendment No. 1. It simply makes it clear that the activities in the definition subsection should include:
"activities in the territorial waters and the sea designated within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964".
It is a simple point. The Minister has accepted the purpose clause which refers to implementing the directive. I believe that it should be set out on the face of the Bill that it extends to the Continental Shelf. It is
416
a comparatively simple point, but I hope at this late stage in this House, or perhaps when the Bill reaches another place, the Minister will feel able to meet the case. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment and regard it as important. It is wrong that what happens under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 should be left to the uncertainty of being dealt with or not at some future stage by regulations. This is a matter which internationally, as a matter of pride, we should get right within the contents of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has moved a very important amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in rising to support: my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I express the hope—I cannot say "wish"—that the Minister might be able to accept the amendment which does nothing to alter he substance of the Bill other than to make explicit on its face what is already implicit in what is happening and what appears in the draft regulations which we have already seen.
If we are legislating in this way—and we already are—there are other industrial processes which take place over and in the Continental Shelf area, such as fishing, which are or might also be affected. 'The draft: regulations apply simply to the business of oil installations. I am well aware that fishing and indeed shipping, which is another industrial occupation, if one may put it that way, might well be affected by the regulations. They are regulated at the present time by many international conventions.
Can the Minister tell me whether we are altering the status of those industries by this extension to the Bill which will take place whether or not the proposed words are added to it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I regret that. I cannot accept the amendment. First, as I have explained previously, it is unnecessary. Clause 1(2) makes clear that activities are covered whether earned on at particular premises or otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, quoted both our legal advice and that of the European Commission, indicating clearly that provision for offshore activities is included.
Subsection (2), taken in conjunction with Clause 5(9), is quite explicit along the lines the noble Lord would wish. Clause 5(9), refers to territorial waters; the sea in any designated area; and the sea in any area specified under the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982. That is a precise and clear formulation.
The noble Lord's formulation, in so far as he seeks to clarify, would not clarify sufficiently. The amendment excludes that area of the sea defined in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, which, I understand, relates to developments straddling the boundary lines between the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and those of another member state.

417
The amendment would not do precisely what the noble Lord wishes. In any case, clarification is to be found in the last clause of the Bill. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord the Minister makes about Clause 5. Of course, he is right. That is the clause concerned with the regulation-making powers. We are dealing in Clause 1, as amended after a good deal of debate and after the intervention of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, with the overall purposes of the Bill. My intention was to make sure that the extension to the North Sea is clearly within those purposes. That is why I added the definition at the end.
I have used the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, too often myself not to recognise that saying that an amendment is unnecessary carries some weight in government departments, and even occasionally in the two Houses of Parliament. So, not wanting to prolong the debate, although I still think it is a pity that there is not the reference I have proposed in Clause 1, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Regulation of polluting activities]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall require individuals or bodies responsible for carrying out such activities as are referred to in the regulations (not being a category of activity referred to in Annex I of Council Directive 96/61/EC) to employ the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (in this section referred to as "BATNEEC") to be used for minimising the pollution which may be caused to the environment as a whole by those activities:
Provided that—

(a) regulations under this section may specify circumstances where a more or less restrictive regime than BATNEEC may be required either to comply with European or other international obligations, or on account of other circumstances;

(b) where regulations are made pursuant to paragraph (a) above, they shall be accompanied by a statement explaining why such a more or less restrictive regime should be applied; and

(c) if the regime to be employed is more restrictive than BATNEEC, the regulations embodying that regime shall not he made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords could be forgiven if their eyes glaze over as they try to understand Amendment No, 2 on the Marshalled List, especially if they are not familiar with this somewhat technical but far-reaching Bill and its extraordinary—indeed, almost unprecedented—passage through your Lordships' House.
I shall not repeat the history of the Bill now at Third Reading because I placed a potted version on the record at Report stage last week, at cols. 1382–1385 of Hansard of 13th May. Suffice it to say that the Bill imports an EU directive, No. 96/61/EC, into British law, and
418
combines that directive with our existing Environmental Protection Act 1990. In doing so the Bill removes the first 28 sections of that Act from the statute book and replaces them with sweeping regulation-making powers. It is very unfortunate that those regulations will not be put in front of us for consideration until after the Bill has become law. The Bill thus sets up a new system of pollution prevention and control in this country. It is therefore a very important Bill, even if it is inevitably rather technical.
The Bill has had a very chequered history in your Lordships' House, including a very damning report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, it has been much improved during its passage through the House. Thanks are due to the Minister for his helpfulness and wisdom in that regard.
Even so, the Bill still has important and unacceptable flaws. Perhaps the most important remaining defect is that the proposed new pollution prevention and control regime is potentially disastrous for small businesses, even if large businesses feel that they may be able to live with the situation. To understand why this is so, I fear that I have to try your Lordships' patience by describing the difference between two pollution control regimes, called, in the jargon, "BAT" and "BATNEEC". Before your Lordships disappear into the Library without so much as a backward glance, may I assure the House that the difference between the two is really quite easy to understand.
BATNEEC requires that pollution should be prevented and controlled using best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. "Not entailing excessive cost" is the "NEEC" bit. This is the regime imposed by our Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is obviously potentially much less expensive, especially for small businesses, than the regime required by the EC directive, which is BAT, or, simply, "best available techniques" without the requirement that those techniques should not entail excessive cost.
It is true that the BAT regime does say that costs and advantages must be taken into consideration, but that is altogether different from saying that proposals should not entail excessive cost and having that proviso on the face of the Bill, as in Section 7 of our Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is being swept away by the Bill.
The amendment ensures that small businesses can continue to prevent and control pollution under our present BATNEEC regime, which, as the Minister was good enough to agree last week, is working well, while only the larger businesses identified in Annex I of the directive move under the BAT regime, as the directive requires.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment which reflects precisely what the directive requires, what the Government's own explanatory notes said was the intention of the Bill when they produced it last November, and, perhaps more important, what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box a week ago was the aim of the Bill.

419
Let me start with the directive. I quoted this aspect of the directive in full last week; I shall not repeat myself. The point is that the directive brings us BAT, best available techniques, setting up a very wide-ranging regime which merely has to,
"take into consideration the costs and advantages",
of the best available techniques which industry is required to employ to prevent and control pollution. But the directive makes clear that its BAT regime is only to apply to the categories and size of industrial activities which are listed in the directive's Annex I. These are very detailed and clearly apply to large installations which are likely to be owned and operated by large businesses. So this amendment respects the directive fully because it places all the activities listed in Annex I of the directive under the BAT regime, leaving the rest of British industry, which amounts, really, to our smaller businesses which are largely incapable of producing the kind of pollution at which the directive is aimed, under the present successful BATNEEC regime as required by our existing Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The amendment also gives the Government power to vary the BATNEEC regime when necessary, beyond what is required by the directive, by affirmative resolution, which is surely sensible and helpful to the Government and in no way conflicts with the directive. So the amendment fully respects the directive.
I come to what the Minister said last week. He said:
"The Bill is not about killing off 135,000 small businesses; it will be applied to around 7,000 mainly large businesses".—[Official Report, 13/5/99; col. 1387.]
That is great because those, of course, are the 7,000 large businesses covered by Annex I of the directive and, incidentally, the same 7,000 large businesses, as far as I can make out, referred to in the Government's Explanatory Notes issued on 26th November. They are the same 7,000 odd businesses which become exposed to the BAT regime by the amendment before your Lordships rather than to the existing BATNEEC regime which will apply to the rest of industry.
The Official Report of our debate last week grows less clear when my noble friend Lady Blatch and I pressed the Minister and pointed out that the Bill as drafted does not limit the open-ended BAT regime to 7,000 or so larger businesses and industrial activities. We pointed out that the Bill as drafted cancels the BATNEEC regime altogether and introduces BAT for the whole of British industry.
The Minister then appears to have been somewhat misled by his brief because he said:
"The incorporation of the IPPC regime",
by which he meant the directive,
"will not extend these controls to areas which were not already covered by the 1990 Act".
But then, with great respect, he appears to have contradicted himself because he went on to say:
"Clearly, those small businesses already covered by the 1990 Act will still be covered by this regime".
By that, I presume he meant the new regime or BAT, instead of BATNEEC. Perhaps he could clarify that.
420
Then the Minister went on to make another statement which is clearly wrong. He said:
"Schedule I clearly restricts that to plants and installations, most of which will he owned by large businesses".—[Officia Report, 13/5/99; col. 1388]
Schedule I to the Bill contains no such restriction. It clearly abandons BATNEEC for the whole of British industry because it imports BAT, as required by the directive in paragraph 20 of the schedule to the Bill and it nowhere mentions BATNEEC.
The Bill itself makes clear, as I mentioned last week, that the new regime set up by the Bill is not only to accommodate the directive but also, and I again quote from the Bill, to regulate,
"otherwise than in pursuance of that Directive, activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution; otherwise preventing or controlling emissions capable of causing any such pollution".
The Bill confirms that those activities include.
"industrial or commercial activities…carried on on particular premises or otherwise".
So the Bill as drafted really does introduce BAT to the whole of British industry and commerce. This amendment would, however, put the Bill precisely on all fours with what appears to be the Government's intention, and so I hope the Minister can accept it.
In conclusion, I should place on the record two brief paragraphs of a letter written to me by the Federation of Small Businesses since our debate last week. The federation represents the 135,000 small businesses to which the Minister referred in his remarks at col. 1387, which I have quoted.
The letter goes as follows:
"On behalf of our members in particular and small business in general, I write to thank you most sincerely for your vigilance in bringing our attention to the removal of a valuable protection for small firms, namely BATNEEC.
Please also convey our gratitude to the noble Lords who rose to support small businesses in the debate. This provides an excellent example of the true value of the upper chamber which should continue to reflect the concerns of business".
If the Minister can accept this amendment, it would do much to set the mind of small business at rest and earn their gratitude, which he will have richly deserved. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support this amendment. My noble friend will not be surprised by that as he will no doubt have noted my remarks on Report. The amendment is asking that BATNEEC should apply not only to small businesses, although we concentrated on small businesses on Report, but to all businesses. Bureaucracy can impose costs which are not reasonable. Those who regularly read Christopher Booker's column in the Sunday Telegraph will have ample evidence as to how the bureaucracy of officialdom imposes techniques which are not really necessary. They are gold-plated. That applies not only to small businesses but also to large businesses.

421
Let us not forget that costs imposed on all businesses are usually passed on to the consumer. So, in ensuring that only reasonable costs are entailed and incurred, we are helping the consumer.
We want adequate and proper pollution controls but they need not be as expensive as, sometimes, officials believe they should be. Therefore, in my view, the amendment is extremely sensible.
One of the problems in this country is the growing power, extent and range of the bureaucracy and the growing power of SEFRAs which impose charges on businesses. They are self-financing and can impose their will without parliamentary or ministerial control. Frankly, some of their activities are frightening and damaging to our economic life. Therefore, it seems that this amendment helps to deal with that problem. It does not solve it entirely but it goes some way towards it.
At the same time, it recognises that there may be rare circumstances in which BATNEEC does not apply and should not apply. Therefore, the power is given to Ministers to bring forward alternatives to BATNEEC, provided that Parliament is aware of the circumstances and what is entitled by the changed circumstances in imposing BAT instead of BATNEEC.
Therefore, the amendment is well thought-out and helpful. It will be helpful not only to small businesses but to all businesses and it will certainly be helpful to the consumer because costs may very well be reduced. I know that my noble friend is receptive to good ideas—I do not want to praise him too much because it might damage his career—and I hope that he will consider this amendment and accept it. It is a good amendment. It will not hurt his Bill. Indeed, it will help it from the democratic point of view.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment as one who is concerned about small businesses, particularly rural small businesses.
The Long Title of this Bill makes it clear that two approaches are being combined here to activities which cause pollution, one implementing the European Council directive and the other regulating otherwise,
"activities…capable of causing any environmental pollution".
I find the European Council directive relatively easy to discuss. One of its beauties is that it is possible to distinguish within it what is a small business and what is a large business. But when we get beyond that, the line becomes blurred and difficult to determine. As I understand it, everything in the European directive is laid down in terms of the industries, the activities and the substances which are regarded as requiring regulation to prevent pollution.
The one missing element in that jigsaw is that it is left to the individual member states to define at what level or intensity each substance or detrimental activity should be regarded as causing pollution. Perhaps as a slight rider to this debate it would be interesting to know whether the British Government have now drawn up a list of the levels at which they regard pollution will have been created and whether that is available along with other consultation papers.
422
I find it a rather different story when we come to the incorporation of the British approach, which must be what is contained in the phrase,
"regulating, otherwise…activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution".
I certainly took a certain amount of comfort from what the Minister told us at Report when he said that.
"the incorporation of the integrated pollution prevention and control regime will not extend these controls to areas which were not already covered by the 1990 Act".—[Official Report, 13/5/99; col. 1388.]
But the worry is that the approach contained in the 1990 Act, shorn of its 28 sections of defining legislation, could lead to statutory instruments being applied in areas which are not presently under consideration.
As someone who has spent many years in farming and land management, I am particularly concerned with what until now has been regarded as acceptable rural or agricultural practice. Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean. One can have some understanding of the European directive's limit on agricultural units which, as the Minister explained to me at Second Reading, is fixed at 40,000 hens, 2,000 fattening pigs or 750 breeding sows. The various components of pollution that have been taken into consideration in arriving at that limit are not actually defined.
One of the substances pinpointed in the directive is any substance with a high level of biological oxygen demand. Such substances are already regarded as pollutants in this country if released into a watercourse, but having a production system which produces such substances at an agricultural level is not presently subject to licence. If the European directive is taken as giving an indication of the levels at which controls are likely to be introduced, one can calculate the estimated biological oxygen demand produced by a unit of 750 breeding sows. At a rough calculation, materials of a similar level of biological oxygen demand would be produced by a unit of somewhere between 250 and 500 dairy cows. Those noble Lords with rural backgrounds will realise that there is a difference as to whether one takes into account pollution produced by cows at grass as well as the pollution produced by cows when indoors.
At this point, one is bound to be considering rather more than the 1,000 agricultural units that the Government presently maintain are likely to be affected. I expect that that particular yardstick will not presently be considered. My worry is that there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent such a comparison being drawn at a later date. That is where we come to the difficulty that I see: that from now on any sanction that this House will be able to voice against statutory instruments will be governed by the practice concerning positive resolution. The present convention whereby this House does not oppose secondary legislation may well be strained beyond its limit. The extremely wide powers delegated by the Bill may compel Members of your Lordships' House to make an intervention, even if only to express their rejection.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I wish to intervene in support of this amendment. I should

423
perhaps apologise that I come rather late to this modest scrap. That is not due to the usual indolence, but to ignorance. It is a glorious thing to be a foot-loose, fancy-free Cross-Bencher, but we have no research department and no assiduous Whips to draw our attention to some of these stealthy measures on behalf of European integration.
At Report stage, which I read most carefully, almost all noble Lords paid tribute to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We have all had experience of the conscientious and courteous way he treats even such fractious questioners as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Paradoxically, his high standing underlines the baleful influence of Euro-directives which landed even him in such trouble with the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
I confess that I speak as a former economist—a relaxed, retired economist—but, nevertheless, wholly opposed to the eruption of this Bill, especially when the 1990 Act seemed to be working to general satisfaction. I am irreconcilably opposed in principle to having the words "best available techniques" detached from the specific clear qualification of "not entailing excessive costs". It reminded me of a phrase of a well remembered Member of this House, Lord George-Brown, who used to say that he opposed something "irregardless" of the intentions of the Minister.
The suppression of pollution is one of those good things, like the National Health Service, on which single-minded enthusiasts could easily spend the greater part of the national income. In an unceasing search for perfection, enthusiasts push for further improvements, which can always be justified without regard to their ever-spiralling expense. Our aim in this matter should never be a world of zero pollution, nor even a world of minimum pollution; it should be a world of optimal pollution. In this as in other policies we must be guided by what economists call the "opportunity cost", measured by the sacrifice of all other desirable improvements displaced by any single line of expenditure.
Whatever the extenuating circumstances or external pressures, I have a slight suspicion, which the Minister need not deny, that he shares some of our reluctance to abandon this mnemonic BATNEEC. In any event, I wish to restore it in place of this impoverished version of "best available techniques", which has me putting my hand over my wallet pocket.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I hope that he will bear in mind that this clause, which I fully support, has been drafted with the expertise of the Clerks of the House. But for all that, and because of the arcane use of double negatives, it may not be easy to follow and may be flawed. I hope that the Minister will not reject the amendment on that basis, if that is the case, but look more deeply into what previous speakers have put to him; namely, that there is real concern in industry against losing the well accepted, well understood, well drafted, excellent technique of BATNEEC and substituting an entirely unnecessary alternative.
424
This is a matter of great importance. It brings in the smaller businesses which are specifically excluded by the EC directive. It is an example of gold-plating regulations at its worst. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he replies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment. But that does not mean that we are in any way downgrading the importance of cleaning up the environment. I regard it as one of the privileges and great pleasures of the original Environmental Protection Act that its efficacy is manifest in the latest reports showing just how much improvement there has been in our rivers and industrial processes over the past decade. That government aim is very much supported.
An important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which I support. Although we are praying in aid the protection of small businesses, which remains very important, this is a matter which applies to all businesses. If the burden of cost falling on a business results in lost jobs, lost market share or, worse, a company going out of business, it will impact on communities and on the health and wealth of our economy. That is an important point to bear in mind.
So much of the 1990 Act is being removed. I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Renton had to say about this Bill. To take a great swathe from the 1990 Act and then leave it to the vagaries of secondary legislation is simply not good enough. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose also made the point that, because of the limitations on the powers of this House, to take or leave secondary legislation suggests that matters will be very unsatisfactory in future. That sector of cur business and commerce will be put very much more at risk.
I believe that my noble friend has done the House a service. He has read very carefully what the Minister had to say when we last considered this Bill. I see this amendment as a very important salvage exercise. It re-imports into the Bill the protection of small businesses and allows the flexibility which my noble friend set out so clearly as regards BAT and the businesses to which this Bill applies. But should there be any extension to the work of the regulators it seems to me that the NEEC part of BATNEEC (the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost) is absolutely crucial as a protection for the whole of industry and commerce, and in particular the small business sector.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, to a degree we are raking over hot ashes and they are now being fanned. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, gave the precise reason why that is so. We are not discussing business costs, although it is possible that they will be affected as a result of this Bill. But businesses are businesses and they are there to survive and make an honest living. If their costs increase they are passed on to the consumer. Ultimately they become costs to the whole of society. That is why this matter is important.
This particular amendment is directed at protecting or excluding, as far as possible, the smaller business sector insofar as it is protected at the present time and not

425
included within the ambit of the 1990 Act. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised an important point about the drafting of regulations after the 1990 Act is repealed. It seems to me that at that point it would be possible to draft regulations which were strictly outwith the ambit of that Act, so I would certainly wish to have at the very least an assurance from the Minster that that will not happen.
The noble Duke also raised the question of conventions on secondary legislation. I have spoken about that already in connection with this Bill. I may have something further to say on that later in the proceedings. It is a very difficult matter for the whole House. The Bill is much improved. For that thanks are due to the Minister for his work in persuading the Government to change the Bill. However, it is still a Bill which is wholly dependent for its implementation on regulations, the vast bulk of which have not been seen even in consultation form. Therefore, everything has to be taken on trust. I know the Minister well enough to believe that I can trust him. But the discussion at this stage would not have taken place had we been dealing with a more conventional Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that I am not rejecting this amendment because it has a minor drafting flaw or because it is advocated by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I hope I have displayed that when good ideas come from the House I consider them and act on them. However, this amendment is a thoroughly bad idea. So much that is misleading has been said in this debate that I do not know quite where to start. Perhaps I should begin where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, ended and on the point which the noble Duke raised; namely, that we were creating a new regulatory power which somehow went beyond what already exists.
The 1990 Act already allows regulations setting out the sectors and the activities which are to be covered. We are not creating a new power in that sense. We are not changing the regime so that we do not specify in advance the levels of pollution. The British system of pollution control has always been site specific. By definition, the harm will always vary according to the location. We are not altering the practice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the point made by the noble Lord about secondary legislation, perhaps I may point out that much of the 1990 Act has been removed. Secondary legislation has as its source clauses in an Act. If those are removed the power to make secondary legislation may exist but it cannot be implemented.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the powers are there in the Act. They are specified in regulations, which are very much in the same terms as the 1990 Act. We have no
426
additional power to make regulations such as those about which the noble Duke was concerned. We already have those powers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not arguing about the powers. They are there, but the clauses on which to build the secondary legislation will not exist.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the powers are defined in the purposes of the Act.
Perhaps I may now turn to the effect of this amendment. On the one hand it would create an incoherent system and on the other it would be deeply detrimental to the small firms about which noble Lords have expressed concern. I, too, am particularly concerned about them. The amendment would introduce two parallel systems, one based on BAT and the other on BATNEEC. The objective of this Bill is to create one coherent regime, which is based on BAT, to which I shall return in a moment, and clearly understandable by the whole of industry. That is supported by the vast majority of spokespeople from industry whom we have consulted.
The problem with the noble Lord's amendment is that not only would it introduce an incoherent two-tier regime in the sense of having two different techniques, but the threshold for those two techniques would also be defined by size of firm; whereas the whole threshold in the directive is determined by size of installation. Let us imagine, for example, a business which owns two installations, both producing the same product via the same processes. One would be covered by the directive's terms and the other by the BATNEEC terms. That company would just have to struggle in an effort to understand which technique to apply in each different situation. The two concepts are very similar, but they are not identical in law. Therefore, the noble Lord's amendment would clearly be counterproductive for the very industrial interests that he seeks to protect.
Perhaps I may clarify one matter, because I believe that the noble Lord probably had a point in referring back to the statements that I made on the last occasion. There may not have been total clarity there, but I think that the noble Lord made it slightly worse by quoting my words in the wrong order. Nevertheless, I shall try to clarify the position in the hope that it will satisfy the noble Lord.
There will be 7,000 IPPC installations which will be subject to integrated control—that is to say, emissions by air, land and water. Those are the large installations to which I referred. There are approximately 12,000 LAPC installations already regulated under earlier legislation, which relates to emissions by air. It is true that all will be subject to BAT, but it is not true that, for the first time, regulations will apply to them.
I turn now to the difference between BAT and BATNEEC. The amendment seems to keep alive the canard which has clearly gained a lot of force in your Lordships' House; namely, that BAT is somehow a stricter version of BATNEEC, without considering the flexibility and the viability of the corporation concerned. I shall not spell out everything that I said at an earlier

427
stage in the Bill's proceedings because it is all set out in the Official Report of 19th April. However, I hope that noble Lords who I feel have been misled on this point—not deliberately perhaps, but, nevertheless they have been—will understand. We do not expect the change in the technique from BATNEEC to BAT to lead to an operator spending significant amounts of money on upgrading equipment.
Contrary to the impression that has been conveyed in that respect, both BAT and BATNEEC have similar regard to costs. Indeed, it is absolutely explicit in the directive. BAT is about technology which is economically viable. The economics of a small firm and indeed of large firms are, therefore, taken into account. Indeed, that is something that the directive states very explicitly. Therefore, I do not believe that noble Lords should go down the road of regarding this as being an unrealistic, "ultra-green" definition bearing no relationship to the costs facing the management of small firms.
However, the real damage that would fall on small firms is, I believe, unintended by the noble Lord. I said on Report that lines 7 and 8 of his amendment, which was very similar, would require integrated permitting of emissions to the environment as a whole to be extended to all installations; in other words, it would have to be extended to those smaller installations mainly owned by smaller firms, though not entirely, which are covered by the local air pollution control system. That would be burdensome to small firms. It would not be a relief for them and would in fact prove to be the opposite. I do not honestly think that the noble Lord's colleagues in the Federation of Small Businesses would, in reality, thank him were he to pursue his amendment. It would be an additional burdensome amendment to extend this beyond the air emissions control which exists at present and which everyone understands. It would saddle small businesses with integrated permitting.
In these provisions we are not gold-plating; we are seeking to provide a coherent system which will protect the environment and which can be understood by industry. Indeed, most of industry welcomes it. The amendment would defeat the purpose of the Bill which is to maintain coherence in our pollution control in the face of the need to implement the directive. If implemented as drafted, the provision would be seriously burdensome to smaller firms. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether the other countries within the European Union will be asked to set specific levels of pollution under the directive and whether the UK will be allowed to keep a flexible level based on site-specific circumstances? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the pollution control relates to the final output. All member states will be transposing the directive with regard to their own traditional systems
428
of pollution control. Ours is a site-specific approach. Therefore, the answer to the noble Duke's question is, yes.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for taking this amendment so seriously. However, I have to rely on the version put upon events by my noble friend Lady Blatch who, after all, took the 1990 Bill through this House. I take her point that it may not be the powers which will create a problem; it is the sections which are to be removed by this Bill which will be the problem.
The noble Lord said that my amendment would set up a two-tier and, therefore, incoherent system. However, one has to point out that the present system of BATNEEC is coherent and is entirely understood by industry of all sizes; indeed, the noble Lord has; admitted that it is working extremely well. I accept that the Government feel that they have to import this directive which insists on BAT, but I do not think that we should necessarily go along with that. The noble Lord then said that I quoted his words in the wrong order. That is a matter of record. Anyone can look at Hansard and check it, but I certainly did not mean to do so and I do not think that I did.
The noble Lord also said that the wording is imperfect and that, in some ways, it would do more harm than good to small business. If that is the case, I have no doubt that the Government could look at it and get the wording right to reflect what has been said in this debate—and, indeed, the spirit of this debate—before the Bill reaches the other place. For my part, I have tried to read the wording again and was assured by the Clerks who helped me draft the amendment, only minutes before the debate started, that the amendment does in fact achieve what I and other noble Lords who support it want to achieve.
As we are on Third Reading, the Bill will now have to go to the other place. If we were to pass this amendment tonight, those in another place could look at it. The Bill could then come back here and we could have another look at it, with the benefit of the wisdom of the other place and of the noble Lord's expert draftsman. In those circumstances, I feel that I have no alternative but to ask for the opinion of the House.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Biffen, L.

Ailsa, M.

Blaker, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blatch, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blyth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bowness, L.

Attiee, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bathurst, E.

Brentford, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bridgenian, V.

429

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Byford, B.

Mancroft, L.

Cadman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carew, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monson, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Montrose, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Moyne, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Munster, E.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Croham, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cuckney, L.

Northesk, E.

Davidson, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Downshire, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dundee, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Dundonald, E.

Pender, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Prior, L.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Fookes, B.

Rees, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Sempill, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

Holderness, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jopling, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Keyes, L.

Teviot, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Vinson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waddington, L.

Leigh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Addington, L.

Desai, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dholakia, L.

Alderdice, L.

Dixon, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Donoughue, L.

Alli, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B.

Dubs, L.

Annan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ezra, L.

Barnett, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Geraint, L.

Brookman, L.

Gilbert, L.

Burlison, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Calverley, L.

Glanusk, L.

Carlisle, E.

Goodhart, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chorley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Christopher, L.

Grey, E.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Crawley, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Haskel, L.

430

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Ilchester, E.

Sandberg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Iveagh, E.

Serota, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Judd, L.

Simon, V.

Kennet, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Laming, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNair, L.

Thornton, B.

McNally, L.

Thurso, V.

Maddock, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tope, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Molloy, L.

Whitty, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Newby, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Winston, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert—
("() regulations under this section which affect the subject-matter of sections 1 to 28 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (notwithstanding the repeal of those sections):")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall deal briefly with this amendment. I refer to what was said in our debate at Report stage at cols. 1390 to 1392 of the Official Report when the Minister was good enough to give an undertaking which unfortunately does not appear to have been correctly printed. The Minister said,
"The Bill as it stands provides the Secretary of State with a choice of procedure. I can give an undertaking that any amendments to the regulations which affect matters which were previously included on the face of the Employment Protection Act 1990 will be put to Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure".—[Official Report, 13/5/99; cols. 1391–1392.]
I just wanted to make sure that the Minister had the opportunity to correct the official record. I am pretty sure that he meant to say the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and not the Employment Protection Act. In view of the importance of the undertaking, I think it is worth getting that on the record. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if that is all the noble Lord is seeking I am very happy to put on the record the

431
correct version. As noble Lords will know, I rarely quote the "Employment Protection Act 1990"—even if there were one. Perhaps I can repeat for the record that I intended to refer to the Environmental Protection Act. At Report stage I gave an undertaking that any changes which the Government make to provisions in the regulations and which were previously on the face of the 1990 legislation regarding environmental protection would be made by affirmative procedure. I know that that is what the noble Lord was seeking and also what the CBI was seeking.
The noble Lord seeks to put the issue on the face of the Bill. In practice, that is slightly difficult. In addition, the amendment is rather imprecise because by referring to the "subject-matter" of the 1990 Act it leaves unclear whether minor amendments to the regulations which, under that Act, are currently made by negative procedure would in future have to be made by affirmative procedure. The amendment brings in the affirmative procedure. I do not believe that that is the intention. However, that would be the practical effect of the amendment. At the very least, there could be serious potential dispute as to what "subject-matter" actually meant. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel himself able to trust the words in Hansard, as corrected, and leave it at that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do, and I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]

  APPEALS AS RESPECTS AUTHORISATIONS AND AGAINST VARIATION, ENFORCEMENT AND PROHIBITION NOTICES
  ("—The following persons, namely—

  (a) a person who has been refused the grant of an authorisation under regulations made under this Act;

  (b) a person who is aggrieved by the conditions attached. under any regulations made under this Act, to his authorisation;

  (c) a person who has been refused a variation of an authorisation on an application under regulations made under this Act;

  (d) a person whose authorisation has been revoked under regulations made under this Act;

  may appeal against the decision of the enforcing authority to the Secretary of State (except where the decision implements a direction of his).
  (2) A person on whom a variation notice, an enforcement notice or a prohibition notice is served may appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State.
  (3) Where an appeal under this section is made to the Secretary of State—

  (a) the Secretary of State may refer any matter involved in the appeal to a person appointed by him for the purpose; or

  (b) the Secretary of State may, instead of determining the appeal himself, direct that the appeal or any matter involved in it shall be determined by a person appointed by him for the purpose;

  and a person appointed under paragraph (b) above for the purpose of an appeal shall have the same powers under subsection (5), (6) or (7) below as the Secretary of State.
  (4) An appeal under this section shall, if and to the extent required by regulations under subsection (10) below, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under that subsection.
  (5) If either party to the appeal so requests or the Secretary of State so decides, an appeal shall be or continue in the form of a hearing (which may, if the person hearing the appeal so decides, be held, or held to any extent, in private).
  (6) On determining an appeal against a decision of an enforcing authority under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State—

  (a) may affirm the decision;

  (b) where the decision was a refusal to grant an authorisation or a variation of an authorisation, may direct the enforcing authority to grant the authorisation or to vary the authorisation, as the case may be;

  (c) where the decision was as to the conditions attached to an authorisation, may quash all or any of the conditions of the authorisation;

  (d) where the decision was to revoke an authorization, may quash the decision;

  and where he exercises any of the powers in paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) above, he may give directions as to the conditions to be attached to the authorisation.
  (7) On the determination of an appeal under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State may either quash or affirm the notice and, if he affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as he may in the circumstances think fit.
  (8) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (1) above against the revocation of an authorisation, the revocation shall not take effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
  (9) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2) above against a notice, the bringing of the appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the operation of the notice.
  (10) Provision may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations with respect to appeals under this section and in particular—

  (a) as to the period within which and the manner in which appeals are to be brought; and

  (b) as to the manner in which appeals are to be considered.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 7. Amendment No, 4 introduces a new clause which enables appeals to be made on the full scale that applies under the present law. Indeed, the present law is merely repeated in the amendment. I should add that both amendments are supported by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am grateful to him for the help he gave when I was away and not very well on this and other matters.
  The present law is contained in Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act 1980. Sections 1 to 28 of that Act are repealed by the third schedule to the Bill. As I mentioned in Committee, those sections are of great importance and are regrettably to be replaced by mere secondary legislation which neither House will he able to amend.
  Secondary legislation is to replace primary legislation in the vitally important matter of making appeals. That is something owed to the people of this country—the humble citizen accused of a polluting offence, the small farmer operating perhaps in a remote area, or a major company. Appeals are of great importance. It would cause no trouble whatever to the Government to allow the present law to continue. If there is need for

  433
  amendment that can be done in another place rather than being left to the uncertainty of replacement by regulations which neither House can amend.
  In the Bill appeals are dealt with in a rather strange way in paragraph 19 of the first schedule. Naturally and logically, that should be left out if the present law relating to appeals is to be restored. Hence Amendment No. 7, which simply leaves out paragraph 19. The paragraph, which appears under the heading "List of purposes", gives guidance to those who will be making the regulations. It says:
  "Conferring rights of appeal in respect of decisions made, notices served or other things done (or omitted to be done) under the regulations: and making provision for (or for the determination of) matters relating to the making, considering and determination of such appeals (including provision for or in connection with the holding of inquiries or hearings".
  I do not think the Government would lose anything by the deletion of that so-called purpose and its replacement, if my amendment is accepted, by the restoration of Section 19 of the 1990 Act.
  There is no need for me to summarise Section 19. Its contents are clear. It has been in force for eight years. If the Government consider that it needs amendment, let it be done in another place, as I say. I hope the Government will accept that I am trying to help them by proposing the amendment. They are under severe criticism for the repeal of 28 clauses of important primary legislation which has served its purpose well. We are trying to help by making further suggestions.
  The noble Lord has responded up to a point to criticism of the Bill. He has amended the Long Title. Very good. He introduced a long new purpose clause, which is now Clause 1. I thank him for that and congratulate him. I assure him that the purpose of Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 is to help the Government. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I support the amendment. I do not believe that it alters significantly either the intent of the Government or indeed the substance of the Bill. What it does is to put on to the face of the Bill part of an existing Act which has operated successfully. Clearly, it is the intention of the Government to bring forward regulations to produce some such system as this at some point in the future in order to comply with the new Bill. I would have thought this a straightforward matter to deal with. I hope therefore that the Minister may feel inclined to accept the amendment. However, should he find my noble friend's blandishments resistible—a concept I have some difficulty with, because I have the greatest regard for my noble friend—I wonder whether he might give an assurance that the step which my noble friend has proposed will be given the most serious consideration by the Government in another place. It seems to me that there is great merit in the amendment. Even if the Government in the persona of the Minister feel that they
  434
  cannot be bounced into it this afternoon, perhaps they might positively consider stepping gently into it on some other occasion. I support my noble friend.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I, and no doubt other noble Lords, recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is using the appeals procedure to some extent to illustrate his general concern about items in the 1990 Act being removed from the face of the Bill and put into regulations. Unfortunately, rather than providing useful clarification for industry, under the noble Lord's amendment the appeals procedure would limit and diminish the rights of appeal.
  Perhaps I may explain. Since 1990 it has been necessary to amend and extend those rights beyond the provisions of the 1990 Act—for example, the Environment Act 1995 made some improvements. We now intend that the appeals procedure which has been published in the draft IPPC regulations, which noble Lords will have seen, should include even greater rights of appeal. Those improvements are not reflected in the noble Lord's Amendment No. 4. Moreover, by deleting paragraph 19 of the schedule—by his Amendment No. 7—he would remove the power to make any necessary future improvements.
  There is a fundamental difference between the noble Lord and myself. I have gone as far as I can in terms of reflecting the constitutional concern. I do not agree with the noble Lord that anything previously on the face of the Bill is best left on the face of the Bill. If we were to put part of it back on the face of the Bill we would get the worst of all possible worlds. The provisions which were previously on the face of the Bill are now subject to sensible flexibility and an ability to adapt to changed circumstances. Under the noble Lord's amendment, the appeal procedure which covers the provisions could not be adapted to accommodate further changes.
  I recognise the importance of an appeals system. As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we will give serious consideration to the importance of clarifying the appeals provision. Whatever we do, I can give a categoric assurance that operators will have rights of appeal under the system that we now propose or any future system were we minded to make any further alteration. On the other hand, for the reasons I have explained, the noble Lord's amendments would diminish those rights. I would urge him to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I am interested and pleased to learn that the Government will extend the rights of appeal. That is very good news. I see no reason why those rights should not be extended by a new clause on the lines of the clause that I have suggested. That clause could then be put forward in another place. The Government will gain much more credit by doing that than by merely leaving it to regulations which neither House can amend. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I shall not divide the House. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment. In the Government's interest and the interest of our parliamentary tradition, I suggest very seriously that a matter as important as rights of

  435
  appeal should he the subject of primary legislation and not merely hacked about by regulation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 5:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

  COMMENCEMENT
  (" . This Act shall not come into force until a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a report setting out

  (i) the legal basis on which Council Directive 96/6I/EC was agreed to, and

  (ii) the cost-benefit analysis produced for the Directive,

  and that report has been approved by resolution of each House.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. For the purposes of the official record, Amendment No. 6 states:
  "No power conferred under this Act to make regulations may he exercised to implement Council Directive 96/61/EC until a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a report on the implementation of that Directive in other member states, and that report has been approved by a resolution of each House".
  It will be noticed that the amendment picks up a point raised earlier by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.
  The two amendments pick up on our debate last week (at cols. 1392 and 1394 of the Official Report) when I queried the validity of the EC directive on the grounds that the European Community might not have followed Articles 174 and 175 of the treaty establishing the European Community. I was prepared to bet the Minister that the Commission had not produced the requisite cost/benefit analysis which those articles in the Treaty of Rome require before any valid environmental directive can be issued. I also queried the validity of the directive under what is now Article 5 of the Treaty of Rome, which is the famous subsidiarity clause. It requires that for an environmental directive to be valid it has to be justified by the scale and effect of the proposed action. In order to know whether the directive is valid, one needs to know what the other countries are doing about it. If they are doing nothing, very little, or they are not all following it, then we need not do anything either.
  Last week the Minister assured the House that:
  "We are transposing the directive in this particular way. Other countries are doing likewise".
  He continued:
  "To agree to the amendment would delay the adoption of the Bill. That would bring the whole procedure into legal danger. We should be subject to infraction proceedings [in the Luxembourg court]".—[Official Report, 13/5/99; col. 1393.]
  That would not be the case if the documents were readily available. If the cost/benefit analysis is readily available, perhaps I may ask for an assurance from the Minister that he will place a copy in the Library in order that we may judge the quality of the document. If other countries are transposing the directive in the same way as ourselves—which I doubt—then will he place a report to that effect in the Library? If the Minister can give an assurance about that—I did not follow up the
  436
  point last week and the Minister did not reply—I am prepared not to divide the House on the issue that these reports should be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that is helpful to the Minister. I look forward to his reply.
  This is an important area. I accept what the Minister said last week: that the Treaty of Rome does not work in that way; that it is not the way the Commission behaves; and that no one has yet taken the Commission or the Community to the Luxembourg Court for failing to obey the Treaty of Rome. This Bill is a good opportunity to raise precisely that prospect. When they do not follow the Treaty of Rome and when they produce directives as inconvenient and as unconstitutional as this directive has become in its effect on the Environmental Protection Act 1990, perhaps we should be taking the Commission and the Community to the Court. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for trying to be helpful. I think that I can help him on at least some of his questions. As I said last week, the legal basis was clearly Article 130s of the Maastricht Treaty. I also assured him then that the cost/benefit analysis that is required is set out in an explanatory memorandum to the directive (COM93/43) which has been placed in your Lordships' Library. More importantly, the directive is fully consistent with the spirit of the treaty in as far as concerns costs and benefits.
  On the subsidiarity point, subsidiarity was not raised by any Member during the passage of the Bill and has not been challenged since. Indeed, the previous administration were probably the moving light in achieving this directive and have much of the credit for it. The noble Lord asked about transposition of the directive by other countries. In the time since the noble Lord tabled his amendment in this form, I have tried to check precisely the point reached by a number of other member states. I do not have the full picture, although I have a reasonably coherent picture in relation to Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Sweden, all of which are transposing the directive in line with their existing legislation; or, if their existing legislation already provides for it, they are doing it in that way. I undertake to write to the noble Lord and place a copy of that letter in the Library explaining the position of other member states. I hope that is helpful to him and that, therefore, he will not press the amendment.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, that is indeed helpful to me because I will be able to judge the success or otherwise of the subsidiarity clause on what the Minister has to say. From the list he gave, there seemed to be quite a few countries whose position is not yet clear.
  I accept, as the noble Lord said last week, that this directive is taken under what used to be Article 130s but is now Article 175 and comes under the general environmental provisions of the treaty, which used to be Article 130r and is now Article 174. Be that as it may, I shall not bandy treaty clauses with the noble Lord. I am grateful for what he has said. I think it will enable

  437
  the House to get a better idea of how the Community is following the Treaty of Rome and the treaties setting up the European Communities. In anticipation of the noble Lord's letter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 [Particular purposes for which provision may be made under section 2]:
  [Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
  An amendment (privilege) made.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. The Bill has had a somewhat bumpy ride through the House. We are all aware of the reason for that. The Bill was not satisfactory when it arrived. I am bound to say that now that the Bill is leaving the House it is in better form. It is still not satisfactory in my view. I do not regard it as a good thing that we transpose primary legislation and turn it into secondary legislation. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose has already raised the point, as I have done on other occasions, that this kind of practice will strain the conventions of the House on the way in which we deal with secondary legislation.
  I particularly want to place on record, however, my thanks, first, to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, for its initial report on the Bill which has done so much to help and guide all our debates on this matter. I wish also to thank my noble friends on this side of the House and other noble Lords from all parts of the House who have played a significant part in making the Bill better. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister, who has guided the Government so that the Bill leaves this place in its better state. I am most grateful to him.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may reiterate what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said about the Bill. If we were not a little pressed for time I would be considerably ruder about it than was my noble friend. However, I should like to congratulate the Minister on what he has been able to do for the Bill even if, as it leaves your Lordships' House, it is still a very bad Bill. I am quite sure that unless the regulations which eventually emerge are truly satisfactory this House will be stretched into breaking the present tradition that we do not vote on statutory instruments. That tradition is not a very old one in any case. As I understand it, it crept in in 1978 when my noble friend Lord Denham was the Opposition Chief Whip. A deal was done then in the closing days of the previous Labour administration to facilitate the passage of legislation. So we are not dealing with a great pillar of British parliamentary tradition in this matter. I would say to the noble Lord that it will probably be a changed
  438
  House of Lords that will be looking at the statutory instruments and delegated regulations when they come forward. I hope that he and his officials will bear that in mind in the interests of everyone and in the interests of the purposes which the Bill sets out to achieve. With that, I wish the Bill well but without much hope.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said about the part played by the Minister in attempting to improve the Bill. But I have to confess that after 53 years in Parliament, first in one House and then in the other, I do not remember a Bill—although in wartime it did happen, before some of us came into the House—in which so much of importance was to be done by regulation instead of by primary legislation. I do not apologise for repeating this again. I repeat it because the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which took a similar view, said that it was not to be regarded as a precedent. I most earnestly hope that the Government will regard this Bill as quite offbeat and not regard it as a precedent and that we shall never have a Bill presented to us in future which contains the fundamental flaws which this Bill still does contain.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind comments. However, I hope that noble Lords do not mistake flexibility in response to constructive criticisms for softness in the head. The Bill is substantially improved. It is a very good Bill now. It will be an effective Bill in achieving its objectives. I beg to move that the Bill do now at last pass.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.28 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am glad to reach this point. I beg to move that the Greater London Authority Bill be now read a second time.
I have to confess to a considerable amount of emotion in introducing this Bill here today. Thirteen years ago. I stood on the terrace of County Hall and watched the flag of the GLC being lowered for the last time. The Conservative government, in one of their biggest mistakes, had abolished the GLC. They abandoned London and left it as the only European capital city without any, form of city-wide strategic leadership. Thirteen years on, it has to be said that, in many ways, London has been the loser: in terms of congestion; transport systems; air quality; and planning systems. Other European cities—Paris, Barcelona, and now Berlin—have moved ahead as places in which to live and work.
Many in your Lordships' House opposed that legislation which abolished the Greater London Council. In doing so, you voted alongside the vast majority of the people of London. They never wanted government in London to be abolished, and they have been impatient for its return.

439
But this Bill is not about nostalgia. We are not recreating the LCC or the GLC. The GLA will not be a housing authority, or an education authority, with all the administrative overheads and bureaucracy that that entails. I should say, as someone who now lives in a block built by the LCC and whose children were educated by the ILEA, that those authorities achieved many startling successes. But today's problems are different. We are creating a strategic authority. The legacy of the GLC is still with us, and much of it is now carried out by the London boroughs. There were many distinguished leaders in the old GLC. I am particularly gratified to see on the list of speakers the name of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone. What is needed now is not a re-creation of the GLC, but a strategic authority to deal with the problems of spatial planning, transport congestion and the environment.
The Bill brings democratic, city-wide governance hack to our capital. It creates a new strategic authority with leadership and accountability, and brings direction to the way the city is run.
The GLA Bill is an integral part of the Government's wider vision for modernising the way in which the United Kingdom is governed. Democratisation, decentralisation and devolution were at the heart of our manifesto. This Bill is about creating modern, integrated and responsive political structures in London, putting Londoners back in charge of the way in which their city is run. We want Londoners to stop looking enviously at Paris, Berlin and Barcelona. We should like the inhabitants of those cities to look to London as the example for the future.
In July 1997 we issued a Green Paper on how we might fulfil our manifesto commitment to create a London-wide authority made up of a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. We listened to and considered the representations made to us by Londoners: from London businesses, voluntary bodies, local authorities and individuals. Last year we produced a White Paper setting out our proposals in fine detail, and in May last year, we held a referendum. Across London, in every one of the 32 London boroughs and in the City of London, people voted "yes" by a clear majority.
There was a "yes" vote from voters in inner London and in outer London; from voters in Labour boroughs, in Conservative boroughs and in Liberal Democrat boroughs. There was support from voters in all of London's ethnic, racial and religious communities. It is clear that London needs this Bill and Londoners support it.
For more than 10 years, London lacked leadership, co-ordination and accountability. Decisions were taken behind closed doors by a hotchpotch of unaccountable committees and obscure quangos. This Bill marks the end of that sorry chapter in London's history. Londoners are going to regain control of how their city is run.
The mayor of London will be the first directly elected executive position in the United Kingdom. She or he will have a greater direct personal mandate than any other elected office holder in the United Kingdom.
440
The electoral systems have attracted some comment. The mayor will be elected by the supplementary vote, ensuring that the winning candidate has a clear mandate. After all, the mayor will be the leader of one of the world's greatest cities. He or she will have the resources, the profile and the powers to tackle London's problems and make a real difference to people.
The constitution, structure and separation of powers within the GLA are truly innovative. They represent a complete break with the past. When I say that the GLA will be innovative, I choose the words with care. The powers, structures and working culture of the GLA will be unlike anything seen before in this country. The mayor of London will not be equivalent to the leaders of the LCC or the GLC. They were powerful figures, but their mandate came solely from being leader of the most popular party in the council chamber. Under this Bill, mayoral candidates will present themselves for direct election as individuals. They will stand for that executive position on their own terms, with a clear agenda, priorities and visions for the capital.
Of course, such a powerful mayor will require checks and balances. That will be the democratic function of the assembly, which will scrutinise the mayor's actions and hold him or her to account.
Assembly members will have a very clear role. They will not act as a legislature but will have the unique responsibility of holding the mayor to account. They will be full-time representatives of Londoners' views, responsive to London's problems, investigating issues of concern, scrutinising the mayor's budget and his policies, operating in the public eye, with open meetings. That will be a vital job, and the assembly will have the teeth to ensure that it is done.
The mayor will have a mandate to lead; the assembly will have a mandate to scrutinise. There will be no reliance by the mayor on rebellious party factions. There will be no pork barrel politics. Together, the mayor and the assembly will bring firm and accountable government to London. That is what London has sadly lacked, and what Londoners want.
The Bill comes to this House after extensive consideration in another place. As your Lordships will have noticed, it is an extremely long and complex piece of legislation consisting of 330 clauses and 27 schedules. I understand that it is the longest Bill in this parliamentary Session, and indeed for many a long year. I need to take some time to explain the main provisions.
Part I provides for the establishment of the Greater London Authority. It provides that the mayor and assembly together will have a corporate identity as the GLA.
As regards the electoral systems, the mayor will be elected by the supplementary vote. That is the correct electoral system for the office of mayor. It will allow voters to mark their first and second choice to be mayor. It will ensure that whoever wins will have clear support throughout London and will not be everyone's third choice.

441
The assembly will be elected by the additional member system. Fourteen members will represent specific constituencies. The Local Government Commission has decided on the boundaries, which the Government have accepted. The other 11 members of the assembly will be elected on a London-wide basis from party lists. That should ensure that the assembly as a whole more clearly reflects the balance of political views in the capital than it would do simply under the first-past-the-post system.
We have also included in the Bill a 5 per cent threshold for elections to the assembly. That will mean that any party represented in the assembly will have to have received a significant level of support across London as a whole. It will also be a safeguard against the possibility of extremist parties or candidates gaining a toe-hold in our democratic processes, having won only a very small proportion of the vote.
Part I of the Bill sets the tone for the rest of the legislation. It is designed to ensure that the mayor has a clear mandate to act and that the assembly represents a wide range of views.
Part II sets out the principal purposes of the GLA. They are: to promote economic development and wealth creation in Greater London; to promote social development in Greater London; and to promote the improvement of the environment in Greater London. The authority's general power is conferred to enable it to further one or more of those purposes, and those purposes will inform the preparation of each of its strategies.
Because of concerns expressed in Standing Committee in another place, the Bill makes it absolutely clear that in exercising the general power to do anything which it considers necessary to further any one or more of those purposes, the authority must have regard to the effect that this will also have on the health of people in London and on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
Where the authority does exercise the general power conferred by this clause, it is also required to do so in a way which is best calculated to promote improvements in the health of people in London and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Also, in preparing or revising his or her strategies, the mayor must have regard, not only to the principal purposes of the authority, but also to similar considerations.
Of course, there are limits to what the authority can do. That is why in drafting the general power we have sought to strike a clear balance between the need to provide the authority with the freedom and flexibility to act and the need to avoid duplication in regard to the statutory responsibilities of its own functional bodies and other local authorities, organisations and public bodies.
Our primary objective in establishing the GLA's structure and its procedures is that it should be easily accessible to the people of London. That means effective consultation. Londoners must be able to ensure that their views about what the authority does, or plans to do, are properly considered and taken into account.
442
That is why we have included in the Bill provisions requiring the authority, in deciding whether or not to exercise any of its powers, to consult widely—including, in particular, business interests. We have also provided a requirement for the mayor to consult about the preparation or revision of his or her strategies.
These provisions are intended to be inclusive. But it was clear from the debates in the other place and from other representations received from interested groups that our intentions would be clearer if certain broad categories of interests were named on the face of the Bill as consultees, or potential consultees. We agreed that clarity was important. Therefore, we have extended the consultation provisions to meet the concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He knows how very widely it is felt that there should be a national scheme exempting from charges disabled people who rely crucially on cars for their independence. Would he agree that such a scheme should apply in and throughout London? Are not the four inner-London special badge schemes—which operate outside the Orange Badge scheme—a nightmare for disabled people that must not be repeated?
Lord Whitty: My Lords. I recognise the concern expressed by my noble friend. The provisions relating to disabled people will be very much part of the mayor's powers. It is important that he consults representatives of disabled people. Clauses 27 and 34, which express the general power include a requirement for the mayor to consider consulting a wide range of interests. In our view those clauses mean that the authority must consult representatives of disabled people, among others, where their interests may reasonably be expected to be affected. Therefore, in relation to such issues as concessionary fare schemes and other provisions for the disabled, a clear principle of the Bill is that the mayor should consult and make provision in his various strategies to ensure that those needs are met.
In addition, in determining what consultations, if any, are necessary the mayor must consider whether or not to consult certain specified categories of interest. These are: any London borough council; the Common Council of the City; voluntary bodies, some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of London; bodies representing the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in London; bodies representing the interests of different religious groups in Greater London: and bodies representing the interests of persons who carry on business in London. In preparing or revising any of his strategies, the mayor must consider consulting those same bodies.
I know that there has been anxiety that that formulation does not properly reflect the importance of business in London's future. I can assure the House that that is not so. The mayor must now have regard to the principal purposes of the authority, which include economic development and wealth creation, in preparing any of his strategies. Consultation and working closely with business is a very important provision of the Bill.

443
If there is anxiety that this formulation means that business may not be consulted in any situation where its interests are affected, I can assure those in the business community who have that concern that the mayor will have to consult business on the use of the general power and all the strategies, where it is appropriate to do so.
Under these provisions our intention is that on the usual principle where the mayor fails to give proper consideration to whom he or she should consult, inclusions or omissions from the consultation exercise could be challenged on the basis of Wednesbury reasonableness. Our intention is to protect the legitimate interests of Londoners while preserving some proper discretion in the mayor to decide whom he or she should consult.
I turn to Part III of the Bill: finance. The financial arrangements for the new authority will be placed firmly within the existing financial framework for local authorities, but with modifications where necessary. The GLA will set budgets for itself and the four functional bodies: Transport for London; the Metropolitan Police Authority; the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and the London Development Agency. Together these will form the GLA's overall budget. The budget will be proposed by the mayor and will be subject to scrutiny by the assembly. The budget-setting process will ensure that either the mayor's or the assembly's view prevails and therefore prevents deadlock.
Two new government grants will be established. The first is a new general grant to cover most of the annual costs of the mayor and assembly. London council tax payers will contribute a small amount that will add about three pence a week to a band D council tax bill. The second is a new GLA transport grant that consolidates existing transport grants. The mayor's freedom to decide budgetary priorities does not mean running risks with standards of service. There will be three key safeguards. First, the mayor must comply with his statutory duties. Secondly, he or she will be required to spend earmarked funds on the service for which they are given. Thirdly, the Home Secretary will have a reserve power to set a minimum budget for the Metropolitan Police and powers to ensure national standards of fire services.
Local government capital finance controls will apply to the GLA and the four bodies independently. The mayor will draw up a capital spending plan through which he or she will influence capital spending priorities at a strategic level. The GLA and the four bodies will be responsible for the administration of their own financial affairs and will prepare their own accounts in the local authority format. The GLA will produce a summary statement to bring together these accounts.
I turn now to Part IV of the Bill. Transport is one of the most difficult challenges facing London. It is perhaps the issue where Londoners will look to the mayor to make a difference. The mayor will draw together an integrated transport strategy for London. This will be integrated in every sense. It will be integrated in that it will address every type of transport, both public and private; it will be integrated with the
444
mayor's separate strategies on planning and the environment; and it will be integrated with the work of the London boroughs. The boroughs will retain their existing powers for local transport services but they will do so within the mayor's overall strategy for London, integrating their local plans within a pan-London approach.
The Bill sets up an important new executive body, Transport for London. Transport for London will help to implement the mayor's transport strategy and will deliver many key transport services. It will absorb London Transport and take on responsibility for buses, the Croydon tramlink, the Docklands Light Railway, new piers and riverbus services, and Victoria coach station. Transport for London will also take over the work of the Traffic Director for London, the Traffic Control Systems Unit and the Public Carriage Office. It will assume responsibility for most of the work carried out by the Highways Agency in London. It will become responsible for traffic management and the maintenance of a network of important roads across London. It will take control of the traffic light network across London and be responsible for regulating taxis and minicabs.
The creation of Transport for London will bring an end to the fragmentation of transport services in London. It will be directly responsible to the mayor who will appoint the members of its board and may choose to be its chairman. The mayor will also have wide powers of direction over all of its activities. Part IV of the Bill also contains some specific provisions for the Government's proposed public/private partnership for the London Underground. Once these plans are implemented TFL will take over full responsibility for the operation of London Underground.
The Government intend that London Underground be restructured into three infrastructure divisions based on groupings of lines and one public sector operating division. We intend shortly to invite expressions of interest from the private sector for contracts to run the infrastructure divisions. The operating division will remain in the public sector. We committed ourselves in our manifesto to a public/private partnership for the Underground. The involvement of the private sector in the modernisation and maintenance of the Tube's infrastructure will bring increased levels of investment and a better level of service for the travelling public; and it will avoid the mistakes of privatisation by ensuring that the ownership of key assets remains in public hands. The provisions on the PPP in the Bill are designed to ensure that it can be implemented in the most effective way and that it can ensure value for money.
Part IV of the Bill also contains powers that would enable the mayor and boroughs to introduce road-user and workplace charging schemes in London. Traffic congestion is one of the most important problems that London faces. Congestion pollutes the city and costs business millions of pounds each year. It will be up to the mayor and boroughs to decide whether and how to implement the charging schemes. But the Bill contains a ground-breaking arrangement for the retention and use of the revenues if they introduce such schemes.

445
Every single penny raised from charging schemes introduced within the first 10 years of the GLA will be ring-fenced for transport expenditure for a scheme's initial period. The expectation is that this period will be 10 years. But the Bill provides a power to allow the Secretary of State to guarantee the hypothecation of the net proceeds for longer than 10 years. This could be particularly valuable if, for example, the mayor wished to undertake a private finance initiative and the private sector required a guarantee of revenues for longer than 10 years.
We shall review these arrangements in 10 years' time. It is only normal that such a policy should be subject to a review. But I should like to emphasise that all schemes brought forward within the first 10 years will he guaranteed at least 10 years of hypothecated revenues for transport spending.
These are radical new proposals. They are not uncontroversial, but they show the Government's clear commitment to integrated transport. And they underline the Government's willingness to develop imaginative solutions to the challenges that London faces and our desire to make sure that the mayor has the powers needed to get the job done.
Part V of the Bill establishes the London Development Agency which will be the regional development agency for London. Business-led, it will advise the mayor, carry out the development functions delegated to it by central government and implement the mayor's economic development strategy. The business community in London will be at the heart of these new arrangements.
Part VI of the Bill deals with the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Authority. For the first time this will bring democratic accountability to policing in London, allowing Londoners to have a say in how the police service for the capital is run.
The police authority will have 23 members, the majority selected by the mayor from members of the assembly. The authority will bring together Londoners who have a part to play in tackling crime from different communities and groups across the capital. The mayor, the assembly and the police authority will all work towards that goal.
As part of the new arrangements, the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police district will be brought into line with those of Greater London to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Authority serves only Londoners—those to whom it will be accountable. The City will still be policed separately.
Part VII deals with the creation of a new fire and emergency planning authority for London. This body will inherit the staff, functions and powers of the current London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. The authority will include a majority of assembly members and a chair, appointed by the mayor, together with representatives of London boroughs.
Part VIII of the Bill deals with the important issue of planning. The mayor will prepare a spatial development strategy for London. This will bring a strategic overview to the capital's needs. The mayor will be able to set out
446
a vision for London, including priorities and goals for the future. This will be closely integrated with the mayor's other policies and strategies. In the planning process, the London boroughs will remain the planning authorities in their areas. But to ensure strategic policies are carried through on the ground, the borough development plans will have to conform with the mayor's strategy. The mayor will be able to comment on—and in the last resort issue directions on—planning applications that are of strategic importance to the capital as a whole. These will be carefully defined and limited in number.
Part IX is a vital area where the mayor has real powers to tackle London's environmental problems and create a more sustainable city. The mayor will be required to prepare a periodic report on the environment of the capital, draw up an action plan to safeguard London's biodiversity and draft an ambient noise strategy. He or she will also have strategic responsibility for air quality and waste in the capital and, working with the boroughs, will have real powers to deliver a co-ordinated approach to tackling these important issues.
Part X deals with the mayor's powers in relation to culture. As your Lordships will be aware, culture is one of London's greatest strengths; only our financial services contribute more to London's economy. We have a vibrant cultural scene which brings millions of visitors to the capital. Tourism alone supports nearly a quarter of a million jobs. This Bill will ensure that London's cultural industries finally receive the attention they deserve.
The mayor will produce a culture strategy covering culture, media and sport. The authority will be under a duty to promote tourism and will have powers to pay grants to museums in London. For the first time we shall have a strategic approach to one of the capital's most important sectors.
Finally, I turn to Part XII which deals with transitional arrangements. These clauses contain the provisions which will be necessary to ensure a smooth transfer of property, rights and liabilities from existing bodies to the new organisations set up under the Bill. These are technical provisions but nonetheless vital to ensure that the interests, contracts and pensions of staff affected by the creation of the authority are properly safeguarded.
I have gone through the Bill in some detail. It is both ambitious and complex. Its central thrust is what the people of London voted for and what they believe they have missed for the past decade and more. It will return leadership and accountability to our capital city.
Many in your Lordships' House, in this debate and, I trust, during subsequent proceedings in this Chamber, will bring their expertise and experience of London to bear. I look forward to contributions from the members of the all-party London group under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. He regrets that he cannot be present today but will be actively involved in later stages. The group has already made positive contributions which my colleagues have taken into account in drafting the Bill.

447
No doubt particular attention will be paid to Part IV on transport, an issue on which there is wide expertise in this House. There will be a number of government amendments to add to the business of the House. We have sought to keep them to a minimum but there will be substantial amendments relating in particular to transport—to clarify, for example, the mayor's powers over surface railways, and to elaborate on the relationship between the mayor and the national franchising director. There will also be government amendments on traffic and parking, and amending arrangements for concessionary fares to update and improve this scheme.
We shall also necessarily bring forward amendments in relation to the Metropolitan Police Authority which will address the important and complex technical consequences of abolishing the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police. I must, at this stage, alert the House to the fact that those will be lengthy and complex amendments, and those relating to the police may not be ready until a much later stage of the Bill's passage through this House.
No doubt there will be other amendments to clarify and elaborate our policy on other parts of the Bill. Many of the amendments we bring forward could be detailed. In considering them, however, I hope that noble Lords do not lose sight of the bigger picture.
My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that the first elections to the mayorship and the assembly will take place on 4th May next year. The authority will be fully operational by 3rd July. Subject to the proceedings in this House, I believe that we can deliver to Londoners that new authority. There is, therefore, about a year to go before democratic city-wide governance is restored to London and Londoners. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Whitty.)
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of this complicated Bill. It is a pity that, as the debate was scheduled for a Thursday, when we have a later start, the measure was not the first business to be discussed.
By any standards, it is a big Bill. It has enough material for several Bills. It is twice the size of the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act combined. It grew by a further 53 clauses, six schedules and 75 pages while passing through another place. That is more than the length of most Bills. It smacks of the Government legislating on the hoof. The Minister has told us that there is even more to come. It hardly suggests a well thought out and well planned piece of legislation. Like the curate's egg, it is good in parts—but only in parts. No doubt it will undergo further refinement in this House. I have no doubt that Parliament's time will be taken up on many future occasions amending legislation and putting right the various errors and omissions which will emerge from practical experience. Indeed, at Second Reading in another place the Secretary of State said that what he called "reform" will continue.
448
We, on these Benches, will try to restore some of those pitfalls with some necessary amendments, which we hope that the Government will regard as constructive and not as attacks on their manifesto; nor will they digress from the result of the referendum.
In the first paragraph of his speech at Second Reading, the Secretary of State claimed that the Government had,
"started on putting local government back in touch with the people".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/98: col. 623.]
How do the Government propose to carry out this project? They begin by setting up an elected assembly, the legitimacy of which they claim from the referendum in which the electors were given one loaded question: Do you want a mayor with an elected assembly? 'The Government fought vigorously to ensure that those who wanted one without the other had to reject or accept the whole package. This has ensured that an extra layer of local government is imposed, and interposes, between the public and the mayor. How does that make it "more accountable" to the people? It breaks London up into 14 super-constituencies rather than keeping the existing 32 boroughs and the City of London—a recipe for conflict if ever I saw one. The excuse for this is that they did not want the members of the assembly to be too parochial in performing their duties. How is that more accountable to the people, in the sense of subsidiarity, with 14 constituency members and 11 selected by a form of proportional representation? Part II of Schedule 2 sets out a procedure which will in my view necessitate the employment of an actuary or a professor of differential calculus to be the returning officer.
Before I leave the matter of the so-called "giving power to the people of London", I jump forward in the Bill and draw your Lordships' attention to Clauses 39 and 40; two massive pieces of tinsel-bedecked showmanship. An annual general meeting is to be called the "State of London Debate". It has no connection with the American President's annual State of the Union speech. A six-monthly open meeting is to be called "People's Question Time". My Lords, 7 million people live in Greater London. If only one in every 1,000 wanted to attend those meetings, it would mean that 7,000 people would have to be transported and accommodated. Where will that be? Perhaps the Government have at last found a permanent use for the Millennium Dome!
These pieces of window-dressing are fully in line with the Government's attempt to hijack the words "the people". We had the people's princess; we are shortly to have the people's Peers. Now under this Bill we are to have the people's pow-wows. What they will turn out to be are platforms not for ordinary citizens but for all kinds of single-issue pressure groups. The Government claim that, on the one hand, this Bill will devolve power to the mayor and the assembly, and that, on the other, in complete contradiction, it will be, in the Secretary of State's own words, "a lean strategic authority". I believe that the Government intend it to be very lean indeed. The powers of the Secretary of State are mentioned more than 250 times in a 330-clause Bill.

449
The Bill contains as many measures giving powers to the Secretary of State as there are references to the mayor. Clause 26 consists off 41 lines defining and limiting the general powers of the authority. In three further lines the Secretary of State is seeking power to remove any of those prohibitions or limitations on those same powers just imposed by Parliament.
The Secretary of State claims that the GLA will set budgets for itself, the Transport for London body, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the London Development Agency. Clause 71 empowers the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the budget. He can also impose ceilings and floors for expenditure. The Home Secretary is to have the power to set a minimum budget for the police and fire brigades.
I do not suggest that these controls and constraints by the Government are undesirable. Indeed, we are glad that the Government have learnt the hard lessons in irrelevant activities taught by the former Greater London Council, for whose loss some of them still shed crocodile tears. But what they do is to demolish the claim that the GLA will be an exercise in devolution.
The question is whether it really is devolution or the transfer of power to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State complained about quangos and what he referred to as "shadowy committees and burgeoning bureaucracies". What the Bill actually does is to remove local government one step further away from control by local boroughs. There are to be no fewer than four intermediate layers of government between the local councils and central Government.
I have already referred to the size and multiplicity of topics contained in this Bill. We have great concern regarding the burden on Londoners of congestion charges and workplace parking taxes. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, when he winds up the Second Reading, will deal with this and other transport matters. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will deal with financial matters, as this Bill goes through your Lordships' House, and the very important planning issues where we already see the possibility of huge conflict between the mayor and the boroughs.
That means that I can confine my remaining remarks to just a selection of the other matters covered by the Bill. The first of these is found in Clause 25(2). The principal purpose of the authority is the development and wealth creation, social development and improvement of the environment in Greater London—all very laudable. However, it is the word "principal" which bothers me.
In the Bill as introduced in the other place, the wording was that the powers of the authority should be exercised in such a way as to include a menu of four criteria which have now been drastically altered. The word "include" has now disappeared, and we are now told that the Bill sets out the three "principal" purposes of the authority. It suggests to me that the menu is not complete. I do not believe that I am being unduly suspicious.
450
Your Lordships will recall only too well the manner in which the most recent of the former Greater London Council poked its nose into matters that had absolutely nothing to do with the local government of London and the provision of its infrastructure. To this is added the mastery of the party opposite of the fine print. Any ambiguity, for example, in its manifesto is regarded by it as a carte blanche to interpret it in any way it chooses. Just like Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass, so far as the Labour Party is concerned, when it uses a word, it means what it chooses it to mean; neither more nor less.
I should like the Minister to tell as the significance of the word "principal" in Clause 25(1) and (2). If he disclaims any intention for the mayor or the authority to be able to extend his or its functions by stealth, we invite him to agree to the deletion of that word. We do not object to the possibility of the functions of the authority being extended if, in practice, this proves to be desirable. But as a sovereign Parliament is granting the powers of the mayor and the authority, there is absolutely no justification in it being able to usurp powers with absolutely no say by Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will agree that any extension of the specific powers to be granted under this Bill should only be modified by Parliament, even if only by secondary legislation subject to a positive resolution by both Houses. More specifically, in subsections (4) and (5) there is the provision that one of the functions of the authority will be to promote the health of persons in Greater London. That sounds very nice, but what happens to the Department of Health and the regional health authorities? Is the mayor to have powers to intervene in the management of hospitals or the policies of the appropriate authorities, including the Secretary of State? This qualification to the principal purposes must be very closely defined. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what the Government have in mind as regards the authority's functions in relation to health.
Again, in Clauses 24(4) and (5), the exercise of its principal purposes is to have regard to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. That is entirely new. When the Bill was first published, all the purposes listed in the menu in the old Clause 25(3) related to the promotion of the interests of Greater London. Now the authority is to be obliged to consider the interests of the rest of the UK.
That clearly means that the interests of Greater London could be subordinated to the interests of other parts of the UK. The mayor and the authority will have to fight to promote the interests of London, perhaps with one hand tied behind their backs—possibly both hands. Why should the elected representatives of Greater London have to put their city second in the economic queue behind, say, Scotland or Wales? Which of your Lordships imagine that the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly would give a second thought to the interests of London when they debate their own concerns; especially those members of the Scottish Parliament who took their Oaths of Allegiance under public protest or even with upraised clenched fists?

451
I trust that the Minister will be able to give us a plausible explanation of this extraordinary millstone that has appeared since the Bill left the other place. This is especially in view of the fact that the exercise of the powers given by Clause 25(1) to further its purposes is subject to any so-called guidance from the Secretary of State. If the Minister cannot explain this today, perhaps he will do so before the next stage. As it is, it seems to me that Clause 25(4) and (5) will need some detailed rethinking in Committee.
I turn to another topic. This unnecessarily complex Bill is already confusing enough with its complicated voting procedures. The local elections will comprise four simultaneous ballots using three different voting systems (two of them totally novel) on an as yet unspecified number of ballot papers. Even the honourable Member for Southwark and North Bermondsey, who must be assumed to be in favour of some form of proportional representation, criticised the proposed system as being uniquely used to elect the President of Sri Lanka.
But now let us look at what happens when a mayor is finally elected by those able to master these complexities. Under Clause 23, the mayor has to make a declaration of acceptance of office in a manner prescribed in no fewer than 37 lines of text. Why, my Lords? A Member of Parliament does not have to make such a declaration. It is true that a local councillor has to make such a declaration, but one has to ask, why? The answer seems to be "We have always done it like that". I would have thought that the mere fact of signing the nomination paper was, as in the case of a Member of Parliament, sufficient indication that if elected the candidate would accept the office.
The mayor having been elected, how can he be removed before the expiry of his term? There are provisions in Clause 22 about disqualification, but what happens if he commits some act of gross misconduct? The leader of a party who falls out of favour with his colleagues can he sacked by some procedure or other, as my party knows only too well. Why is there not a process of impeachment, requiring a substantial majority to take into account the fact that, just as in the United Stales of America, the mayor could be of a different party from the majority in the assembly?
While we are discussing the election of the mayor, let us take one more step and look at the appointment of the deputy mayor by the newly elected mayor. So far so good. But I ask your Lordships to look at the restrictions on the choice of deputy. The Government propose that he should be chosen from among the assembly members. The Liberal Democrats want the deputy to be elected by the assembly. Perhaps they even see an opportunity for wheeling and dealing, such as has just taken place in Scotland, should the electoral system give them the balance of power. How typically illogical is the suggestion that the deputy mayor should be elected by the assembly, when the mayor himself is not!
The two suggestions have one thing in common. Despite the Government's lip service to democracy, there is one thing that is not acceptable to either of them; neither wants to allow the deputy mayor to be elected by the voters themselves.
452
The deputy mayor will have functions which have yet to be defined. Obviously, the Government think it is a good idea to have one, but do not yet know w hat to do with him or her or what he or she is for. Of course, one blindingly obvious function of an elected deputy would be to succeed the mayor if he fell under the proverbial bus or if, for whatever other reason. there was a vacancy. Another would be to stand in for the mayor in appropriate circumstances.
Electing a deputy mayor at the same time as the mayor would avoid all the complicated by-election paraphernalia of Clause 16 and the hiatus that would happen if the mayor were, regrettably, to die within the last six months of his term, or cease to hold office in some other way.
I will not take up your Lordships' time at this stage by setting out the possible arguments for the mayor and his deputy being jointly elected, with the deputy independently selected by the mayoral candidate himself, in the same way, perhaps, as the President and Vice President of the United States of America, but I expect that we shall be able to return to this aspect at a later stage.
I should like finally at this stage to turn to some aspects of the provisions regarding the police which are not clear to me. They arrive in part VI, Clauses 243 to 257.
The area under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police is to be reduced to the Greater London area alone. Several largely dormitory areas in what I may loosely call outer London, even though the residents may not agree with me, are to be removed from the present Metropolitan Police District, defined by the London Government Act 1963. I understand that the police officers currently working in those areas are to he allowed to transfer from the Metropolitan Police to the local police authority. Could the Minister please tell me on what terms that will happen? He can write to me if he cannot tell me this evening.
I understand that those who wish to remain in the Metropolitan Police will be transferred to the new reduced Metropolitan Police District, which will not save the Met any money but will be of some help with its present shortage of officers. And what about the infrastructure that the Metropolitan Police will be leaving behind? I understand that some discussions have taken place on these matters between the police authorities and the councils. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us the present position, or write to me later.
We are concerned that the statutory underpinning of the police community consultative groups is being eroded by the Bill, and we shall certainly wish to return to this matter in Committee.
We are also particularly concerned that, while the Greater London Authority, the mayor. the magistracy and the Home Office are all quite rightly represented on the new police authority, the boroughs are not. My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley will deal with all these matters as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House.

453
My right honourable friend the Member for South West Norfolk assured the other place that our stance would be constructive. And so shall it be in your Lordships' House.
Speaking as a Londoner born and bred, I regard London as the finest city anywhere in the world. The last Conservative Government got rid of the GLC, I suspect because of its loony-Left antics and its bloated bureaucracy, which spent £2 billion a year for no tangible benefit. I am not suggesting that the GLC was in that position every time, but certainly that is true of the last one.
On the other hand, in 1997 London was voted the best city in which to locate a business; best city for external transport links; best city for internal transport; and the very best city for telecommunications. The City is the world's undisputed leading centre for financial institutions. The situation that I have described was achieved by freeing London's economy, targeting areas for regeneration and focusing the necessary efforts and resources. It was achieved under the 18 years of Conservative Government which the party opposite constantly seek to decry or to blame for its own shortcomings. We shall expect this Bill, the new Greater London Authority and the mayor to enable the achievements of the previous Conservative Government to be continued.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, must thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing a Bill not just of many clauses but of many acronyms. We look forward to its later stages, not least because I cannot hope to mention all the topics today, still less to explore them in any detail. Our discussion at the later stages is likely to be longer than that on House of Lords reform, but I am sure that it will be extremely constructive, possibly in contradistinction to the discussion on the Bill introducing that reform.
The huge scale and complex detail of what is London were brought home to me some years ago, when I was speaking at a conference on London as a world city. To pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, has just made, I remember at that conference the considerable concern expressed by companies that were considering locating here and were anxious about the quality of life, about our transport, about air quality and about culture. Those matters have to be protected to preserve London's status as a world city.
At that conference the visual presentation went wrong. The projector finally got going just as I was talking about London's pomp and ceremony. At that point up flashed a shot of refuse collection. I want both those aspects, and everything in between, to work well for the benefit of all those who make up the constituency—in the non-political sense—of London.
London is not homogenous, though we Londoners sometimes tend to forget this. To take only one spectrum, if one commutes from the suburbs on South West Trains one may think that those who come in from Brighton on Connex have little stake in London and
454
have little understanding of what it is like to have one's horizons limited by the pricing and routing of local buses.
I welcome with huge enthusiasm London having its own strategic government and London as a whole being the first priority for the new authority. When I chaired the London Planning Advisory Committee, a job which I enjoyed and which I regarded as a great privilege, for most of the members for most of the time the problem was not that the borough came first—it did, but by and large they reconciled that with strategic matters—but that the first priority call on their time was their own borough. I believe that the new authority will be able to deal with the strategy for London in a way that individual borough members inevitably find difficult simply because of those practical problems.
The culture set by the first authority—how things are done—will be hugely important. It may not be the populist approach. but I am alarmed at the prospect of its success being judged by the mayor's achieving a few big hits. The Government and others have presented the new government for London as the mayor being the voice for London. The assembly hardly features. Of course, the voice for London is one role, but my anxiety is that that voice will perhaps be too strident. We have seen this already in some of the campaigning undertaken by some of the would-be mayoral candidates. Ambition is a good thing, but ambition misplaced may not be.
I do not claim the credit for the following notion, which goes to Professor John Stewart, but I think that the Government should be striving not for modernism but post-modernism in the new authority. That includes seeing that the authority—and I stress authority, not just the mayor—finds its correct relationship, the right balance, with the boroughs and with other entities and individuals.
We shall be discussing the introduction of parishes, which we on these Benches support, and what should be the prescription for consultation with others. That is clearly still a matter of concern. However, it is such a delicate issue that simply to list possible representative bodies does not, to my mind, achieve the sort of consultation which we shall wish to see the new authority undertake.
We shall discuss what we believe is the heavy hand of the Secretary of State. In that regard, I must welcome the concession that traffic wardens' uniforms are no longer to be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. We shall discuss the role of the assembly which we regret will have little hand in policy making.
I have mentioned the importance of how the authority does things, and that is linked closely with its purposes. In our eyes, sustainability is about process as well as about outcome. So too is equity or, if your Lordships prefer, equality or fairness. Your Lordships have been looking at those terms in the context of value in relation to the recent Local Government Bill.
We welcome the Government's move towards a general duty to promote economic, social and environmental wellbeing but we do not welcome the Secretary of State's ability to prevent the authority doing certain thing or, of course, to limit expenditure. Some

455
of the financial constraints are in areas where the borough may provide the service. While we should not wish to take over services from the boroughs, we are concerned that that may fail to allow a partnership approach.
We believe, too, that the financial constraints may mean also that the authority may not be able fully to promote its purposes, both those which are explicit and those which are implicit and those which we believe should be included. Among those is the subject of health. We should like to see the newly constituted regional health office for London under the umbrella of the GLA for reasons of accountability and because of the links with other functions. We wish also to explore the role of the GLA in supporting voluntary organisations which complement the health service. We should like, too, to see the authority with a role in secondary education. My noble friend Lord Tope may later address that matter.
Some of the constraints are those which are familiar to local government—capping and capital constraints—and there is also the lack of a tax-varying power. Business is usually keen to keep down spending and consequent taxes but it is telling that London First wants to see a power for the authority to raise finance. It makes the point, with which I agree entirely, that in the area of transport the carrot must come before the stick. Both road charging and non-residential parking charges have a long way to go before they are implemented. As a quite separate issue from how long the income is ring-fenced, the schemes must be acceptable. I suggest that there is no hope of that unless public transport is improved first.
My original note on the Bill said, "concern about Tube delays". I suppose that is so in every sense. The original clause in the Bill provided that London Transport shall cease to exist. We are now faced with the rather surreal situation that the GLA may not take over the Underground, even in its first term. Until the Government's recent announcement on PPP, I believed that if it went well the Government would take the credit, if not, the mayor would take the blame. But things have changed. I look forward to the contributions today and at later stages of my noble friends Lord Ezra and Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who will contribute on that issue.
I note that the Minister has indicated that the Government will be bringing forward substantial amendments, including those dealing with transport issues. He has mentioned that in some cases those amendments may not be brought forward at the next stage. I hope that as many amendments as possible will be tabled as soon as possible because I know that your Lordships will wish to have the opportunity to consider amendments at the earliest possible moment so that we do not go off in a direction that is not constructive because we have not seen what the Government intend.
The experience of Members of this House in other capacities will ensure that we examine in detail the roads hierarchy and the possibility of the GLA notionally taking over responsibility for side streets which common sense says are local roads. I am sure that
456
I am not the only Member of this House who, wearing another hat, many years ago—well before I got this hat—campaigned against the GLC, which did not want to agree to a zebra crossing being installed. Nor, I am sure, am I the only Member who has had to deal with the detail of red routes, which raised similar issues. That zebra crossing has now been replaced by a split, two-stage pelican crossing, such is the increase in traffic. We shall wish to be sure that the boroughs have access to traffic information. In 1986, it was the London boroughs which kept the research facility going. Even if they had not, it must be right that information belongs to everyone.
It was in the run-up to the abolition of the GLC that this House insisted on the retention of some sort of strategic planning body. As has been said already, the relative powers and interests of the mayor. with his spatial development strategy, the boroughs and the Secretary of State are likely to be the subject of debate.
The Minister talked about 13 years of London government, such as there was in terms of pan-London government, being behind closed doors. I must tell the House that a great deal of it was not. The various joint committees of the boroughs were open. I have some very vivid memories of discovering that the early squabbles which LPAC had, before we settled down to a constructive way of working—shamingly, most of those squabbles were over such irrelevancies as the name—were witnessed not only by members of the public but also, as I discovered later, by officials from the DoE.
There was quite a lot of debate in the other place about the police. My noble friend Lord Dholakia will concentrate on that topic in particular. There seems to have been little discussion about environmental strategy, with which my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer will deal at later stages. However, we acknowledge that the Government have met us on issues relating to biodiversity and waste minimisation.
Almost nothing was said in the other place about culture. Culture is linked—to name only two topics—with education and tourism. Although I have resisted referring to particular organisations by name in this speech, I should say that several of my noble friends will support attempts to recognise in the Bill the centre for young musicians. Many others of my noble friends will contribute both today and at later stages.
I believe that 4th May 2000 will be important for the governance of London and for democracy. Therefore, I end on something of a note of sadness. Londoners will use a new electoral system and we, on these Benches, will not seek to disturb the 5 per cent threshold announced recently by the Government. But the issue is, or should be, not an artificial limit to stop the election of extremists, with, perhaps, the knock-on effect of other small parties, but to stop the use of an election as a platform to promote racism.
We hope to make good use of the time, probably quite a lot of time, at later stages in this House in the interests of the Bill and in the interests of London.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I am honoured to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and daunted by the task of being coherent in the face of the huge experience and knowledge of the noble Baroness and, indeed, of noble Lords who are to follow me in contributing to this afternoon's debate. I shall do my best.
I have a personal interest in the Bill as well as a compelling political interest. My husband served as a leading member of the GLC's last administration, the member for Hackney Central. At the same time, I was a member of the Greater London Labour Party's executive and, indeed, became its chair in time to see through the abolition of the GLC. I continued to be its chairman until the abolition of ILEA. I do not think either of us is a lunatic.
The first time I saw your Lordships' House in action was in 1985 when it was busy mitigating some of the worst effects of the legislation to abolish the GLC. During my years as chair of the Greater London Labour Party I sought to encourage the development of a policy for London which would look forward and not backwards to the GLC. It seemed to me then that we should not seek to recreate the GLC; in fact, many functions were carried out by the GLC which we would not wish to recreate.
My parting present to the Labour Party in London when I ceased to be its chair in 1991 was the adoption of a policy paper entitled The Future of London's Government, in which we raised the issue of a directly elected mayor for London for the first time and agreed that London needed a new structure, a streamlined authority. Many of the issues which subsequently found their way in one form or another into Labour Party policy, the manifesto and now this Bill were anticipated.
What was clear to me then and what is embodied in this Bill is that an authority needed to be created which would lead London into the 21st century. It needed to be an authority which would fight London's interests on a national, European and international stage. Londoners have needed a voice for many years. The proposal for an elected mayor will put London in its rightful place as an international city. It has been a shame and a disadvantage for London and Londoners in many ways over the past 13 years that they have not had someone to put alongside the mayors of other great cities; an equal to the mayors of New York, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo.
The job of mayor as a focus for the aspirations of Londoners cannot be underestimated. The reasons for that are many, but perhaps I may mention just a few. London should be playing its part as the host of international sporting, cultural and other events. How much easier and more effective that will be when there is a focus to lead such bids for negotiations, to put together the partnerships, indeed to put together the funding and to ensure a consistent approach.
Secondly, London contains some of the richest and some of the poorest districts in the country; it is the UK's richest city and it also contains some of its poorest people. It has an extraordinarily diverse economy
458
compared with other British cities. That means that we have the contradictions of huge competitive success and wealth creation alongside weak employment growth and some of the most deprived communities. Solving long-term unemployment and revitalising areas of deprivation are huge challenges to London's economy.
While I recognise the contribution that many London-wide organisations have made over the years in looking after London's economy and bringing forward their plans, how much more effective will be the strategy drawn up by a mayor and an authority on the basis of broad consultation with London's business interests, trade unions, voluntary sector, boroughs and public sector pulling together a coherent whole; a strategy in which all of London is working for all of London. Londoners deserve no less, and London's poorest communities need that strategic approach.
The third example of the importance of the creation of a strategic authority is in serving London's ethnic minority communities. I feel passionately that the new authority and the mayor have to reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity of London. London is a world city. Almost half the people from Britain's ethnic minority communities live in Greater London. That means that around 20 per cent of London's population consists of ethnic minority groups.
London's ethnic diversity is one of its great strengths, contributing to the capital's vitality and prosperity. However, it is important also to acknowledge that people from ethnic minority communities are also evident among the most socially excluded in the capital, with unemployment rates double those of white Londoners. It will be a vital part of the work of the mayor and assembly to lead the fight in eliminating racial discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity and good race relations in our capital. In that regard, and in the wake of the Lawrence Inquiry, the establishment of a metropolitan police authority is of huge importance and significance.
Finally, perhaps I may say how disappointed, though not particularly surprised, I am by the negative manner in which those on the Benches opposite approach this Bill. The Conservative Party sought electoral advantage from the abolition of the GLC, but it did not work. We have seen the progressive disintegration of the Conservative base in London boroughs. They are now completely out of step with the aspirations of Londoners, and Londoners' need to find an expression of pride in their city. It is a shame, for I also believe that Londoners will recognise that the lukewarm response and lack of positive ideas from the Benches opposite reveal a lack of understanding of the needs of modern London and its place in the world.
I warmly welcome this Bill and look forward to working towards its successful passage.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, considers my remarks to be negative. But there is an almost unchallenged assumption that the problems of transport, congestion and environment will be solved by the creation of the

459
authority. That is as simplistic as the notion which says that all those problems were created in the years in which there was not a central strategic authority. It is tantamount to saying that there are no problems about resources and that the infrastructure crumbled after 1986, as though it had not been decaying for many years before.
I understand that to question that assumption is to risk being seen as against any change in the system of government in Greater London. But a little scepticism amidst the euphoria is called for. It is legitimate to question whether the Bill as presented to the House will address the real needs of London or deliver what the people want. The commitment was for a lean and mean authority to deal with the strategic needs. My noble friend Lady Miller alluded to the size of the Bill, and the numerous issues it addresses must call into question the "lean and mean" commitment. I feel it is a commitment which will not easily be addressed.
While we have the figures for the cost of the mayor and his central office—3p at band D, the Minister suggested for the cost of the mayor and his staff—perhaps at some stage during the proceedings the noble Lord will be able to tell us exactly how many people in total will be employed, not just by the mayor, but by the authority and its various agencies, and the estimated total expenditure.
A figure of £20 million is being set aside for the preparation of the advent of the Greater London Authority; indeed a draft budget is to be prepared by the department. I wonder how that draft budget compares with the figure of £3.3 billion for the services which are to be transferred as mentioned in the White Paper. As we read through the 330 clauses of the Bill, to say nothing of the 27 schedules, there are a number of other things that the mayor and the authority will be doing which are not necessarily being done now. Indeed, if that were not the case there would not be much justification for the legislation.
When the people of London were consulted about the arrangements for the government of London, two major issues were at the forefront of their minds. The first was a desire for a voice for London; someone who could lobby for London at home and abroad and, perhaps not least, in other parts of the United Kingdom. A voice is satisfactory only up to a point. Is the mayor a strong mayor? Do the Government want him to be strong? Or is that issue to be fudged by checks and balances provided by the assembly? If the power rests with the mayor, what is the assembly's role? What significance will it have other than the threat of using the ultimate deterrent of not approving the mayor's budget? The voice has to be able to deliver. In particular, it has to be able to do so in the field of transport, particularly public transport, which was the other major issue in people's minds when they sought change in the system of London's government. I believe that that is the key issue by which the mayor will be tested.
I have concerns about his ability to deliver. I remain to be convinced that the policy of restraint to raise revenues for future improvements will have the necessary effect. Investment in public transport has to
460
come first if people are to be tempted from their cars. The dangers of the present proposals are raised costs within Greater London and a reduction in its competitiveness and attractiveness as a place for business, shoppers and visitors.
The Bill goes far wider than the voice and transport. In saying that, I do not wish to imply that I disapprove of all the other proposed areas of activity. Bu: it is true to say that the authority is no longer as focused. Perhaps that is a good example of why a referendum should always follow the legislation and not the reverse. People then know precisely what it is they are voting for or against. I do not believe that the publication of the White Paper was good enough.
It has been said by my noble friend Lady Miller that while the Bill appears to be about the mayor and the assembly, it also has a great deal to do with the Secretary of State. That seems to deny the belief in a strong mayor. Indeed, since United Stales models seem to appeal to the Government, one is almost tempted to ask why Greater London was not declared capital territory and run by the Government.
In judging the arrangement it is helpful to ask the Government, as I have done on previous occasions, how they see this authority. Do they see it as a top-tier local authority for Greater London or as a prototype for a regional assembly? In the helpful notes prepared by the Library, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State said,
"The proposed authority is not similar to any local government authority as we know it. It will be a new type of city government with a city executive and an elected mayor. There are no other examples in this country. Therefore it is fair to say that it is not the normal local government structure. Nor is it the regional structure although … I am an advocate of regional government. A body that governs 7 million inhabitants will clearly have strategic and regional features, but we are discussing a city government with an elected mayor which one would not normally expect a regional authority to have".
I hope that I am not unkind in sensing some confusion. The Labour Party's manifesto was much clearer. It was going to create an authority, to,
"take responsibility for London-wide issues, economic regeneration, planning, policing, transport and environmental protection. London-wide responsibility for its own government is urgently required."
The authority would,
"not duplicate the work of the boroughs".
Yet already we see in the Bill a partial replication of some of the worst elements of the arrangements which existed under the former Greater London Council as regards planning and highways. Two-tier planning in Greater London leads to lost opportunities, wasted costs and delays. Although the new arrangements envisage a more limited role for the mayor, there is a danger that the need to consult and the temptation to raise obstacles while applications are further investigated will severely delay major applications.
The planners in the mayor's office will never want to defer to the planners in the borough councils' offices. Inevitably it will mean that they have a different view on a far larger number of applications than envisaged.

461
The notion that a planner in an office does not have a view on an application and is happy to leave it to someone else does not have any credibility.
The problems of highways and the need for the boroughs to consult about proposals affecting their roads, which might have an effect on Greater London Authority roads, and the latter's responsibility for those parts of borough roads immediately adjoining the Greater London Authority roads create yet more potential for delay, dispute and confusion. It is not an easy problem to solve, but attempts need to be made.
It is important not just from the point of view of the authorities involved, but also from that of the public who do not understand two-tier arrangements and do not then understand who is responsible for the ultimate decision. It is also important that the advent of the new authority and its regional development agency does not quash the many initiatives now being undertaken across borough boundaries by groups of boroughs.
Reverting to the assertions of the Secretary of State that the proposed authority is not a normal local government creation, we ask whether its objects will be well served by subjecting it to the traditional local government financial and legislative regime. We ask why the mayor is to be so constrained as to action. He has a remit to produce many strategies. I wonder whether being asked to produce so many strategies is very helpful if one wants an immediate result to the most important issues that will face the mayor and the Greater London Authority.
After all the consultation has taken place, will the strategies be out of date before they are implemented? Strategic planning is a particular concern. The delay in its production and in the old Greater London development plan is a spectre which should haunt everyone who discusses these proposals. I wish them well. Stability in the form of governance in Greater London is needed.
I wish that it was to be a small authority. It is small only in terms of members. I wish that it could focus on the main issues and that the Labour Party manifesto had been more closely adhered to as regards the breadth of its remit. It was my hope that the role of the boroughs as major players in their own right would be given greater recognition. I wish that the powers were not duplicated. Most of all, I had hoped that the Government, if they had wanted to go down this road, would create an authority, unique not only in structure but in its financing and powers and capable of real action in the few key areas where there is common consent that action is needed. Instead and perhaps not surprisingly, the Government have succumbed to the temptation of a local government-type structure, well controlled by the centre, which, I fear, although I hope not, may be reduced to statements of good intent on the big issues and action in the small matters which are rightfully the province of the local authority.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, as the first person to speak in this debate with no obvious
462
connection with London, perhaps I may tell your Lordships that I was born and bred in central London and subsequently lived for quite a long time in one of the outer London boroughs, where, among others things, I had the honour of assisting in the election of my noble friend Lady Hamwee to the seat which she occupied until last year.
In dealing with this Bill and playing my part in its passage through this House, my main responsibility will be for transport. But I am very lucky in that I shall have assistance in that from the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who in their particular fields have an expertise that I cannot possibly match.
Before I turn to transport I would like to make a few preliminary and quite minor points. In the strategy on culture, I am concerned to see that there is no mention of archives. I know that point has been mentioned before, but the archives of any city are an essential part of its cultural wealth. Indeed, they are the source of historical research and can tell the citizenry a great deal about their city. There does not seem to be any particular provision in the Bill for the mayor, or the authority in general, to be able to make any movement in that direction to offset the unevenness of archive provision and the uneven access to local archives which is a characteristic of London at present. I say this as someone who lived through a very long and difficult period with my own council where we struggled to put together the money for a proper history centre to house our own very important archives. I am happy to say that that was finally supported by a grant from the Millennium Fund.
Another relatively minor point which caused me concern in my initial reading of the Bill is the fact that the mayor's strategies seem to require only a very low level of publicity—a copy is to be kept by the mayor and copies can be sent out on request at a reasonable charge. That compares rather curiously with the requirement on the assembly to conform with the normal provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 and its processes, which cover availability of papers. As a bare minimum, I should have thought that copies of the strategies ought to be available in local libraries.
My next and in some ways slightly more important point is that whereas we welcome the prominence of the environment in descriptions of the mayor's powers and duties throughout the Bill—and this was very much increased as a result of the passage of the Bill through another place—there are worries because there is no specific mention of the word "biodiversity" in the list of items to be covered by the mayor's environmental report in Clause 28. It is possible that the fact that the mayor has to have a biodiversity plan (which is covered in the following clause) is considered to be sufficient compensation. But the point that I am making is that the report presumably covers the success or failure of the mayor's strategy and plans and, therefore, should also cover those matters relating to biodiversity.
As the Minister emphasised in his introduction, the Bill recognises that a first-class transport system is essential for London. It is essential for social inclusion

463
and it is essential for the health of its citizens in terms of air pollution. It is also essential for the competitive requirements of London as a business centre. One of the most interesting developments in recent years has been the growing interest of the city in public transport. Moreover, it is a great necessity for tourists, for visitors and for residents of the city in general.
That importance is reflected in the length of the section in the Bill dealing with transport—indeed, some 113 clauses and 12 schedules. It is also reflected in the mayor's strategic responsibility for, and/or influence over, all forms of transport within the capital when set, as the Minister said, in the context of other strategies and assisted by the proposed integrated functional body, Transport for London.
I should now like to respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. The creation of a new authority or the creation of powers for a mayor will not of itself solve any problems. However, if properly and imaginatively exercised, the creation of a new authority, together with the new powers of the mayor and of the assembly, could put transport in London on the right track, if I may be permitted that little pun.
I turn now to a number of items which cannot possibly cover the whole range of those which will be raised in Committee. I should like to begin with the powers of the mayor in relation to rail services. We welcome the Government's amendments to the Bill during its passage through the other place which give increased powers to the mayor vis-à-vis the Rail Franchising Director. But my understanding is that these still do not match the powers given to passenger transport authorities in other conurbations. These authorities can put forward new suggestions for improved rail services and are co-signatories with the franchising director when franchises are granted.
Arguably, the rail infrastructure within London is under-used and it is certainly under-publicised. There are schemes which could bring existing rail infrastructure back into use. Although a balance has to be struck in the demands on the infrastructure between local London services and mainline services both in and out of the capital, we feel that a further increase in the powers of the mayor, to match those exercised by the PTAs in relation to rail services, would be desirable. I look forward to seeing the government amendments on this point. We also have concerns about the future of the Underground. My noble friend Lord Ezra will be dealing with this at greater length in his contribution later tonight.
I now turn to the subject of hypothecation and additionality of revenues from parking and road-use charging. Again, we welcome the Government's intention to allow total hypothecation of revenues from both parking and road-use charging for 10 years. However, concerns have been expressed by London First and others as to whether these funds will be in addition to or instead of the normal Treasury-funded levels of public investment in the capital city's transport infrastructure. If Treasury funds were to be reduced over the 10-year period, there would be a serious shortfall in funding at the end of that period. Can the Minister reassure the House on this very important point?
464
I am also concerned that the mayor's strategies, especially that for transport, are not required to have targets. The value of targets—for example, as regards traffic reduction or air pollution—in focusing programmes of action and measuring the success of a programme over time has been recognised by many other local governments when forming their transport plans. Can the Minister enlighten us as to the Government's attitude to this matter? I understand that in another place the Government said that they would return to this issue. Therefore, are we to expect further amendments? In particular, will the road traffic reduction legislation apply to the GLA?
The system of concessionary fares still remains a matter of concern. I noted the Minister's response in another place to the question from my honourable friend Paul Burstow. Can the Minister confirm that the response means that the current scheme will become the statutory reserve scheme that was hoped for by many people and organisations? I have had representations made to me about fears as to the flexibility of locally delivered transport. We shall want to look at the relationship between the mayor and the boroughs in the important area of community transport. Finally, as I believe my noble friend has already said. there are obviously some residual problems relating to the detailed boundaries between the GLA road network and the boroughs' own roads—for example, at junctions—which we may wish to explore.
When this new authority was first suggested, I must confess that I was reluctant to accept the idea of a mayor for London. But as I have heard the ideas of my colleagues and studied the Bill I have become more and more convinced that the government of London will be very much improved in general by this new, albeit novel, form of government for this country. I look forward with interest and some anxiety to a long and, I hope, constructive Committee stage.
7 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, you cannot get much closer to the centre of London than Whitehall, especially that part of Whitehall from which I derive my title. The few yards separating the Whitehall Theatre from the actual centre provide a good introduction to what I want to say about London's transport system, which I trust adds to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester—who alas is no longer present—and underlines the importance of this subject which was quite rightly stressed by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. Trafalgar Square has been popular with the more militant disabled people campaigning for a more equal society. It must also be one of the scariest bits of London roadway for anyone driving, especially if you are fool enough to drive up the bus and taxi lane.
I take it as common ground that the Greater London Authority and London's mayor will want to represent all Londoners, and that "all" must include the very large number of Londoners who are in some way disabled. I do not normally make strenuous efforts to be politically correct—life is too short for those of us who are of mature years—but perhaps I might take a moment

465
to explain what I mean by disability. If I anticipate the outcome of work in which the World Health Organisation is currently engaged, we shall soon have a classification which recognises impairment as the physical or mental malfunctioning which is part of how someone is and disablement as the restrictions on activities and the resulting limitations on participation in society imposed by others; in other words, people are impaired. This does not mean that they need to be disabled. An integrated accessible transport system for London would effectively reduce the number of disabled Londoners.
Access does not just mean physical access, although of course that is important. It means having reliable transport there to be accessible. It means having accessible information about transport. It means having staff on hand to help who have at least had disability awareness training. It means joined-up thinking about joined-up transport, as is certainly being tried for the Millennium Dome. Completing 80 per cent of one's journey but being stymied for the remaining 20 per cent is not much use to anyone. The Disability Discrimination Act is better at addressing individual transport sectors than at ensuring overall accessibility, including filling the gaps and making the links between the separate sectors.
What I seek from the Government in this Bill is, first, the imposition on the mayor of a duty to consult organisations of and for disabled and older people in devising a transport strategy. Clause 27 sets a useful precedent in terms of requiring consultation with the appropriate people on certain matters, although it does not refer, as it should, to disability. Secondly, for those for whom because of their impairment or disability their car is a must we need a detailed exemption scheme drawn up in consultation with representative groups. In another place the Minister, Glenda Jackson—a fellow displaced thespian—paved the way for this by recognising the need for exemptions for those who are car dependent. Thirdly—this is a much grander ambition, but not, I think, a wholly unrealistic one—I would like to see a duty imposed on the mayor and on transport for London to work towards a transport system which makes available to people with physical and mental impairments—as far as is humanly possible—the same travel opportunities, whether by the same or different means, as are available to other Londoners and visitors to London.
I have grounds for optimism about what can be achieved. These grounds are fourfold. I sense, not least from debates in another place, government willingness to be helpful in this respect, and the desire to have an integrated and inclusive transport system. I am enormously impressed by the quality and range of work being done by the London Accessible Transport Alliance, Change, Mencap—which produced with London Transport a video for training staff in working with people with learning disabilities—the London Transport Disabled Persons Unit, Greater London Action on Disability and not least the well regarded disability unit in the Minister's own department. There is a wealth of expertise there to be called on. That
466
expertise is already reflected in low floor buses, visual information relayed to bus stops, the introduction of accessible information, the plans being made for the Dome and for the Blue Water regional shopping centre, and, not least, the miracle of a target of 68 step-free Underground stations.
For those of your Lordships who are counting, I am now on my third ground for optimism, and that is the evidence that transport comes top of so many wish lists compiled by disabled people, including the 400,000 or so disabled people who live in London. My final ground for optimism lies in the capital being, I am fairly sure, the place in the United Kingdom most visited by disabled people from other countries. We have the opportunity to show the world what can be achieved by London government, with national government backing, in the framework of parliamentary requirements, to create a barrier-free environment. London pride is flowering in the gardens in London at this very moment, and there could be no greater pride than pride in a capital city transport system which the rest of the world can envy and which the disabled people who live in, work in or visit London can enjoy as equal citizens.
London attracts visitors because of its cultural riches. I use the word "culture" in the widest sense, just as the Bill does in describing the mayor's responsibilities for enhancing that cultural heritage, old and new. If disabled people are to come here in large numbers—as they do, and as we hope they will—they need not just accessible transport to get them to what has attracted them but also access within once they arrive. I chair a modest charity, Libertas, which has made many well known places and events more accessible by means of taped commentaries designed for people with visual impairment and with learning disabilities and by means of loop and visual displays designed for people with hearing impairment. I would be happy to work with the mayor and the GLA to develop our enterprise, which is well illustrated, for those of your Lordships who are interested, just across the road from your Lordships' House in Westminster Abbey.
I have talked about groups of disabled people. I want to finish by illustrating that discussion by mentioning one of the individuals who constitute the group. I think of Hilary Pole, who will be remembered by some of your Lordships from the book written about her some 10 or 15 years ago as one of the most severely disabled people in the country. Myasthenia gravis changed her from someone who led a very active life to someone with just minimal function in one toe—the rest was motionless, including her eyelids. However, she continued to love to attend cricket matches and to get out and about more generally. I share her enthusiasms. I want this Bill to move forward the agenda of equal treatment for the Hilary Poles of this world and for all those with lesser levels of impairment but who are still disabled by transport deficits which create barriers that transport planning could turn into opportunities. The Millennium Dome tube station rather oddly faces away from the Millennium Dome itself. I trust that the greater London authority will not look away from the needs of disabled people.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is temporarily not in his place, but I feel a great deal of sympathy for him. He contrasted the relative simplicity of the objectives and purposes of the Bill in creating a strategic authority for London with the immense detail, size and complexity of the Bill itself. Undoubtedly it does present for the many people here today, and who no doubt will be much more diligent than I, an immense task of legislative scrutiny in Committee.
However, it seems to me that at least the general principles of the Bill ought to receive widespread support. It certainly is not a Bill that has not received adequate warning and adequate detailed discussion in the past. It has not been mentioned very much in the past, nor today, except by my noble friend the Minister, that the Bill was preceded by a Green Paper and a White Paper; and of course we had the referendum a year ago when 72 per cent of Londoners who voted gave the Government's plan for a mayor and an assembly—and I am sure the Government were quite right to put the question in the form that they did—overwhelming support.
I think it is hardly necessary in this Second Reading debate. therefore, to expound on the basic purposes of the Bill in restoring a democratic London-wide government. Nor do I think it is necessary to expand in this regard on the basic matter which has been described by the Minister. The wilful destruction of London's government, which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, sought to make little of, in the 1980s was one of the more spiteful, ill-considered and short-sighted outcomes of Conservative government policy. It has long been obvious, both before and after that destruction, that in key matters of regional significance such as planning, transport, social and economic development, a London government is highly desirable.
I noted that the best the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, could do was to describe those objectives as "laudable". What an inadequate word to describe the objectives of the Bill, which are essential for London. I was amazed that she should not find something stronger to say than merely that the objectives were "laudable".
I used the word "regional" a moment ago in regard to the government of London. I did so deliberately and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who has returned to his place, very fairly quoted my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who referred to a new kind of organisation: one which is neither local government, nor regional government but something that is new. However, in many ways—I am sure that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister would not disagree with this—it is more akin to regional government than to local government as we know it. It may indeed be—and I am sure my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister would not mind my saying this either, because we know his views about these things—a precursor of regional assemblies in other parts of England should such a desire be expressed. Certainly, at the present time I and other
468
noble Lords may well feel that in the matter of regional identities and boundaries outside London there is much more controversy and much more doubt.
One of the ways in which the Greater London Authority will be very different from a typical local government authority is that the members of the assembly, 25 in all, will each represent very sizeable areas—"super constituencies" was the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. I do not disagree with that. As we know, of the 25, 11 will be selected from party lists, and even the 14 who will represent particular constituencies will each represent something over 300,000 electors. I say that slowly and with deliberation because that is a very large area.
This is a long way from the numbers in a ward represented by a local authority councillor. It seems to me that it will be as problematic for members of the assembly to be known to the electorate and to be able to create a good relationship with electors as it is, if I may say so, for Members of the European Parliament and candidates for that Parliament, who are seeking to be elected next month. The experience from recent local government and Welsh Assembly elections must be in our minds, and I fear that the difficulty of identification and relationship between electors and candidates may lead to significant problems of apathy and also low polls, thereby weakening the declared aim of the Government of democratic renewal.
We want democratic renewal. How can we get it?—not simply by passing this Bill. As I understand it, it is hoped that by holding the election of mayor on 4th May 2000, the public profile of the authority as a whole will be enhanced and this will increase the turnout of voters, so that when they vote for the mayor they will also vote for members of the assembly. However, that poses a number of questions, certainly at today's date. We do not know what the outcome of various selections will be, but it certainly begs the question today as to whether the mayoral candidates—the ones who, if I may pit it this way rather disrespectfully—can draw the crowds. It is a question of whether they, and especially the mayoral candidates of the main political parties. will be sufficiently well known and charismatic as to make waves right across the metropolis and arouse the interest of the voters.
In my view, the members of the assembly will each represent such very large electorates compared with a Westminster MP that contacts with electors through surgeries, local events, informal get-togethers and so on will inevitably be much more spasmodic. I would place quite a lot of emphasis on certain provisions in the Bill, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made quite a lot of fun, namely, those provisions that provide for a twice-yearly people's question-time, conducted by the mayor and the assembly and the mayor's annual public state-of-London debate.
In my view, the provisions in the Bill—and I was delighted that my noble friend the Minister took some time to explain these—which deal with consultation and meetings, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made a little bit of fun, with community groups, with business and with disabled groups—to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix—referred, together with

469
the devices for the assembly and the mayor to be in touch with the electorate, are tremendously important because of the problem of large constituencies and the relatively small number of members of the assembly.
For example, Clauses 37 to 40 are of major importance. Although the Minister said much about this matter earlier, perhaps I may ask him on this occasion—or certainly when we reach that stage of the Bill in Committee—whether he can give assurances that thought is being given to how the occasions provided for in the Bill can be given a truly representative structure and that they do not simply provide opportunities for the vociferous mavericks and unrepresentative pressure groups? There must be some thought given to that matter otherwise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller has predicted, such occasions will be matters of fun. That is surely what we do not want. They should be serious matters to allow for the democratic expression of viewpoints.
I rather share the thoughts that will vouchsafed to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington. There is a need for a power in the Bill to establish community councils in London similar to those that have been established elsewhere in the country. Community councils, which put local government in close touch with people on the ground, as it were, have been set up in Leeds, Manchester, Hartlepool, Portsmouth and elsewhere. I imagine that the local council experts in the Chamber would agree with me that councillors in the cities to which I have referred are a good deal closer to local people, local communities and local interest groups than will be members of the Greater London assembly. My noble friend Lord Young of Dartington is chairman of the London Community Alliance and has great experience in these matters. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the White Paper issued last year on London government. It states:
"the assembly must ensure that what it says during the formulation of policy and strategy … reflects its awareness of the views of those who will be affected by those policies".
Indeed it should. If community councils are established in many areas of London, where they can be the eyes and ears—those are my words, they are not in the White Paper—of the assembly members, then the assembly will be better able to do the job described in the White Paper.
I look forward to pursuing those ideas and other innovative ideas. The noble Baroness should not make fun of innovative ideas; we need them. There is too much apathy in our growing democracy. Let us see innovative ideas developed, talked about and described in detail. If we do that we will improve the Bill—and, if the Minister does not mind me saying so, a Bill can always be improved. Like my noble friend Lady Thornton, I wish the Bill well.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has recently driven
470
up the Archway Road from the Archway roundabout towards Hampstead Garden suburb? If he has, he will have noticed that there is a very fine dual carriageway for about the first half mile. It then reduces to a single carriageway, which continues on for the next mile or two. I once drove someone up there. He said, "What an extraordinary thing. Why did they stop the dual carriageway there?" I said to him, "Oh. do you not know? That is the London plague line".
That was all spelt out in the Herbert Report. The original local authorities in London. the health guardians, followed the boundaries of where the plague reached in 1665. When the Metropolitan Board of Works was established in the first part of the 19th century it followed exactly the same boundaries, as did the LCC in 1889. The inner London boroughs follow the same boundaries today.
Despite the best efforts of successive generations of well meaning legislators, history has a way of confounding good intentions. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, those who, as it were, say that history is bunk and that we have nothing to learn from it, really are in danger of misleading us. My fear about this mammoth Bill is that it pays far too little respect to the history of London. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that this makes a clean break with the past—something which I might have incorporated at the beginning of my speech. By devising a completely novel, detailed, prescriptive blueprint for the governance of London, the like of which has never been seen before in this country—or, I would venture to guess. anywhere else in the world—the Government, by implication, are saying that they have nothing to learn from history.
The Bill is certain to have all kinds of unintended consequences, which none of us can foresee. It is a very high risk policy. In the White Paper of March last year Ministers called it "a new style of Government". It is much, much more than that; it is not just style. The Bill aims to set up nothing less than an entirely new constitutional settlement for London. It will have a new executive, modelled in some respects on the strong mayors in some cities in the United States; a new assembly, with functions and powers unlike any authority we have ever seen before; and a new and untried electoral system for electing both the mayor and the assembly. The Bill then goes on to spell out, in hundreds of pages and in minute detail, exactly what everyone is expected to do and how the new system is supposed to work.
I have always believed that stable systems of government evolve, often over many years, by balancing a whole series of relationships between the many interests and institutions that make up the body politic. Perhaps I may pick up the well-made point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when she referred to relationships. The management gurus will always tell you that it is not the fixed lines on the organogram that matter but the dotted lines that emerge. That is the way a system works.
This Bill sets up a whole raft of new and, in many cases, potentially disruptive relationships: for example, the relationship between the mayor and the assembly,

471
which seems so simple as it stands in the Bill; between the GLA and the London boroughs, a point made by several noble Lords; between the mayor and the Secretary of State, where I can see the possibility of great tensions; between the GLA and the City of London, which is deeply unhappy about the arrangements that are proposed, for instance, for the "ring of steel", which is such an important factor for the City of London; between the mayor and Transport for London—it will be fascinating to see how that evolves; between the GLA and the Metropolitan Police; and between the mayor, the London Development Agency and the Government Office for London in areas of planning. I could go on.
The mayor will even have to produce a cultural strategy. London has vibrant, diversified, world-beating cultural institutions. Yet the mayor has to have a strategy but has absolutely no powers to make anything happen at all.
Whatever Ministers may say, no one can have any firm idea as to how this will all work in practice. It is an exercise in desktop constitution-making on a wholly Utopian scale. Oh, to be a Minister who could simply get 300 pages of a statute and write in everything that his wish-list had ever had! That seems to have happened here.
If the Bill had been the product of a lengthy, carefully researched study in which all the implications had been thoroughly thought through and all the interests consulted at every stage, one might have some faith that it would work. But that is not what has happened. My noble friend on the Front Bench used the phrase "making policy on the hoof". I have the impression that much of this Bill has been made up as it has gone along. The Bill came into the Commons with 277 clauses and 21 schedules; it has now reached this House with 330 clauses and 27 schedules. I asked the Association of London Government—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I are its joint presidents—to let me have a list of the changes that were made or promised in another place. The list comes to more than six closely typed A4 pages. It lists, not only the hundreds of amendments and dozens of new clauses added in Committee or on Report in another place, but also a long list of further amendments which have been promised and which the Minister has already indicated will be tabled by the Government in your Lordships' House. These are not just minor tidying up amendments. They introduce, especially in Part IV—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this—fundamental changes to the structure from what the Government had originally intended.
An attempt has been made—it is a fair comment—to argue that all this is necessary because the abolition of the GLC left a vacuum at the heart of London. Perhaps the first point I should make on this—I hardly need to dwell on it because it has been said by several noble Lords opposite today—is that, although the Labour Party passionately opposed the abolition of the GLC, it has been saying for the past five years, "We are not going to bring back the GLC. You need not worry about
472
that. There is going to be nothing like that at all". I find that a very interesting comment. Indeed, the Minister was at pains to make the same point earlier today.
The truth of the matter is that at one time the GLC worked reasonably well, not least under the sound and efficient leadership of my noble friend Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone. However, in later years, it fell, if I may put it this way, into more mischievous hands. It developed a foreign policy, a defence policy, an Irish policy and many other policies besides. Rightly has it been said that Mr. Livingstone and his Friends tested the GLC to destruction. The government of the day had little option but to bring that farce to an end.
I have never forgotten canvassing in what was then my constituency in the first London borough elections in the year after the GLC had been abolished when householders had just received their rate demands, the first for more than 20 years without a massive GLC precept. I may tell noble Lords that they were happy days. I do not get the impression that Ministers are falling over themselves to encourage Mr. Livingstone to run for mayor. Indeed, perhaps I may make this concession to the Government. They have learnt one lesson, even though they do not admit it. This Bill is peppered with what I might call the "Livingstone clauses"—reserve powers for Ministers to stop the mayor from making an ass of himself at the expense of London council tax payers. In the circumstances, that may be a wise precaution even if it makes the accusations against myself and my right honourable friends at the time about over-centralised government appear a little odd.
But as so often with this Government's legislation, the devil is in the detail. I am certainly among those looking forward to the many weeks of detailed scrutiny that lie ahead of us.
Perhaps I may end with what is my greatest worry. The London Government Act 1963 established the 33 London boroughs as "most purpose authorities". That process was completed when the GLC disappeared and when education in inner London was transferred to the inner London boroughs. It has often been said that it was that creation of the London boroughs, which came into existence in 1964 as the principal institutions of local government in London, that called into question, almost from the outset, the real role of an upper-tier authority. Noble Lords may remember that my noble friend the late Lord Marshall of Leeds was asked during the 1970s to conduct an examination of the role and purpose of the GLC. He found that the concept which by then people had latched onto as being at the heart of that role was the strategic leadership of the metropolis. The boroughs should deliver the services: the GLC should confine itself to overall strategy. Yet—Lord Marshall pointed out to me when I made this point to him as one of his witnesses—in the carefully researched Herbert Report, which was the basis of the 1963 Act, the word "strategic" nowhere appeared. That report was based on a careful separation of powers and functions and the GLC was not supposed to interfere with the exercise of powers by the boroughs.

473
But as we all know, not least those of us who served in local government, that is not what happened. From Croydon to Barnet, from Richmond to Redbridge, the borough councils found that the GLC's finger in every pie was not only intensely irritating but also led to endless delays, burgeoning bureaucracy and, as my noble friend Lord Bowness reminded us, in some instances to complete paralysis—as with the notorious Greater London Development Plan.
When, more recently, the previous government set up the Local Government Commission to re-examine local government outside London, the main conclusion that emerged was that, while in the shire counties a two-tier structure for local government was appropriate and could be made to work well, in the cities a single tier of local government was more appropriate. The abolition of the six metropolitan county councils in 1986 had pointed the way. It is interesting that there is no intention to reverse that part of the Act. The metropolitan boroughs, as all-purpose authorities, have proved that that works very well in practice. So many other great towns and cities, which had fretted under interfering county councils, regained their autonomy. Yet here, in this Bill, we are erecting a massive new tier of local government on top of the, by and large, successful London boroughs.
Despite the optimism of the ALG—we will hear later from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—one cannot but be aware of considerable anxieties—a number of noble Lords have voiced them this evening—that the huge powers and duties of the mayor of London will simply lead to a repeat of the decades of frustration and acrimony between the GLC and the boroughs. There are few signs in the Bill that that vitally important lesson of the 1960s and 1970s has been learnt or even understood.
However, I shall not argue that nothing should be done. When the Cabinet was considering the draft legislation that would abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties, our longest and most anxious debate centred on the case for a "Voice for London". There certainly was a case—but against the need to root out the whole bang-shoot and return local government in London to the boroughs, that case did not carry the day.
But it is hardly surprising that, since then, that case has continued to be argued and has gained great support. If this Bill had created a mayor for London with a small strategic staff, with a strictly strategic role, with an assembly drawn from the 33 boroughs and the City, it would have my support.
But this Government have gone far further than that. This massive Bill, as we have heard from the Benches opposite, has aroused huge expectations among the people of London. They believe that it will solve all the problems of the metropolis. That is why they have supported the White Paper so firmly.
I fear that they are in for a deep disappointment. They will discover that to insert two more layers of politicians—the mayor and the assembly—between Westminster and the boroughs, however great the powers conferred, will solve very little. The hype about
474
this Bill has been intense. One can only hope that reality may in time come somewhere near to matching the optimism of its supporters.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and with my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that one of the most important provisions of the Bill is the creation of an integrated transport policy for London. I very much hope that that policy will include adequate provision for the disabled, as was so eloquently proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I shall concentrate my remarks on the London Underground. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reminded us that the London Underground will not come under the aegis of Transport for London until the present plans for the public private partnership agreements materialise. I wish to deal with the period leading up to that point.
The London Underground is the oldest underground system in the world and one of the most extensive. Over 260 stations are served on a system of some 250 miles. There are a million people working in London, and over half of those use the Underground, some of them very regularly. In the year 1997–98 the Underground made an operating surplus of £265 million. That is an impressive surplus, but it was not nearly enough to meet its investment requirements because of the large backlog which had been developed over the years. That is now estimated to amount to some £1.2 billion.
As a wholly owned public service, the Underground has been subject over the years to the vagaries of government funding. In some years it was provided with sufficient funds to meet its needs; but in others funding was, without notice, cut back. The result is that no sustainable plan for the development of the Underground has been possible. That has been particularly regrettable in view of the increasing transport requirements of the metropolis and the pressing need to reduce traffic on the roads.
The urgency of that problem has been recognised by the present Government, who have put much effort into seeking to devise a way in which the investment backlog could be dealt with and the Underground put on a viable basis to meet the expanding needs of the travelling public.
In March 1998 the Secretary of State announced plans for a public private partnership to resolve the problem. This was described as,
"a publicly owned, publicly accountable model to get the best from both the public and the private sector".
The intention is to create a situation in which £7 billion can be invested in the Underground over a period of 15 years. It was considered that during the course of that period not only could the investment backlog be dealt with but the enterprise could become viable.
London Underground estimates that its current investment requirements include £400 million a year to maintain the system in a "steady state" and prevent any additional backlog and a further £150 million a year to deal with the backlog. It was originally intended that the public private partnership would come into operation in

475
April 2000 and to cover the intervening period the Government made a grant of £365 million, which, together with the operating profits of the system, could meet the investment requirements for the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000.
Unfortunately, as announced in December, the programme has slipped by at least a year, if not more. The negotiations for the PPP have turned out to be more complex than expected. The result is that the flow of investment resource which was intended to start in April 2000 will not now take place. The Government's additional funding under present arrangements will cease at that point. The Underground could then be back in the same old situation as previously of having received an investment boost at one period and then finding it stopped. The only way in which the cash shortfall from April 2000 could be met, unless further resources were made available, would be once again to cut investment on less essential projects in order to concentrate on essential items such as safety.
On 28th April I asked a Question on this issue and drew attention to the gap in financing with its serious implications. In his reply, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, accepted that there could be some delay in implementing the public private partnership but implied that the £365 million already provided by the Government should suffice to fill the gap.
But that clearly cannot be the case. That money was provided on the assumption that the PPP would come into operation on time. Now that there is to be a delay of at least one year and the Government state, rightly, that they do not wish to be rushed in such complex negotiations, there is an obvious need for filling the investment gap in order to prevent the backlog from further increasing. Therefore, in responding, will the noble Lord say whether the Government have made up their minds about that. What is needed is further bridging assistance, continued at the current rate, until the new arrangements are in place.
There is another and more fundamental issue. Not everyone is of the opinion that the public private partnership as presently devised is likely to achieve the results that are contemplated. I am personally very much in favour of partnership between the two sectors, and indeed am involved in such partnerships, although on a much smaller scale, in the energy sector. However, in this case very large sums are involved and doubts have been expressed about whether value for money compared with other possibilities could be achieved. It seems as if the Government may also be having some doubts, as they have emphasised that they will not go ahead until there are satisfied with the viability of the project.
The problem associated with the present arrangements is that the money could be much more cheaply raised directly by the Treasury than by private companies. Furthermore, those companies would want to take full account of the risks which would be transferred to them and would want to have a reasonable profit margin. The only way in which those additional costs could be offset would be by the presumed much
476
greater efficiency of the private contractors. The Government will therefore have to decide whether this efficiency element would be sufficient to bridge the gap.
Among the various alternative proposals put forward is that the Underground, while remaining in the public sector, could be enabled to raise capital in the bond market. This, it is contended, could be done at attractive rates in view of the secure income stream which the operation of the Underground would generate. No doubt the Government will be seriously considering all of these alternative possibilities before finally deciding on the public private partnership as at present envisaged. In the meantime I consider it is urgent that the Government should provide the Underground with further bridging finance, and I hope that the Minister will reply to that effect.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I open by picking up a couple of points raised by other noble Lords. First, my noble friend Lord Borrie spoke about the need for democratic renewal within London. He also said that there was a need for charismatic candidates to stand as mayor. That is something with which I wholeheartedly agree. A number of initiatives are taken outside London, not least by my noble friend Lord Bassam, in renewing the democracy of local areas. A number of different methods can be used. I hope that the GLA will explore all methods of renewing democratic accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his address to the House rubbished the Bill. He was very much involved in the abolition of the GLC, so perhaps he has an interest to declare in that respect. However, the noble Lord conceded at the end of his speech that it was imporant that London should speak with a single voice on both the national and international stages. I suppose that we should be grateful for that much. But I remind the noble Lord that his party did absolutely nothing to provide London with a single voice on the national and international stages. For Londoners this is an historic Bill which returns to them power which was taken away.
We have heard about the size and complexity of the Bill. It is worth remembering the words of my noble friend Lord Borrie. The intent of the Bill is both simple and straightforward and widely accepted by the political parties; namely, to put power where it belongs—into the hands of Londoners. We shall spend many days in Committee considering the detail of the Bill. However, like I suspect some noble Lords here today, I am nostalgic for the great days when the strategic issues of London were debated and made headline news every day and were not considered by the local authorities, some of which tended to be somewhat parochial in the way that they addressed issues.
I served on a local authority, the London Borough of Wandsworth, and was responsible for drawing up my party's response to the Unitary Development Plan. I found it extremely frustrating to come up with a plan, which was essentially a negotiating position with surrounding boroughs, and to put it to a distant authority in Whitehall. It was not an appropriate way to proceed.

477
There was no forum in which to debate the wider strategic issues. I welcome the spatial development strategy which the mayor will develop and link with London's other strategies.
In Wandsworth, where I live, some huge developments on the river front are now taking place and many local residents are unhappy about them. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that there is an intrinsic difficulty in reconciling strategic development planning consents with local consents. I for one look forward to studying that particular part of the Bill in great detail when we come to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the Centre for Young Musicians. I have a particular interest in this centre. As a boy I used to play in the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. It was certainly my greatest achievement. The CYM was the jewel in ILEA's crown and was divorced from London when that body was abolished. Since the divorce it has carried on as the ambassador for London both within the UK and internationally. It had a number of very successful tours to Argentina and Japan. When I was with it many years ago it toured America. I believe that a special case can be made for the Centre for Young Musicians. It was included in both the Green Paper and White Paper. I believe that if we can resolve the problems of hybridity there is a case for the GLA having this ambassador for youth music in London on the face of the Bill.
Since the abolition of the GLC there has been a void in London which has led to inaction in some areas, duplication in others and confusion elsewhere. Pollution, poverty, congestion and lack of direction have been the result. In 1976 my father came to this House and made his maiden speech on the subject of local and regional government. At that time he was chairman of the GLC. I re-read the speech today. It is interesting that many of the principles he articulated then remain the same while many of the responsibilities that we are talking about today have changed. Interestingly, he spoke then of greater devolution in the context of Scotland and Wales. He also talked about people having greater control over their own affairs. He went further than any of us would go today in speaking about greater powers over gas and electricity. That shows how the debate has changed over the past 25 years.
I welcome the Bill, which creates something different and looks forwards, not backwards. I look forward to working on the Bill as it proceeds through this House.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for including me in his opening remarks while I was wrestling with a recalcitrant lift. My interest in local and regional government in London started nearly half a century ago when I was elected a member of a London borough. Ten years later I became a member of the London County Council. The LCC was a good organisation. It was a nice touch that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, was sitting on the Woolsack when the debate opened. She was a very eminent member of the London County Council. Although
478
perhaps I did not appreciate that at the time I recognise it now. But the London County Council did not administer a sufficiently wide area to be able to influence strategic matters covering the whole of the built-up area. It ran out of steam having been under the control of the same political party for 27 years.
I was then elected to the Greater London Council on its creation by the London Government Act 1963 through the merger of Middlesex County Council and the London County Council, with bits of Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire and the County Borough of Croydon. Subsequently, I became the longest serving leader of the GLC and, somewhat to my surprise, was for three years responsible for the ILEA whose powers should have gone to the boroughs.
I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his remarks. I believe that the creation of the GLC was a bold and necessary step to try to get to grips with strategic matters over the wider area into which London had grown, but the legislation lumbered it with a number of day-to-day matters which should have gone to the boroughs. That led to time-wasting feuding with the GLC.
Contrary to expectations, political control changed hands regularly, largely according to the popularity or otherwise of the government. But it was viewed as remote by the electorate and this was reflected in the turnout at elections. The new system of regional government worked reasonably well until the last administration before dissolution when it acquired delusions of grandeur and extravagant ideas which infuriated central government, and off came its head. But that did not warrant its complete removal, leaving London the only major capital in the world without a representative body and a strategic authority.
It will come as no surprise to my noble friends when I say how much better it would have been to reform the organisation, thus saving enormous cost to the taxpayer and a long and unnecessary upheaval. It would also have prevented the unforgivable vandalism of one of London's foremost public buildings, purpose built as a headquarters for London government, by selling it off for a song for conversion into a couple of hotels and a large tankful of sea-going fish.
I mention these matters because I want the new Greater London Authority to succeed and for the legislation to avoid the mistakes and difficulties of the past. I share the misgivings expressed by my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Jenkin of Roding. There must be changes.
In an effort to stimulate the electorate to take a greater interest in, and have a greater understanding of, the new authority, it is to have a directly elected executive mayor, a title imported from the United States and so far untried in this country—a powerful voice not only on London matters but inevitably one which will contain a national political content and all the ingredients, I should have thought, of another clash with Parliament.
What is quite clear is that the new electoral system, in particular for the assembly, is complicated, hard to understand and likely to put off people rather than encourage them to engage in the democratic process. Is

479
this likely to increase the turn-out at elections? The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made some fairly pertinent remarks about that.
Advance publicity portrays the mayor as the person who will solve London's hitherto intractable problems. One wonders whether this is the opportunity for the Government to duck out of hard decisions which have been put off for so many years. Having regard to past difficulties, how is the mayor to be controlled should there be another potty one? It appears that if the mayor can gain the support of only one third of the assembly, he can do what he wants.
The many new layers of responsibility for the mayor suggest that a large bureaucracy will have to be created to service them. Of those responsibilities, by far the most important will be transport. Yet the powers do not extend over the rail services in London and the south-east. Improving the efficiency of London's transport infrastructure will require considerable expenditure over a long period. But the authority does not have the ability to raise finance and to borrow. Funds are in part to come from the motorist by way of road charges, with a 10-year life. But the motorist is not simply the commuter; London is very largely serviced by delivery vans.
What will be the impact of road charges on the economy of London? Will they make living and working in London unacceptably expensive? The public transport system is already grossly overloaded and the number of passengers increases every year. So it will take some years to cope with even greater demand. That brings me to the length of the start-up, or running-in, period of only two months between the result of the election and the operation of the authority. Is that long enough? For the GLC the period was a year.
When the GLC was set up it took its staff largely from those working within the London County Council and Middlesex County Council. Now, apart from the transfer of the staff from the Government Office for London, the authority will be starting from scratch. I should have thought that more time will be required to train the remainder: and for the members to consume what is on their plate. The mayor will have an enormous task both in settling his administrative organisation and sorting out his political appointments in the time allocated.
I shall restrict myself to these few comments. I understand that the Government are to introduce further amendments and I hope that the Bill can be much improved. Finally, I fear that I must give my apologies to the House. I cannot stay to the end of the debate as I have to make a journey which was arranged some months ago.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we should note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone. They make a great deal of sense.
I wish to limit my contribution to some extent to Part VI of the Bill which deals with the Metropolitan Police Authority and its police force. I welcome the Government's commitment to a strong and effective
480
partnership between police and local authorities working with local communities to fight and prevent crime. At present the Metropolitan Police is the only police force in Britain which does not report to a local authority and is accountable directly to the Home Secretary. I am pleased that that anomaly will now be corrected.
The Scarman Report on the Brixton disorders in 1981, and now the Macpherson Report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry prescribed a wide range of detailed measures to relieve institutional racism within the police service. The purpose of those recommendations is to ensure that the police are providing an appropriate and professional service to all sections of the community. We all accept that while those in positions of power and influence have a special duty and responsibility to provide leadership, everyone in an organisation must understand what they are expected to do.
The evidence submitted to both inquiries has painted a picture of lack of confidence in the police among ethnic minority communities. We all know that the minority population is unevenly distributed regionally, but it is highly concentrated in our largest urban centres. It is estimated that nearly half of the black and Asian population of Great Britain live and work in Greater London. The Minister has already considered that point. It should therefore come as no surprise to noble Lords that if we wish to build a strong and effective partnership with the local community, we have to ensure that ethnic minorities are part of that process.
I welcome the Government's acceptance that at some stage the Race Relations Act will be extended to bring police activities within its scope. Currently, the Act applies only to the police in relation to their employment practices and the service they provide to individual members of the public. This proposed amendment would make it unlawful for the police to discriminate on racial grounds in the exercise of their law enforcement powers as well. This would include stop and search, arrest, detention, charging and treatment of suspects. The provisions outlined in the Greater London Authority Bill are wholly inadequate. Let me explain why.
It remains the view of the Commission for Racial Equality that extending the scope of the Race Relations Act is not sufficient. We do not know when this will happen. The CRE can be truly effective in challenging discriminatory practices only if its other proposals to strengthen the Race Relations Act are enacted at the same time. These include a more significant and straightforward power enabling the CRE to conduct formal investigations and a new power enabling the CRE to secure legally enforceable agreement to end discrimination, a duty on all public bodies to promote racial equality, a clearer and more comprehensive definition of indirect discrimination, ethnic monitoring and improved enforcement procedures.
No organisation can afford to put off tackling discrimination because the new legislation is not in place. Reading the provisions of the Bill, I have come to the conclusion that the Government have taken an easy way out. Let me explain that. Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1971 places a duty on all local authorities to promote equality of opportunity and

481
eliminate discrimination. This provision has not had the impact that Parliament intended. The performance indicators on racial equality in local authorities' annual reports to the Audit Commission show that, despite Section 71, there are areas of local government employment practice and service delivery which remain wholly outside the equal opportunity programmes. The confirmed high level of complaints of racial discrimination by local authority employees—in 1996 these accounted for approximately 15 per cent of all cases decided by industrial tribunals—shows that, even where there are such programmes there is a substantial gap between promise and performance.
So what do we see in the Greater London Authority Bill? Clause 310 specifies that the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority shall each be treated as a local authority for the purposes of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act: the same old, tried and failed provisions. We will miss a golden opportunity, well reflected by the Scarman and Macpherson inquiries, if we continue to put faith in a clause of the Race Relations Act that has not worked effectively.
We shall of course move the appropriate amendments at the Committee stage. These would be more in line with the Northern Ireland Act and the Government of Wales Act. We would accept nothing less than what has been provided for these assemblies.
Your Lordships may ask why. Let me explain. The Government of Wales Act provides for equality of opportunity under Section 120 of that Act. It specifies that the Assembly should make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people. It further empowers the Assembly to publish after each financial year a statement of the arrangements made and an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity. This is the minimum that we would ask in our amendments during the Committee stage. Simple reference to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act will not do.
The Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority should be required to prepare a statement explaining any significant impact that a proposed policy or action by the body might have on its ability to fulfil its racial equality duties. Where a significant adverse impact is anticipated, they would be expected to consider alternatives to the proposed policy or action, including appropriate consultation, and the final statement would need to include justification for the rejection of alternatives less likely to have significant adverse impact. Impact statements should be available to anyone on request.
They would be expected to use "contract compliance" to raise standards of racial equality among those with whom they have contracts or service level agreements, or those to whom they provide funding by way of grants. They would be expected to carry out ethnic monitoring in order to assess their performance. They should be required to report annually on the measures taken to comply with racial equality duties. Monitoring
482
the performance of these duties should form part of the overall monitoring conducted by, for example, the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and so forth. When public bodies fail to carry out their racial equality duties, they should be subject to challenge by way of judicial review.
The Bill should provide specific powers for the Commission for Racial Equality to verify compliance by public bodies of their racial equality duties and to take action in respect of non-compliance. Public bodies should be required to provide the commission with any impact statement or annual report within a specified time of receiving a request from bodies such as the CRE.
I have a number of other concerns about the Bill. They include the proposed Metropolitan Police Authority and its relationship with structures for consultation and lay involvement—for example, lay visitor schemes—which are at present established at London borough level.
I am not aware of this issue having been raised during the debates in the other place. In our view, the problems are not insurmountable, but also not insignificant, especially as the Metropolitan Police service has just restructured itself on a borough basis. In contrast, the newly established Racial and Violent Crime Task Force, recognising the need for an effective London-wide strategy to combat racist crime, has established an advisory group, the members of which are drawn from across London. What we need to be clear about is whether there should be some way to incorporate London boroughs into the structures of the Metropolitan Police Authority. More importantly, the Government ought to explain how they intend to build into the workings of the Metropolitan Police Authority the policy decisions and consultation machinery concerning the policing of their areas of separate boroughs. The Minister should not be surprised if we probe this issue with the appropriate amendments at the Committee stage.
Let me now take some specific issues. I turn to the purpose of the GLA. We need to consider and examine Clause 25, which deals with the purpose of the GLA. We consider that after the Lawrence inquiry the principal purpose must be the promotion of equal opportunity. We would wish to include in a number of places in the Bill the duty of the mayor and assembly to have regard to the need to eliminate racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, and good race relations should be made more explicit. We shall certainly wish to ensure that the content of the mayor's annual report has similar provisions. Why should we have anything less than what is already provided for the Assembly in the Government of Wales Act 1998?
As regards the membership of the Metropolitan Police Authority, we are not confident that the proposed arrangements, set out in Schedule 21, will deliver an MPA which reflects the ethnically and culturally diverse population of Greater London, which it is there to serve.

483
The Home Secretary, in his action plan to follow up the findings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, has indicated that the appointment of independent members to the new MPA will take account of the ethnic balance among elected members. He also intends, by Autumn 1999, to have in place further guidance or secondary legislation in relation to the selection of the independent members. However, we consider that there needs to be a duty on all those responsible for appointing or electing members to the police authorities, including the GLA, to do everything practicable to ensure that that membership is so representative. The Bill provides a first opportunity to build into primary legislation more effective mechanisms to achieve representation of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the community in the selection of all categories of police authority members.
Let me end by pleading for representation of London's ethnic diversity on London-wide bodies. It is vital that members of London ethnic minority communities are engaged in, and are seen to be involved in and contributing to, the government and running of London. where they make up over 20 per cent of the population.
The Commission for Racial Equality has made representations to the main political parties to encourage ethnic minority applicants and their nomination for winnable constituencies and places on the parties' lists. However, given the strong possibility of small numbers of ethnic minority GLA members and the need to appoint from other organisations to bodies such as Transport for London, the London Transport Users' Committee and the London Cultural Strategy Group, there needs to be a means by which the GLA can be required to secure membership of such bodies to represent the ethnic and cultural diversity of Greater London and the interests of ethnic minority communities.
We recommend an amendment along the lines of Section 68(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to require the mayor and assembly to ensure that, so far as practicable, the London-wide bodies to which they appoint the membership shall reflect London's diverse communities.
I trust that the Minister will reflect on what I have said. We shall certainly assist the Government in working out amendments reflecting the multi-racial society in which we all live and the fact that we can no longer ignore what is appropriate in such circumstances.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I was born in London and I have lived in London all my life. I have been a London borough councillor for over 20 years, and I chair the Association of London Government, which in the absence of a directly-elected mayor acts as the democratic voice of London. And, without sounding presumptuous about the progress of the Bill in your Lordships' House, I hope to play some part in a new Greater London Authority in one capacity or another.
The logic of creating a new strategic authority for London is overwhelming. The first reason is that what we were left with after the abolition of the GLC was an
484
alphabet soup of unelected quangos, joint boards, committees and other organisations that sprang up as gaps appeared. It has been a mess and an insult to London.
Secondly, London needs managing. It is the biggest city in Europe and one of the biggest in the world. It has a population bigger than that of Denmark or Nor way and a GDP as large as Boris Yeltsin's Russia.
London as a city needs someone to sort out its problems: the air we breathe, traffic congestion, inadequate and inferior public transport, lack of investment and infrastructure, lack of jobs and a shortage of people with the right skills and experience to get the jobs that there are.
That does not mean turning the clock back to the old Greater London Council. The new authority will not be in the business of delivering services itself, even London-wide ones. They should be left to the boroughs or to specialist agencies for which the mayor and the GLA have set budgets and priorities.
Keeping London a top world city will be a key task for the new mayor and assembly. We are living in a global market. London must be able to compete in this market to attract inward investment. It must be promoted to the rest of the world by developing a new London brand, one that presents a fresh, modern image for a dynamic city of the 21st century. However, this promotional task must not be allowed to detract from the hard work that needs to be done to tackle the capital's underlying social, economic and infrastructure problems.
There will be an exciting and challenging new agenda for that new mayor and assembly. Indeed, the new authority will in itself be a bold experiment in city leadership. The new mayor of London will be the first directly elected political leader in this country. He or she will have been chosen personally by potentially more than 5 million people, 80 times as many as had the chance to vote directly for, say, the MP for Sedgefield. London's mayor will have a larger personal mandate than any other politician in Europe, with the exception of the President of the French Republic.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is right in one respect at least: there will be enormous expectations on whoever becomes mayor, and the job of mayor will be an enormous challenge. Certainly developing a vision for a complex city like London is not easy.
Certainly London's new government will face insistent, even shrill, demands for a new agenda and for real action. The mayor will need to respond to the high expectations of London's citizens, businesses and communities, all eager for fresh policies and improvements in London's economic performance and quality of life.
But it is no good going in head first with a few sound-bite policies. The mayor needs to set a purpose that will help make sense of what will] be competing demands. The streets of London are, after all, littered with policy dilemmas. We want to make Londoners more mobile—but we do not want to invite more cars on to our congested roads. We want to eliminate urban distress and social exclusion—but we will not have

485
unlimited budgets. We want businesses old and new to flourish—but we have to reverse the tide of pollution. We want more tourists—but we want to preserve the quality of life for those of us who live close to London's attractions. In London these dilemmas just do not stop coming.
What the mayor must do is to build a London consensus, which will establish priorities and generate a sense of common cause among the many stakeholders with whom the new mayor, and the rest of the GLA and its agencies, must work. Let us be clear: it will not be possible simply to muddle through. This will imply a willingness to recognise, respect and share policy solutions. It means transparent and inclusive political decision-making. And, if it is successful, it will mean an end to an electoral culture in which low expectations bring low turnouts, and where appallingly low turnouts pass virtually unnoticed.
So what should be the mayor's vision for London? First—I say this at the risk of upsetting the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon—he or she should be a people's mayor, a Londoner's mayor for Londoners, building an inclusive London. It is all too easy just to focus on the tourist London of Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, Trafalgar Square and Oxford Street. London's mayor must represent all Londoners, rich and poor, black and white, young and old, from north and south and from east and west.
Secondly, the vision must be about improving the quality of life for everybody who lives and works in London. So it must be about tackling social exclusion and discrimination. And, let me be clear, this agenda about tackling social exclusion and discrimination is one that matters just as much for business as it does for everyone else. Economic prosperity goes hand in hand with social inclusion. Business in London will not thrive in a divided city. We need a thriving London, a London that can be the cultural capital of the world, but also a fun city that people can enjoy.
Thirdly, economic prosperity must be sustainable. We need a sustainable London, a healthy city, with a cleaner environment. We have to get away from the throwaway culture and make sure that people feel valued enough themselves to value their city's future.
Fourthly, we must unlock the gridlock. London needs an efficient, reliable, accessible, clean and safe public transport system, so that we have a city where parents feel that their children are safe when walking to school and where people prefer to use public transport rather than their cars.
Finally, the GLA must embrace a new style of politics. In the White Paper that sets out proposals for a mayor and assembly for London, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister calls for
"a new style of politics for our capital city—more inclusive, less confrontational and focusing on the issues that matter".
Such an approach is about building consensus rather than engaging in conflict and petty political bickering. The electoral arrangements of the assembly will require the mayor to build a consensus spanning at least two political parties. The nature of the mayor's powers
486
means that the mayor's office will be steering not rowing, building consensus and partnerships across London, with business, with the voluntary sector, with the boroughs and so on.
By its nature, the GLA cannot have a service provider culture, which used to be the old style of local government, nor can it offer the top-down solutions that have traditionally been associated with central government. The mayor will have to be a facilitator, a fixer, who forges ahead by building partnerships.
Local government already works in partnership with a range of other sectors—businesses, trade unions and the voluntary sector. It is acknowledged that the role of the local authority has changed. It is no longer able, single-handedly, to meet all the needs of the communities it represents. Instead it provides a focus for partnerships which can deliver on a shared agenda. The formation of the GLA is the next stage of that evolution. It will be the model for modern local government, hopefully encompassing the best of the new ways of working.
To make that partnership work, the mayor must have strong, robust relationships with the key stakeholders—the London boroughs, business, the voluntary sector, the London NHS and further and higher education.
The other side is the new government of London's relationship with its citizens. I believe that the mayor must use the information technology revolution as a tool to widen consultation and to make London's government more accessible to the people it serves.
Consultation is about much more than giving the people the right to express a never-ending wish list. It is about developing a dialogue between the public and government; about hard choices and rationing decisions. For the mayor, consultation could be used as a forum for informed political debate, to sort out the tough decisions which London needs to get it moving again.
The election of a mayor represents a real opportunity, unhindered by the broken promises of the past and severed trust, to rebuild links with the black community in London and to reconnect it to a democratic institution which can deliver for it.
London is a wonderful, complicated, multi-cultural city and that must be valued and celebrated. However, the mayor has an important job to do in rebuilding and forging links with black members of our community. The murders of Stephen Lawrence and Michael Menson are not just lone incidents but represent the day-to-day experience and fears of many people.
Incidentally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the mayor and the GLA should have a statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity and racial harmony in the capital. There are models in the Northern Ireland Act and the Government of Wales Act. We need to look at those as the Bill passes through its stages here.
But it is a national disgrace when nearly one-quarter of black people are not registered to vote and more than half of those who are registered are unlikely to use that vote. I want to see members of our black community feel sufficiently connected to our democratic processes

487
that they will exercise that franchise. I want to see a mayor who can rebuild the trust of the black community, not just in our police force, where it is sorely needed, but also more basically, in our democratic structures and institutions.
I am often saddened by the anti-London attitudes in the rest of the UK. After all, London is our capital city. It is the capital for everyone in the country as well as for Londoners. We should all be proud of it and not try to knock it or starve it of funds. The mayor faces a major public relations task to obtain the support of the rest of the country.
Let us all celebrate the Dome, the National Stadium, the new Tate Gallery and the Globe. Those are national monuments and achievements of which everyone in the country should be proud. But knocking London seems to be a national sport, one in which, I am afraid, a few of your Lordships have been known to excel. Too often we are told that London gets too much—the modern equivalent of saying that the streets of London are paved with gold. Yet rather than London receiving more than its fair share of resources, it contributes billions more in taxes than the Government allow to be spent in London. London subsidises the rest of the UK, not the other way round.
We should never forget that London acts as the engine for the UK economy. It is the main gateway to the UK. Some 23 million visitors come to London each year, spending £7 billion, and many go on to the rest of the country. The UK's prosperity depends on London and its prosperity and security. The fortunes of the country as a whole are entwined with the fortunes of London.
But London is also a city of great needs. The number of unemployed in London is almost exactly the same as the number in all of Scotland and Wales combined. If one takes it down to borough level, the number of long-term unemployed in Islington is greater than in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. There are 26 parliamentary constituencies in London with higher numbers of unemployed than any constituency in Scotland. It is the people from London's minority communities who are particularly hard hit by that unemployment.
We should never forget also that 45 per cent of the UK's minority ethnic population lives in our capital city. In my home borough—and it is by no means unique—more than one-third of the children in our schools speak a language other than English at home. We have a constantly changing population. London's pupil turnover is 50 per cent higher than the rest of the UK. Most of the country's refugees and asylum seekers are in London with more than 50,000 becoming the responsibility of London's local councils in the past three years alone. It is true that 64 per cent of the most deprived and 94 per cent of the poorest council estates are in London. Premature mortality in London is among the highest in the country—male Londoners aged 35 to 50 have twice the national average mortality rate for their age group.
488
Therefore, one of the tasks of London's mayor will be to combat the ignorance and complacency about our capital city and sell London, its needs and its importance for the nation to the rest of the country.
To do that, the mayor must engage in a constructive dialogue with government based on access, not conflict. That does not mean that the mayor should kow-tow to every passing government whim but there should be a mayor speaking up for Londoners at the heart of government. I can see no merit in a mayor whose sole purpose is to use his position as a platform for knee-jerk opposition to government.
What is in it for Londoners? The new authority must offer a vision of the future where there is a shared consensus between local government, business and the community sector that social exclusion, economic competitiveness and environmental protection must he tackled together and that to fail on one is to fail on all; where tomorrow's future is today's concern for each of us individually and for all of us collectively; and where London makes its contribution to the nation, Europe and the world; where that contribution is valued and nurtured so that London continues to play its part as the world's greatest capital city but above all as a capital city with a human heart that values and nurtures all its citizens just as much as that global role. We want a prosperous London; a London that works for all who live and work there; a London in whom everyone can have a stake.
That is the vision which I believe should be offered by London's first mayor. That will require a mayor who listens, builds consensus, with vision and above all, a mayor with ambitions for this wonderful glorious city and its people. That is what this Bill can offer London and its people. I commend it to your Lordships today.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, to appear between my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, is like being whatever the opposite is to a sandwich: there are two meaty pieces on either side of me and I am the dull bit in the middle. We have been at it for three hours plus and I am only the 15th speaker. I always have the ambition of making my speech short. Let us see what happens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, complained that this Bill is longer than the Scottish and Welsh Acts. Why not? More people live here than live out there. We have more income and more poverty than they have. I have always wondered why we have a Secretary of State for Wales and for Scotland but not for London. If there had been any justice, we should have had a Secretary of State for London all the time. Unfortunately, we have not had that because London gets taken for granted. Not many people have pointed this out, but London suffers from being the capital of the country. Because the national government are here, the government of London is always in the shadow of the national government.
I consider that this Bill has two parents—fear and hope: fear of the past repeating itself and hope that it will not. It is fear of the past because., as many noble

489
Lords have pointed out, the Bill is haunted by the GLC. I should put on record that I liked the GLC. I am the first person to say that this afternoon. It did a very good job. ILEA also did a very good job. I give only one example—the London Institute, from which many famous fashion designers have gone to Paris. The London Institute was created during the time of ILEA. I was present with Miss Frances Morrell when she created it so I know when it was created.
The GLC had the only successful public transport policy in the world; that is, Fares Fair. I have to declare an interest. I do not and never have had a car; I do not drive a car. Therefore I use public transport and I walk. I take buses and tubes and taxis, which are also considered to be public transport, unlike bicycles, which are private transport. But that is another matter. It was only through the GLC's Fares Fair policy that London had decent public transport. Everything that has happened since then—the vandalism of the bus services, the replacement of Routemaster by driver-only buses and the break-up of the integrated system into separate bus services, and so forth—has not been very good.
I want to speak mainly about transport, but before doing so let me make one or two minor points. I am always puzzled when Bills contain mathematical formulae. I read them and they do not make sense to me. The last time it happened was in the council tax Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told me that: whether or not the clause was wrong, that is the way we do things and supplementary notes would be issued to explain what was going on. Likewise, the formula in Clause 73 makes absolutely no sense. The formula does not give council tax to anybody; it is a pure number if we calculate it. If I was a conscientious citizen I could sue the Greater London authority, but I have neither the time nor the money. I know that my noble friend will say, "We always do it like that. It is what the draftsman said and we will issue instructions that it is not to be taken too seriously". So be it.
Let me turn to some serious issues concerning transport. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made some important comments relating to transport and I shall use those as the background to my remarks. I want to make the point that to wait for a public private partnership is not necessarily the optimum solution. Let me explain why. First, London Transport is the least subsidised of any modern city transport system. To some extent the Government have saved money ever since they abolished the subsidy. So some of London Transport's deserved money has gone into the government coffers.
There was a time when we were all haunted by the high GDP ratio because of the recession of 1990 to 1992 and we were searching for all kinds of ways to avoid spending government money and adding to government debt. That is no longer the case. We have a healthy public finance system. But people get numbers out of perspective. Public finance numbers are always thought to be large even when they are very small, and all private finance numbers are ignored. But suppose London Transport needs £1 billion a year, to take a
490
round sum. And suppose it had to issue bonds to build up a stock, the yield of which it could expand on. That is not a lot of money.
In the last financial year the PSBR was minus £5 billion. It would therefore be easy for the Government to say, "Here is a bit of money. Return it to us over the next 35 years". The public finances would not collapse. The UK has a £900 billion economy. London by itself is probably a £200 billion economy. We are talking about huge amounts. So it would be possible for the Government to be bold and say, "We have tried the public private partnership. But rail transport happens to be one sector in which it does not work". We only need to look at the privatised rail network; it has been a disaster. So it would be possible for the Government, on prudent financial grounds, to say, "Yes, we will fund London Transport from public money".
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly said, the state can raise money much more cheaply than private enterprise can, and to that extent it would save everybody a lot of money if it did not go into this public private partnership. But, again as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, let us try an alternative. London Transport may be given power to issue bonds or equity; it could issue equity and give it to London citizens and make sure, for example, that no one holds more than 1 per cent to prevent takeovers and mergers. That would generate income. London is also a very good financial market so it would not be a problem to raise money in London for something like London Underground, which is not only the world's largest system and generates £250 million surplus every year, but it also has very good potential. The indirect contribution that London Transport makes to London's economy, by almost any calculation, would more than compensate for either the Government investing the money in London or London Transport being able to go to the market and say, "Give us the money and we will pay it back". I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, could do it in half a day.
The problem is that the sound economics of London Transport are not the narrow economics of Treasury finance, as it used to be. The Treasury has never learnt any economics. But that is another issue. I do not believe the Bill would be affected by that proposal, but in terms of policy it would be the most significant thing one could do. If we did that, then a big part of London's problems would be solved.
I must welcome the provision for road charges and parking fees in generating a ring-fenced income for London. I hope that the road charges are used imaginatively because they are a good instrument and they are also a price mechanism and therefore a more efficient way of regulating traffic.
This is an interesting Bill, but its success will depend on how far we learn lessons from the past—for example, Fares Fair. We must not worry about what the Mayor of London will do if he goes mad or something. Also, we must ensure that this Bill is not only for the next two or three years; it must be with us for a long time. Strategy means being able to take an imaginative view of the future and doing something which is efficient and economical.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, there are two sides to this issue. One is the interesting way in which partnerships between business and local government across parties have progressed in London over the past five years. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, had swapped scripts with me, I have a feeling that neither of us would have noticed and we would have gone ahead and made the same speech. That proves that there is a huge passion for London and a huge frustration, which goes across parties, across business, across local government and right into the voluntary sector. We should not lose sight of that in our discussions tonight.
The other factor which, as a non-politician—perhaps I should not say that standing here—I find somewhat amusing, although perhaps I should not say that either in this Chamber, is the habit of past and present governments to claim credit for the success of London or, if it is a failure, to say how it can be made a success. I believe that over the past 2000 years it has been Londoners—maybe it has been politicians—who have done it all.
I am chairman of London First, which is the business campaign group for the capital. I am also a director of London Development Partnership, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is the forerunner of the London Development Agency. If one is paid for being a member of a quango, no one has yet offered us any money and we do not want any. Both roles are completely unpaid.
My true interest in this Bill is as a Londoner, as noble Lords can tell me from my slightly reformed Cockney accent, having been at the London School of Economics. I am also a businessman who believes passionately in our capital city where I was born. It is for that reason that I find myself involved in many of these activities.
I turn now to the Bill itself. The election of a mayor and an assembly will be a new form of democracy for London. It is quite a hold experiment. There are 7 to 8 mullion Londoners, so we had better make it a very bold success because we cannot afford for it to go wrong. Despite the apathy displayed in terms of the total number of votes in the referendum last year, there is a huge expectation in London.
The business community is expecting the mayor probably to walk on the Thames or at least to introduce the Thames bus. He should be able to improve transport and ensure that the imbalance between skills and job needs is met. He should champion particular projects and opportunities and maintain law and order and social balance.
The main part of the Bill is very similar to many proposals, as we have heard. London First put up a governor for London. We were trying to get rid of mayors and Lord Mayors. A governor for London was to be reported on in 1996. We needed a mayor who would concentrate on strategic action. As the Minister said, that is the intention of the Bill.
The major difference in the London First proposal was the introduction of an assembly. The last time I spoke on London in this House I said that I was opposed to an assembly. Having now seen some of the candidates
492
of all different political colours and given that the mayor will have one of the biggest direct electorates in Europe, we need the check and balance of an assembly. I have changed my view in the past few years.
What is business looking for and what are its concerns? The mayor's strategic focus must be maintained throughout the term. We are not really interested in Ukrainian foreign policy. We are quite interested in social and economic issues directly affecting the standard and quality of life in London. The mayor and the whole of his or her team mush be action driven. Londoners want fewer words and more action. We have had plenty of words in the past. As we have heard from other speakers, the mayor must be a powerful champion for London.
The role of business is important. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said as regards "must consult" rather than "consider consulting." I can now hear up the next six pages of my notes. Wealth creation is one of the factors in Clause 25. That is another important breakthrough as regards business.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has stolen most of my punch lines. As we know, London produces 15 per cent of the nation's GDP. It is the size of many nations. Estimates vary, but it contributes £14 billion to the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that today its competitive position is threatened by transport problems and skill shortages in most key areas. We have real social problems and huge inequalities. Something has to be done about them.
The Bill must provide the basis for harnessing and integrating the energies of London's society. We must not create a tier of officialdom, which will frustrate the energies of Londoners and their dream and vision of it. Inclusiveness is essential for economic regeneration. People talk as though they were different subjects. We cannot afford not to have inclusiveness. London has a culturally diverse community. We can gain tremendous benefit from that. One can sell to inward investors London's cultural diversity not only as regards colour but also religion and other aspects of life. It is a great strength.
Central government must encourage but also stand back despite the 250 safeguards, or whatever the number is, put forward by the Secretary of State. London must be able to use more of its own resources. We are not asking for a subsidy but to have back some of our £14 billion.
What are my primary concerns about this Bill? The first is transport. If you scratch a businessman he will tell you that skills, including education, transport, the social fabric and law and order are the issues. Incidentally, if you scratch American businessmen you get the same answers.
The Government have indicated that the GLA is a new approach for transport. We have heard about hypothecation. A long-standing opposition to the principle of hypothecation has existed in the Treasury. We have an immense breakthrough. The Government are to be congratulated on convincing their own finance director, or whatever the Treasury is.

493
The concept of additionality has been mentioned. In the other place all the right words have been said. The business community has been monitoring the situation. Those words are not honoured to the extent of 90 per cent, but to 101 per cent. However, so far the Government have been unwilling to take one further step, which weakens the whole of the Bill, and allow the GLA to borrow on the back of its new revenue streams generated by congestion charging. London First produced a detailed example of road-user charging schemes for central London. It is a simple paper-based scheme that could be introduced very quickly. One does not need a great deal of information technology. We showed it to business members. We did not say to them, "Do you like road pricing or not?" We said, "Do you like this scheme? If not, improve it." Business invented it; we did not. Business replied to the effect that they liked the scheme. The result was overwhelming support for congestion charging. Of the number of respondents 75 per cent. were in favour of road charging. Despite the costs to business nearly all respondents said that provided the funds—estimated at £200 million a year—were hypothecated to improving London's transport system, that would cut out the hidden costs of congestion and business people would back it.
If the mayor can borrow against the future income streams, then investment to improve the transport system can begin straightaway. That would make it far more likely politically that a mayor would take it forward. Otherwise there would be the huge task of saying, "We are about to 'tax' you and charge you on your car. Sometime you will get an improvement in public transport." If London can borrow against income streams one can start up front immediately with the improvement of public transport, some people would leave their cars. We do not want the car to disappear. As we all know, during the skiing season about 10 per cent of the population is away and London improves overnight. Congestion seems to melt away. If we can persuade 5 per cent, 10 per cent or even 20 per cent of people to leave their cars, that would be of great value. We do not want to get rid of the motor car. I was in the motor industry for 20 years.
Road pricing alone is not the Holy Grail. The aim is to improve public transport. That should not be forgotten. The proposal is not to invent a sophisticated system of congestion charging but a way of getting money, and business supports the scheme.
My first plea to the Government and the Minister is to consider amending the Bill to allow the GLA to borrow against planned income streams from congestion charging. Such borrowing should only be used for capital costs and improving transport. The private sector would arrange the borrowing. It would be subject to the usual hundreds of pages of small print and commercial discipline so there is no need to worry that everything will go out of control.
Apart from freeing up our roads, the main issue is the Underground. I say "snap" to what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. Indeed, I agree with everything he said. The immediate issue is that someone has to give. It is all taking much too long and there is deep concern. If you
494
go out and ask the business community, you will not actually get the right answer because many of us out there are bidding to be operators, to provide finance, and so on. So are we going to say, "The Emperor has no clothes?" Of course, we are not.
Therefore the issue that we must tackle is interim financing, as mentioned by the noble Lord. We must have a clear statement about bridging the gap. Certainly the money already given—at least £300 million odd—does not in any way bridge right the way through. It is very important, but it bridges only the immediate situation.
I turn to planning. As we all know—one has only to look out of the window—huge development is taking place across London, resulting in more jobs and a stronger economy. It is essential that the mayor should have a very positive role working with boroughs and with business to encourage suitable development and regeneration. I take just one small example. If we were ever to bid successfully for the Olympic Games, that would be a classic example of where a positive attitude from the mayor would be fundamental. He or she has to be able to cut through all the issues and conflict in terms of venue development, transport and accommodation and, indeed, get a proposal together.
I wish to refer more generally to the mayor's spatial development strategy. As drafted, there are just too many layers in it. The real problem is that it will take a very long time to come forward with such a strategy. In the meantime, there will be a complete blight on other investments. The Government need to consider finding some form of amendment—perhaps we can do it in Committee—to adopt some time restraints in that spatial development strategy. An enormous amount of planning work has been done in London by LPAC and other organisations and much more will be done between now and July when the mayor takes office. Surely, at the very least, the mayor could be obligated to give interim guidance on London planning, based on everything that has so far arisen. After all, he or she will have been out there canvassing and telling people what they will do for London. Therefore, he or she had better convert that into a real interim plan.
My plea on planning is that it is a subject which is key to London's future. At present it is too slow; indeed, it is very patchy and too slow, despite all the development. We have an opportunity to speed it up. We have an opportunity not only to adopt a champion but also to speed up some of the processes, thereby avoiding conflict with boroughs and the mayor. We have to get the right kind of positive attitude—the type of attitude that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as a leader of local government, advocated. If we can get some of those things going, we can secure real development. We really need to think the matter through in Committee. We have many planning experts in this House. We must consider how to achieve some improvements.
This Bill is fundamental to the future of London. Public expectations are very high. We cannot afford, in the interests of democracy and regardless of party politics, failure. We must have success. Moreover, it must be success not only for the "included" but also for

495
the "excluded" of London, of which there are far too many. We must work across party political divisions to turn what is admittedly high risk into high success. London is already a great success. It deserves a governance and a governing system to match that success. I believe that the Bill attempts to put that into place. However, it can be improved, and I am certain it will be in Committee.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, it is quite a personal pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. He and I receive each other's letters from time to time. I know a little about London First, but I have no idea where Didgemere is. If the noble Lord will tell me where it is, I will tell him where Liverpool is.
I hope that it may not be felt that I am intruding on a local discussion of Londoners. I am no longer a Londoner. I spent a lot of my boyhood years here, but my first 20 years of ordained ministry were spent living and working in inner-London in three different boroughs: namely, Islington, Newham and Southwark. It is also the case that the creation of a Greater London authority and a mayor of London is of the greatest interest to other regions and other cities.
First and foremost, I want to support wholeheartedly the creation, or recreation, of a London-wide authority. When I was Bishop of Woolwich I felt that the GLC played a most important role in seeking the well-being of the whole city. Members elected for boroughs like Sutton, which was then in my area, were beginning to look at their local interests in the light of what they were learning about the needs of Lewisham and Southwark—and even, wonder of wonders, across the river, about things that happened north of the river.
A concern for the whole leads on to taking a particular interest in those who are left out of decent opportunities. I served on the Archbishop's Commission on Urban Priority Areas, which produced the report Faith in the City in 1985. As we went around visiting each of the major cities in England, the text from the Bible that we most often quoted to one another:
"We are members one of another"
That is what a city is about; indeed, that is what a city should be. Affluent and deprived, north and south, inner-city and suburb, we belong to one another. All of us are the poorer if we simply look for our own sectional interest.
I welcome the way in which the authority is to be elected. We have had many debates in your Lordships' House recently about electoral methods. In electing an authority that has city-wide responsibilities, it seems to me to make very good sense that 14 members are to be elected for constituencies and 11 on a London-wide basis. That underlines the points that I have been trying to make about looking at the whole and it will help to ensure that black and Asian communities are represented in the assembly. The noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Harris of Haringey, were right in the emphasis that they put on the latter.
496
In a report, the Social Exclusion Unit has talked about areas of social exclusion. That is of course true. In areas of Merseyside mass unemployment is three generations deep. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, spoke powerfully about such areas in London. I am familiar with boroughs such as Newham, Hackney, Lewisham and Southwark where far too many people are still excluded from decent opportunities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that the new authority should place concern for its poorest citizens near the top of its priorities. I hope it will be a prime responsibility of the London Development Agency to focus on these areas of social exclusion. The deprivation in these areas is an interlocking phenomenon. It is not just a matter of poor housing, jobs, schools, transport, shopping facilities or health provision; it is a confusing interlocking of all of these which creates an area of social exclusion. The lack of decent provision causes many who have grown up in these areas, and who have done well and could offer much to the neighbourhoods, to move away.
Policies to tackle this interlocking deprivation need themselves to be interlocking. That was a major reason for the establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit. I hope that the London Development Agency and the authority will press for the policies of different government departments to be drawn together. They are so often divided by deep trenches. Big cities suffer from social segregation. It is often the case that the bigger the city, the greater is the segregation that physically divides different groups from one another. The selective mobility of the more successful often compounds that situation, as those who do well in school, church or club go up in the world and move right out of the district when they are adult and lose touch with it.
I believe it is still true of London that whole boroughs comprise one class of people. I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made about the strength of the boroughs, but there are boroughs which do not have the necessary resources and the opportunity to achieve what a city-wide authority ought to be able to achieve. That situation will change only if settled policies are introduced to provide more mixed housing, better schools and shopping provision in the areas from which so many still move away. Through the London Development Agency and in its responsibilities for spatial development and environmental planning, I hope that the authority will have sufficient powers to bring about change. The question of whether it has sufficient powers applies to other regional development agencies too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, was concerned that Clause 25 of the Bill states that the Greater London Authority,
"shall have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on … the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom".
The noble Baroness thought that that should not be part of the Bill. I do not know precisely what lies behind that provision, but I am aware of the difficulty of different interests making their voices heard in relation to planning.

497
I refer to the concern about the Channel Tunnel and its link with the west coast line. That constitutes a huge part of this country. Noble Lords may remember that British Rail produced a plan to build a railway line through south London to King's Cross. There was, naturally, powerful opposition from people in south London and Surrey whose immediate interests were affected. However, I refer also to the failure to build a proper Channel Tunnel link up the west coast line to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and the whole of the north west. It was much more difficult for those whose interests were harmed by the failure to provide that link to make their voices heard. I believe it is absolutely right that a concern for the well-being of the whole of the United Kingdom should be written into a Bill that is concerned with London. London is an immensely powerful part of the country, but the development of that strength affects other parts of the country too.
I was present at each stage of the Bill that sought to abolish the metropolitan counties. Other noble Lords will remember that there was little or no debate about matters other than the GLC. The then leadership of the GLC had made both itself and other metropolitan counties which were greatly valued extremely vulnerable by following what were, in my view, reckless policies that made them easy targets for those who wanted to destroy them.
I support the Bill; I hope that it will equip the Greater London Authority with sufficient powers to carry out effectively the hopes that noble Lords have mentioned and that many people will invest in it.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, there is a postcard on sale in the more sophisticated parts of this country, such as Clapham, which portrays a number of sheep standing around in Heaven with God in the background, wielding a shepherd's crook or crosier. One sheep is saying to another "Of course I am acquainted with the saying, 'the Lord is my Shepherd', but I did not expect to have to take it literally or seriously".
Following, as I do, two Lord Sheppards, I am forced to take it seriously, and they are two hard acts to follow. I have a hard job anyway, since I am charged by my party with a special brief to look at Parts IX and X of this unconscionably long Bill. Neither part was dealt with at all in the Bill's passage through another place, and if ever there was evidence of the need for a second Chamber containing great specialist expertise, this is it. Not that I claim to have great expertise, but I was born in London, I live in London and I have been a party spokesman in your Lordships' House on both the arts and the environment. I believe that we can considerably improve this Bill in those respects.
The first matter which I have been asked to raise arises under Part X. It is the question of the archives of London, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. My Front Bench have pinched all my best lines before I have spoken, but I shall say a word or two about the detail of the archives. I think that we ought to enable these to be written into the Bill.
498
National legislation governing local authority archives and local studies collections is contained in the Local Government (Records) Act 1962. Although that Act enables all London authorities to make archive provision and create local history collections, it is permissive only. Standards of provision, both in relation to access to the borough council's own official records and to material for study of localities more generally, vary considerably between authorities. Standards of service were summarised in Towards 2000—the future of London's archives, published by the Greater London Archives Network in 1993. Of the 33 London local authorities, more than a third have no professional archivist.
Some boroughs make no provision for access to the archives created by the local authority itself, much less make provision to take in historic records created by institutions, businesses, or individuals within the local area. Organisations creating historic records of local significance, as well as national bodies responsible for distributing records to repositories, experience considerable difficulties when depositing records in London, as some boroughs remain unable to receive collections of important archive material. There is no duty, as things stand, to take an active role in collecting local material of historical interest and making it available to the public.
Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Westminster are examples where the local authority plays an active role. Facilities for study of the locality for the purposes of local business and of understanding the built environment can enhance informed public participation in planning and development issues. Some boroughs which employ professional staff and endeavour to provide a serious service to the public nevertheless leave those services desperately under-resourced. Some borough archivists say that they cannot accept the deposit of more material because their small safe storage provision is full up. This will prejudice the resources available to future generations.
London needs an even standard of provision as a matter of urgency, so that council tax payers in all metropolitan areas can expect the same standards of archive provision from their local council. This does not entail excessive expense, but should meet the standards laid down by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for the storage and custody of records, access to collections and the provision of reasonable opening hours for consulting archive materials. That is something for which we feel the mayor should take some responsibility, among all the other important things he has been given.
Also falling into the area is the need, which has also been mentioned by the Front Bench, of the future training of young musicians. This has also been raised by other speakers tonight, and it is very important.
We are going to give the mayor important powers. Many speakers have mentioned the pattern from America that has been taken for this particular plan. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the pattern from France, where the mayors have much the same

499
kind of control and responsibility and where it works extremely well in even some of the smaller towns, as I know from experience.
In the environmental field there is a need to give the mayor the duty to promote sustainable, development and to take it into account. The Government said that they would return to this issue at Committee stage; they should do so. The mayor should be given a duty to forward bio-diversity. The Government said that they would return to this issue at Committee stage; they should do so.
Many noble Lords have mentioned transport. It is very important that we manage to work in favour of promoting bicycles as much as possible as well as public transport. Both are important and both should be encouraged.
The authority will be an advance on the GLC, the last public body for which I ran for office, in the borough of the City of London and Westminster. I succeeded in heating my fellow Liberals for a share of the vote, but nobody else. The noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding, made deserved fun of the latter years of the GLC. If he was present I would tell him—although I am telling Hansard and your Lordships—that the only thing wrong with the GLC was that it did not have proportional representation. If you have proportional representation you do not have extremists running the councils. It was the inability to take that very simple step which caused the problems which led to the destruction of the GLC.
It is a great pity that the nominations for the mayorship now appear to have fallen into the hands of political parties. In later proceedings of the Bill I will be wearing the badge of those who are saying, "Let Ken stand". That does not mean I will vote for him, but he should certainly be allowed to stand. I shall also be wearing a badge urging my party to allow the last Liberal Democrat member of the GLC, Adrian Slade, the past president of the party, to stand also.
All political parties go mad, but that does not mean that we must not wish this new authority and its new mayor, whoever he may be, well. We must bind London together in the way referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. One of the great things that has happened—the noble Lord will understand the importance of this—is that over the past two or three years the present Bishop of London, who I was delighted to see in his place earlier, and the present Bishop of Southwark have managed to bind ecclesiastical London together in a way that has not been seen for 150 years. If, despite its history, that can he done ecclesiastically, it can be done politically. Even the noble Lord, Lord Tope, could be persuaded to cross the river—which he says he does not particularly want to do.
We need a great London; we need a great London government; we need, I think, a mayor; and we need to give him adequate powers and adequate resources—particularly in the areas of conservation, the environment and the arts. We will so amend the Bill to give him the powers to do what he needs to do.
9.24 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I echo the final words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in saying that we do indeed need a Greater London Authority, but I shall be addressing only Part VI of the Bill which deals with the setting up of a police authority and explaining why this may well be welcomed by the Metropolitan Police.
Many people have rather naively supposed that the Metropolitan Police would be against having a police authority for London because it might mean more control and democratic accountability. On the contrary, it has long been understood, at least by the senior officers of the service, that that is the only way to escape the present uneasy symbiotic relationship with the Home Office and the vagaries of successive Home Secretaries!
The present situation where the Home Secretary is the police authority for London—indeed, many years ago I heard Henry Brooke address an audience of police officers and he started his speech by saying, "I, your police authority", which seemed a very strange way of commencing a speech—muffles debate and reduces the responsiveness of the Metropolitan Police to the London that it serves. Because the commissioner is appointed by the Home Secretary and is directly answerable to him, it is very hard to argue openly about policies, resources or systems of policing without appearing to be involved in party politics; and of course the contrary is true: that because no open debate takes place it is assumed that the police service agrees with the politics of the government of the day. That was particularly difficult under the previous regime. The consequence has been that the Metropolitan Police has been forced down routes that I believe are inappropriate to a public service. There has been too much emphasis on measurable results, speed of delivery and numbers of arrests and too little emphasis on quality of service, ethics and democratic accountability.
The national responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police such as Special Branch, Interpol, anti-terrorism, diplomatic protection and national crime intelligence have provided Home Secretaries with an excuse for retaining control of the Metropolitan Police. It has also meant in my view that too many resources have gone to those departments rather than to the every day policing of London's streets. I therefore very much look forward to a police authority that will rigorously question the proportional allocation of the Met's budget.
The dependency on the Home Office has been exacerbated by the position of the Receiver. I am particularly delighted that the Bill will abolish that post. It was established in 1829 when the Metropolitan Police was founded by Robert Peel. The origin of the name is that he was the man who received the rates and taxes for funding the Metropolitan Police. But nowadays the holder of that post is responsible for almost all the 15,000 civil staff employed by the Metropolitan Police. Traditionally, he has been a Whitehall mandarin and, allegedly, the position has been awarded as a consolation prize for not becoming a Permanent Under-Secretary.

501
Because of the Receiver's Whitehall, often Home Office background, the metropolitan civil staff are regarded, often by themselves, as a junior branch of the Home Office and have therefore found it very difficult to adopt an independent stance in arguing for new or better resources or equipment for Metropolitan Police officers. For example, some years ago, when I was leading one of Sir Ken Newman's planning teams, I was involved in trying to obtain more personal radios for Metropolitan Police officers. I was appalled to find that we were under-resourced. We were using old technology. The force had no idea what it had in the way of personal radios. Many of those we allegedly had were being used as spare parts to repair other radios. As a result of our efforts we obtained an extra 5,000 personal radios. However, the fact that no one had been able previously to argue effectively with the Home Office about the need for a basic piece of equipment was entirely due to the subservient role of the metropolitan civil staff in relation to the Home Office.
A police authority for London will ensure open dialogue between local and central government that will no longer be muffled within the corridors of Whitehall. It will also ensure a better deal for the citizens of London, more democratic control and more responsive and imaginative policing.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, with this Bill, and the constitution generally, I am reminded of Pindar:
"It is easy, even for the feeble, to shake a city down, hut it is a sore task to set it up again".
I have no classical bias, so I also cite Seneca:
"To build up cities an age is needed, but an hour destroys them. A forest is long in growing, but in a moment is reduced to ashes".
So it is with this Bill. Even the Minister admits that it is an extraordinarily long and complex piece of legislation. As such, it will require a great deal of scrutiny in Committee, not least because of the Minister's announcement of the Government's intention to table a whole raft of new amendments.
I should not wish noble Lords to assume that to be a criticism of either the Government's declared intent or the underlying principle of the Bill. Strategic leadership for London, provided that is what is delivered, is desirable in its own right. I also endorse the concept of making the exercise of power more directly accessible and accountable to the electorate—or, as the Minister put it, putting Londoners back in charge. But what is at issue in this Bill is how effectively, efficiently and appropriately the Government's chosen method of what my noble friend Lord Jenkin rightly described as an entirely new system of government, achieves that. It is here that my concerns about the Bill swim to the surface.
It is a law of physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So it is—or rather should be—with forms of devolution. The presumption of increased power to the Greater London Authority and thereby to the electorate of London should give effect to a corresponding diminution of power in both
502
Westminster and Whitehall. I am unconvinced that the Bill achieves that in a meaningful way. As many noble Lords have implied, it is a little premature to trumpet a significant transfer of such power, a magical increase in the quality of democracy, when the actions of the mayor and assembly are to be constrained by so many powers reserved to what was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as the "heavy hand" of the Secretary of State. This is part and parcel of another glitch in the machine of the Government's current constitutional thinking.
With justification, concern has been expressed that the Government's agenda lacks coherence, that it is a mish-mash of discrete initiatives. In this, I have some sympathy with the observation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I quote:
"It would he extraordinary if a Union of such diverse parts as the United Kingdom could yield to a uniform pattern of powers devolved from the centre. The continued harmony of a Union of parts so diverse requires structures sensitive to place and people, not uniform structures imposed for uniformity's sake".
Of course, systems of government in London must be appropriate to its own needs. But that is not to say that the Government's devolution agenda does not have common strands. In this, my objections to both the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act were founded upon my recognition that, while their stated intent may have been devolutionary, their construction is in fact rather less so. To my mind, this Bill is of that mould.
I have always explained that to myself by considering what I call the "three Ds": devolution, decentralisation and derogation. True devolution is a compact of trust. Thus, measures that retain significant levers of control at the centre are unlikely to be devolutionary. They may have some decentralising aspects at the margins, but in essence they are delegatory. So it is with the Scotland Act, the Government of Wales Act and, indeed, this Bill.
I derive no satisfaction from the fact that there has been a swathe of commentary in the media about this, not least in Scotland over the matter of tuition fees and in Wales over the apparently Machiavellian devices employed in the election of the leader of the Labour Party there.
My difficulty here is that the promises implicit in the Bill will create huge expectations in the minds of the London public. From the constitutional perspective they will, rightly, expect that the chain of accountability, electorally and otherwise, will run from them to those whom they vote into office. But it seems to me that, far from being within the hands of the mayor and authority, the real strings will in very great measure continue to be pulled from Westminster.
I cannot help feeling that the electoral systems provided for on the face of the Bill will also exacerbate this. I have less equanimity than the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the proposed people's question time and so on will diffuse this. In effect, the method is to transfer responsibility for, the holding to account of and the enormous amount of work involved in the implementation of policy to the new bodies while to a huge extent the decision-making process will remain untouched, and untouchable, in the hands of the

503
Executive. Like my noble friend Lord Plummer, I believe that this sows the seeds of antagonism and tension, and this is worrying.
Of course the constitutional merry-go-round will spin on. But I have one final thought: always at the back of my mind is the fact that people's disengagement from the political and governmental processes is palpable. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, put it, there is too much apathy in our growing democracy. I cannot help feeling that this is the real ghost in the machine. After all, in terms of turnout, the endorsement by London of this Bill and this plan, though clear cut, cannot be said to have been enthusiastic. I repeat, I have no difficulty with the underlying principle of the Bill. But we have a responsibility to get its terms right because, as the noble Lord. Lord Desai, pointed out, we must hope that, whatever the eventual shape of the Bill, it will be capable of enduring well into the future.
9.:36 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I support what the noble Earl has just said about apathy. Apathy seems to me, and perhaps to many others, to be the greatest threat to local government. Unless apathy can be reduced and local government captures the hearts of more people than it does at the moment, in the medium run, and certainly in the longer run, it will be doomed. I should like to talk about one aspect of that this evening. We have heard a good deal about the anomaly of London in that it no longer has a council to represent it. Luckily, that anomaly will be removed.
However, tonight we have heard hardly anything, and not very much in public debates, about another anomaly. Unless we can amend it, the Bill will perpetuate another anomaly which has a close bearing on the observations of the previous speaker about apathy. London will not join the rest of the country in having democratic government at parish council level—the most local or "street" level. My noble friend Lord Borrie spoke about this earlier and also referred to the need for really local councils. I shall do no more than expand a little on what he said.
The fact is that the rest of the county will have urban parish councils. That occurs in Scotland and Wales by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 and in England by virtue of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. The 1997 Act, which not many people noticed at the time, had the support of all political parties. It fell to the Blair Government to implement it. That they did with gusto, if one can use the word "gusto" when talking about local government circulars. I refer to the historic circular of July 1997 on parish reviews. That circular came from the same Department of the Environment, one part of which—another camp, as it were—prepared the legislation for London almost as though the previous Act did not exist. At any rate, it did not appear to pay any attention to it. The House has the opportunity, to use a hackneyed phrase, to pursue joined-up government inside the Department of the Environment to try to bring together one part with another and, more importantly, to introduce into London government the local government system which exists in the country.
504
There has been a series of great reforms. The main ones were in 1958, 1972 and 1994. Whitehall made local authorities bigger and more remote. That is one reason, although not the only one, why the interest in local government has tended to fall away. That was demonstrated in the recent elections: the average turnout throughout England was under 30 per cent. Two out of three electors did not bother to vote. Britain has the bottom place for turnout in local elections in the western Europe league. It falls well behind Spain and Portugal, and even further behind France, Germany and Italy.
Size cannot be the only reason, but it may form a part of it. On the continent of Europe there are larger numbers of smaller institutions of community government. There are smaller constituencies; and there cannot be any meaningful local government if the voters do not have some sense of attachment to the place where they are voting. Hence the case for urban parish councils. For 35 years I have been putting forward the case since I set up the Association of Neighbourhood Councils in 1962. I was encouraged to do so by conversations with Herbert Morrison, perhaps the greatest "Mr. London" we have had, when he was my boss in the headquarters of the Labour Party after the war. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, a notable Member of this House, was vice-president of that association for many years and provided encouragement.
More recently, the influential Commission for Local Democracy proposed that:
"A specified number of electors should be able to petition their local Authorities requiring them to … give that area separate representation".
That came about after the 1997 Act. A very good case was made. It was at least as good as I ever made in my days campaigning for the Association of Neighbourhood Councils, and so on. Almost as though it were adopting an advocacy role, the government circular stated:
"Parish councils have two main roles: community representation and local administration. For both purposes it is desirable that a parish should reflect a small, distinctive and recognisable community of interest, with its own sense of identity. The feeling of local community and the wishes of local inhabitants are the primary considerations. The identification of a community is not a precise or rigid matter. The pattern of daily life in each of the existing communities, the local centres for education and child care, shopping, community activities, worship, leisure pursuits, transport, families and means of communication generally will have an influence".
That is wise guidance. Note was taken of it. It left the boundaries of the new areas to be decided by the people themselves.
A petition for the creation of the new parish council which goes to the Secretary of State has to be signed by only 250 electors, or 10 per cent of the population in an area, whichever is the greater. It has been something of a success. The circular did not come into effect until recently, but in April this year the Government, by order, established the first 11 of these new parish councils. That was at the same time as the GLA Bill was going through the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned various places where it will happen. They are Hartlepool, Tameside, Leeds City

505
Council, Portsmouth City Council, Colchester Borough Council, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council, and probably Birmingham City Council.
London has been left out of a reform, yet in my view it has an especially strong case. London has been expanding longer than any other city, successively taking in more of the villages which used to surround the centre. I have worked in Tower Hamlets for nearly 50 years. An 1820s map shows Stepney, Poplar, Bromley and Bow as separate villages. One would think that as the built-up areas are extended, such villages would have been forgotten. Far from it. They exist very firmly in people's mental maps. They do not talk about living in Tower Hamlets; they talk about living in Stepney, Poplar, Bromley, Bow or Bethnal Green—the smaller parts which make up the strange new borough.
It is the same with Camden. People do not live there as much as in the villages or towns of which it is composed: Hampstead, Highgate, Kentish Town or Camden Town. It is the same with the City of Westminster, where we are today. People live in Pimlico, Belgravia, Mayfair, Soho, Covent Garden, North Paddington, Maida Vale and so forth. Therefore, there is a basis in popular sentiment for creating a tier of local government that would be close to people, partly due to the training which would be given to local councillors, and through which the whole of the London local government system could be energised and become a great deal more popular. That is their argument and I think that it is a good one.
I hope that a simple amendment will be able to make a big change to London government, which would be in the interests of the great city to which we are all proud to belong.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, there is a sense in which this huge Bill is worthy of its subject. London in its entirety is a great city. It is probably the most important financial market in the world. Its population contains elements from all over the world, contributing to another important aspect; it is a great cultural centre. Its problems of traffic congestion and areas of deprivation, which are serious matters that must concern us all, are not sufficiently grave to reduce its general popularity and attraction. Both London's GDP and its population are greatly in excess of those of many nations represented at the United Nations. Its sphere of influence stretches far across the country, and it would do so even if this were not the seat of our national government. London is greater than Scotland and Wales put together. Any Bill that seeks to establish a city-wide administration for London therefore must be large, and, as so many noble Lords have said, this one is very large and we now know that it has capacity for growth.
We have our own perceptions as to how we came to the position in which we find ourselves tonight. My view is that the former metropolitan counties, of which the Greater London Council was one, were always flawed. They had great size and influence, but as part of local government, as it then existed, they did not have the functions to match. They are now history.
506
The Bill seeks to establish a new form of city-wide organisation for London. It has no precedent, and its significance means that the Bill will be both long and complex. I fear that we have many hours of detailed work in front of us before we can be assured that we have done all that we can to ensure that the Bill is in such a form that it has a real chance of success.
That must be, and is, our aim. If it means long days of work and cold wet towels round our heads, so be it. When the Bill leaves your Lordships' House there will be little opportunity for further change, and it has changed greatly already. Noble Lords have referred to the number of new clauses that appeared during the passage of the Bill through another place. We now know that there are further changes still that the Government wish to see. There will certainly be changes that my noble friends and I wish to see, and no doubt many other noble Lords will feel the same, as has been revealed during the course of our debate.
That is as may be. When the Bill leaves this House it must be in the best possible form so that it has the best possible chance of working well, for the benefit not just of the whole of London, but, curiously, for the benefit of the whole of the rest of the country.
For the first time, and possibly uniquely, we see an authority established with a general power. Local government has long argued for such a facility, its powers to take action in the communities that it serves being strictly defined by law. In this Bill, however, in Clause 25(1) we see:
"The authority shall have power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes".
Those purposes follow in subsection (2):

"(a) promoting economic development …

(b) promoting social development …

(c) promoting the improvement of the environment".

That is well and good, but in Clause 26(7) we find that
"The Secretary of State may by order … make … provision for preventing the Authority from doing … anything—…
(b) which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order".
In other words, the "power" is matched by what I choose to call an "anti-power", and therefore means whatever the Secretary of State wishes it to mean.
I regret that that approach continues throughout the Bill. The greater part of the work that the mayor will do on behalf of London will be done through a series of strategies. There will be a spatial development strategy, a waste management strategy, an air quality strategy, an ambient noise strategy and so on, to say nothing of transport, which has attracted much attention tonight. Each of those strategies is in effect dependent on a power, and each power has its own specific anti-power.
It is true that some of those anti-powers are qualified to cover national policy or the interests of surrounding areas. However, they are indicative of the Government's philosophy and approach to the Bill. The Bill could have been drafted to impose on the mayor a duty to have regard to any national policy for the time being in force and to have regard to the interests of surrounding areas so that nothing he causes to be done is detrimental to those areas.

507
That would be both positive and enforceable. However, the Government have chosen to go down the opposite and negative route. I wonder why. Are they frightened of what they are creating? Do they expect London's electorate of 5¼ million people to elect some Frankenstein-style monster that the Government themselves have made possible? Are they really so frightened of the Member of Parliament for Brent East that they feel it necessary to insert all those controls in case he slips past the barriers which they seem determined to erect to prevent him becoming mayor?
Whatever the reason, the impact of all those anti-powers leads me to conclude that there will be two mayors for London: one who is elected by the people of London; and the other who has the real power—the Secretary of State himself.
There are two other subjects on which I wish to touch this evening. The first is new charges and levies. Clauses 228 and 229 and their relevant schedules introduce the possibility of road-user charging and a work-place parking levy. It is just worth noting that each power to levy one of those charges has its own anti-power. I refer to Schedule 18, paragraph 17(4) and (5) and Schedule 19, paragraph 23(3) and (4), which permit the Secretary of State to control the net proceeds of either of those charges within the general and very necessary constraint that they must be used exclusively to improve transport within London.
As the Bill is drafted, that constraint is to remain in place for any scheme introduced within 10 years of the inception of the authority. The possibility exists for that period to he extended by regulation. We need to explore what that might mean. Londoners have had their expectations raised and will seek rapid results. Can that potential revenue stream—a matter raised by other noble Lords—be used to permit borrowing against future income so as to finance immediate improvement? If so, are the arrangements sufficiently flexible and robust to make possible the financing of major schemes such as the Crossway scheme, a major rail improvement, where funding of 40 or even 60 years may be appropriate? We shall need to examine those matters.
Indeed, we must also examine what is in the Government's mind for the time after the 10-year period has elapsed. In any event, before any of those charges are introduced, we should ensure that a proper study has been undertaken to assess the impact of such charges on the total economy of London. It is all too plausible to regard the charges as "a good thing".
Work has certainly been done which indicates levels at which charges need to be set to influence the behaviour of road users. So far as I am aware, there are no specific studies concerning the impact which those charges may have on the overall economy of the community concerned. While it may be idealistic to believe in a community without cars or road traffic, it is not realistic. There will be a level at which those charges have an adverse effect on the London-wide economy. That needs to be determined.
The well-being of London's economy is vital to the nation as a whole, as well as being of particular concern to Londoners. Success depends on London continuing
508
to be attractive and competitive internationally, and that must not be put at risk. All major centres like London have their urban environmental problems, but international business is both highly competitive and mobile. London's competitive position must be maintained or we might, to borrow a cliché, throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The other matter to which I wish to refer tonight concerns planning. Once again we are introducing a two-tier planning system for London, on which speakers have already touched. In principle there is nothing wrong with such a system, and indeed it is preferable that the strategic planning function should be carried out by a body representing London directly rather than some amorphous body working indirectly and backed by the Secretary of State.
It is an uncomfortable fact that memories of the planning system from the time when the GLC was in place are generally not happy. Much of the work done by the new GLA in this field could be both good and beneficial, but it is at the interface with the work of the London boroughs that problems are likely to arise. If the impact of certain spatial policies, or matters linking planning decisions to GLA roads causes major delays to planning applications for what can sometimes be relatively minor matters, let alone major applications, then the smooth administration of London will be diminished.
Some of the impact of these problems may be reduced by action that we may take on the face of the Bill. Some assistance may come through regulation, and we will need to explore both of those aspects during the passage of the Bill through its Committee stage. But it has to be said that the greatest benefit can come only if the mayor and the boroughs themselves work out a practical modus vivendi so that friction and delay is minimised.
We in this House cannot achieve that. We can only hope that our debates will form a part of the background reading for all of those who will be involved in the new authority so that they take these matters into account when they are establishing their procedures and avoid the pitfalls that might otherwise arise.
It has been said that this is a great experiment. If that is the case, then it is our duty to work on the Bill to ensure that it has the greatest possible chance of being successful. I know that I speak for my colleagues when I say that that thought will always be paramount in our minds as the Bill progresses. In any event we must recognise that since the Government seem to be intent on spreading this experiment across the country before there is any evidence that it might be successful in London, our attempts to give the experiment a greater prospect of success will be likely to benefit communities far beyond the bounds of London. It is to be hoped that our work will be well rewarded.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before I make my comments I apologise to the House for not being here for the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Whitty. I was detained in another place my council's annual mayor-making—a rather more modest

509
affair than that envisaged in the legislation we are considering this evening. The other aspect of that meeting was another feature of this legislation; that is, the modernisation of my local authority, something of which I am particularly proud.
I ought also to say that I have a latter-day interest to declare in this legislation. On 31st March 1986 I was abolished as an employee of the Greater London Council and since that date I have always cherished the moment when I might be in another place and meet my abolitionist—the noble Lord, the Lord Jenkin of Roding. I have not forgotten that I was abolished. In local government many things happen. I have been abolished three times and reinvented once. So perhaps it is nice to be party to a debate where we are creating an authority about which there is much enthusiasm and, dare I say, optimism.
Reflecting on the GLC, in its final years I believe it was an authority which came to a form of maturity. It had begun to grasp the fundamentals of being a strategic authority. Although perhaps much maligned at the time, and sometimes in its absence, it was an effective strategic planning authority. It had begun to intervene in the world of economic development, which was something new at the time. It knew what it wanted to do with transportation. It had an environmental edge and view. It did much to promote and regenerate cultural life for the City and London in particular. Other areas of innovation dealing with issues of race and gender were very topical at the time. Although sometimes they were condemned for political correctness, they have since become more mainstream in our political life.
The Second Reading of any Bill is primarily to discuss broad principles. It seems to me that there are six features to this legislation which we should welcome. The first is the most obvious; namely, that it re-establishes city-wide government for London. Secondly, it will create local government in a modernised format which is more appropriate for the 21st century. Thirdly, through that modernisation it will bring about a separation of executive and scrutiny functions through the creation of an assembly for London. Fourthly, I believe it will create an authority where transparency of purpose, function and direction, under the leadership of a powerful mayoral office, will be strong features of that new instrument of governance.
The other point that has to be remembered, and one which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made, is that it will create for London a more inclusive style of politics, which is long overdue. It will perhaps take us away from the more adversarial model of the old Greater London Council. Finally, it will pull together the key and strategic functions of London's governance.
The GLA Bill has major constitutional importance. Much has been made of that in our debate this evening. It will devolve government and it will become a powerful regional and sub-regional body. I believe that it will become a powerhouse local authority within Europe. Finally, it will deliver for us, perhaps with a principal politician in the form of its mayor, the third or fourth most recognised political figure in the country.
510
There are key questions about the future of the GLA. What will its impact be on other institutions? I for one believe that it will have a profound knock-on effect for both regional government and urban government generally. My guess is that within the United Kingdom, where London leads the others will follow. I believe that Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, Edinburgh and Liverpool, and perhaps Bristol too, will soon want to have a directly elected political figure at their head.
The other question for me is whether it will become a beacon for the renewal and renaissance of local government. I conclude that it will. To do so it must become dynamic and not bogged down in bureaucracy. Here the Government have wisely gone for the strong mayoral office giving leadership to London. That must be right. For without power, vision and authority the GLA simply will not work.
It will need a dynamic sense of purpose to excite the people and make London government a popular instrument for civic action. We desperately need some successful beacons for the rest of local government. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, referred to the miserable turnout in the local elections two weeks ago. I for my part staged a same-day referendum on the future of our football club in a desperate effort to force up turnout. We succeeded, but at 38 per cent that is not good enough. To be at the bottom of the league table of turnouts in Europe is no recipe for strength in local government.
I believe that the mayoral election is a contest which will excite electors young and old, black and white, from wherever they come in London. For that reason I look forward to seeing this Bill enacted. I believe that it will do much to raise political passion and interest and rejuvenate and renew local government, for where we in London go today I believe that the rest of our country will follow tomorrow.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, not grudgingly but enthusiastically. I wish to comment on two or three points of constitutional importance. In doing so I may as well allay whatever fears there may be on my Front Bench and say that while I speak from these Benches I do not necessarily speak for them. In fact, I feel very close to the London School of Economic's group in your Lordships' House. I have always envied Scottish colleagues who say, "my noble kinsman", about someone in some corner of the House. I feel that way about the noble Lords, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, Lord Desai and one or two others. If I may include the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, in that group, I shall be happy to do so.
I hope that noble Lords will allow me a moment of self-indulgence. In December 1990, I was invited to give the London Lecture for London Weekend Television. The subject was, "Does London need to he governed?" My conclusion was perhaps surprising for the audience. I said:
"London's interests need to be represented, and London needs to be administered where there is no good case for lower—or indeed higher—level authorities. London also needs a focus of innovation

511
and a sense of direction. If this is government, so be it. Enabling government may be the word: authorities which create opportunities for people to get on with things".
I will not repeat now what I said then about transport, policing and public spaces—one of the great subjects, in my view, for any governance of London—about the need for an authority which is lean and effective. However, I will repeat this sentence:
"On reflection it seems to me that London needs a mayor. What is more, this mayor should he directly elected by the people of London".
Incidentally, I am not suggesting that there is any causal connection between what I said in 1990 and what is happening now. As noble Lords know, great ideas are often discovered simultaneously, or at some distance, by different people in different places. However, I am explaining why I am pleased that we have reached this point.
It is in the light of this general approach that I would like to comment briefly on three points. First, I need hardly tell your Lordships that we are going through a period of profound constitutional change. Some of us wonder whether this is a coherent process or one which opens up a whole lot of new opportunities without anyone knowing exactly what it will all add up to. Certainly this Bill creates a hybrid—it is partly local government, it is partly regional government, it is partly a unique balance of both; and, indeed, it is partly devolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, regretted that process. I am not sure that I share that regret. I think it is perhaps appropriate for London that there should be such a hybrid solution. However, it raises questions. For example, if any Secretary of State had the powers which this Bill gives to the mayor, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would have a great deal to say about it. But it is not saying this about the mayor because it is accepted that a new structure is being created here, which obviously has to have certain powers. But it is one of those innovations which in that regard—as, incidentally, in some others—is not dissimilar from the Bills, now Acts, on Scotland and Wales which we have discussed in this House.
If there is a common principle—and I say this not with any intention to be critical, but with an intention to understand—it is that certain powers of Parliament go to other political institutions, such as the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London authority, including the mayor. That is an important and interesting development. As many of your Lordships have emphasised, it is one which leaves the Secretary of State in a rather important position, but which at the same time creates a new institution.
I suspect that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will have something to say about some of the roles of the Secretary of State. I am, of course, a member of that committee and I therefore should not go further than the committee itself is likely to go. However, I suspect that it will have something to say in particular about Clause 317 which famously states that,
"Any Minister of the Crown may by order make such amendments, repeals or revocations as appear to him to be appropriate in consequence of this Act, or of any regulations or orders under this Act".
512
But having said that, it is an authority sui generis. I for one accept that. What will happen, and notably what the Secretary of State will do with regard to this authority, will require scrutiny. I was delighted that the Minister mentioned the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the All-Party London Group which he so ably and impartially conducts. I for one would not be surprised if in due course your Lordships' House decided that that group has to acquire a more formal status in the process of scrutinising the role of the Secretary of State in relation to the structures of London's authority.
My second comment is a somewhat more critical one. If there is a constitutional muddle anywhere at present, it is with regard to electoral systems. I make a wistful comment here because I take it from the debates we have had on European elections and on electoral systems in Scotland and Wales that the Government tend to take the old papal line: "Roma locuta, causa finita". Rome has spoken, and that is it; there is no more to say about the matter. Therefore I have little doubt that we shall be saddled with the system invented by the Government for electing the London authority.
Incidentally, I was amused to read with regard to the mayoral election at paragraph 44 of the explanatory notes that,
"if there arc only two candidates, the one with the most votes wins under first-past-the-post procedures".
However, if there are only two candidates, it does not make an awful lot of sense to talk about electoral systems.
I turn to the assembly. When I wrote to the Minister for London in another place he was generous in his reply and invited me to a meeting with some of the officials to discuss the point which I am making. My view then was—and still is—that if there are 25 members and if 14 are elected in constituencies, it is an unnecessary and unfortunate complication to introduce a second vote for the remaining 11. I wondered then—I still wonder—why the elegant solution of the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform of 1976 was not adopted. I had better confess that I was a member of that commission. That elegant solution suggests that in the constituencies people should have one vote; that the constituency members—let us say 14—should be elected; and that the remaining 11 should be the runners up—one vote, additional members, a simple system, and one which would take a few steps in the direction of proportionalisation without being admittedly proportional. I do not expect my own Front Bench to be totally supportive of that proposal, but I thought then and I still think that it is a simpler method than the one that has been invented. I do believe that simplicity of electoral systems is a great advantage in creating the legitimacy of institutions. The Minister said at the time to me, "some people like individuals and some people like parties: this system caters for both". I suppose that is one kind of Third Way, but it is a rather complicated one as Clause 4 shows, with all the complicated rules for by-elections. However, as I said, Roma locuta. It probably is but a wistful comment.
Thirdly, and finally—and this is a very positive comment indeed—I have so far spoken as a citizen of London, one who loves this place above all other places

513
in the world, suffers with it, enjoys it, wishes it well and wants to do everything to improve its condition. In my final comment I have to declare an interest, because it is about the City of London. I am a Freeman of the City and I am also a non-executive director of a bank which, under the proposed new franchise, may have some minor part to play in the governance of the City.
I am very pleased that in this Bill the Government have recognised the uniqueness of the City. There are certain exceptions which apply to the City, such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord the Minister in his initial statement concerning the police authority. We have of course a Private Member's Bill coming our way. Judging from the speed with which it is going through the other place, we may even see it before the end of this Session. I hope that when that Bill is enacted, as well as the Greater London Authority Bill, it will be generally recognised that the Corporation of the City of London is a strange local authority with private as well as public elements, but that once it has removed some of what are arguably its more absurd traditions, it has the appropriate structure for an international financial centre, which contributes much to the wealth of this city and this country, which we all have reason to be proud of.
There will no doubt be conflicts, but they can be worked out with a bit of generosity on both sides, and I hope that that generosity will remain in the Bill now before us, will pervade the Private Member's Bill when it comes and, above all, will determine the relations between the London authority and the City of London. We are no doubt in for a long Committee stage and a long Report stage. I hope that in the process we do not overlook the underlying principle of re-enfranchising Londoners and giving London the government which it deserves. I strongly support the Bill.
10.23 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the distinguished speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, but I am afraid that I am sadly going to come down to earth. At this time of night I should like to make a few, I hope, constructive remarks largely about the transport section of this Bill and in particular the issue of cycling.
First of all, may I say that, having listened to the debate tonight and having tried to understand how other parts of this mammoth Bill would work, I am not optimistic about this new layer of government. I was more expecting, and hoping for, the "lean and mean authority" that at one time seemed in prospect. I share some of the forebodings as partly expressed in his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—not so much from any political or party political perspective but simply from a human point of view—about whether what is before us now can be made to fit in with the human scale, human aspirations and human relationships. In that I include, as has been mentioned, the normal problems of power and co-operation. Will the London public be genuinely engaged in what is being done in their name? Should so much depend on the personal qualities of the mayor? I hope that we will
514
be lucky. I believe that it will take a long time before these newly ordained powers and relationships settle down to work as well as we might hope.
Perhaps I may now return to the subject of transport, in particular cycling. One of the advantages of the new mayor is that he will not have to put into the balance the central government obligation to the economic engine that is the motor industry. He will clearly have to respect the interests of his voters—individual motorists, cyclists and, indeed, motor-cyclists, who should not be forgotten.
I hope that at the Committee stage, together with some of my colleagues of the cycling fraternity in the House, we might be able to nudge the Bill in a slightly more bicycle-friendly direction. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his remarks about bicycles.
I will not at this stage recite the well-known benefits of encouraging cycling. I have had the benefit of reading the mini-debate on this subject at the Committee stage in another place. I understand the Government's position. However, I hope that we can persuade the Government that it is not unreasonable to declare on the face of the Bill slightly more sympathy towards cycling and cyclists—for example, encouraging the mayor to take an instrumental part in the completion of the London cycle network and providing the franchise director with a tighter framework which requires a definite consideration of cycling, particularly, for instance, at transport interchanges. Above all, I hope that the mayor will be able to use his position to change and improve the fundamental attitude in the capital towards cyclists.
As other noble Lords have said, I wish the Bill well. But I do so with a heavy heart. I am not sure that the Bill gives evidence of our having learnt the real human lessons from our experiences of London government during the past decades.
10.27 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood said—surprise, surprise—I wish to talk about matters relating to licensed taxi cabs. Several of the proposals contained in Clauses 203, 204 and 205, and detailed in Schedule 16, of the Bill give rise to serious concern about the future of the taxi trade, its own well-being as well as the well-being of the public it serves. It comprises an important element in plans for a fully integrated transport system for London.
Of by far the most concern to me, and to countless others, are the proposals contained in the Bill which transfer all controls—licensing of both vehicles and drivers, regulations, ranking arrangements; in short, everything concerning licensed taxis in London—from the Metropolitan Police to Transport for London. I understand the thinking behind it very well indeed. My major concern is not the actual transfer—that in itself makes sense—but the extremely undesirable side effects that may very well result from such a change.
I maintain that the principal reason why London has enjoyed the best system of licensed taxis anywhere in the world, bar none, is precisely that it is under the

515
control of the Metropolitan Police, and has been so since 1850. I am greatly concerned that when control passes from the Metropolitan Police into the hands of the GLA, its hands will be full to overflowing with a myriad of functions and responsibilities. I believe that licensed taxis will come very, very far down the list of priorities, just as the regulations concerning minicabs have done in practically all the London boroughs.
I say this because the evidence we have in front of us, for all to see who take the trouble to look, shows that the illegal antics and activities of large numbers of private hire operators continue unchecked, despite the legislation that has been in place since January of last year which we were told would put an end to their shenanigans for ever. I warned at the time that no legislation was worth the paper it was written on unless it was enforced and properly policed. It has hardly been enforced at all, as anyone will tell you who observes what goes on in the West End on a nightly basis. The touting continues unabated, the illegal plying for hire continues, the tourist rip-offs continue, the death trap vehicles continue and the horror stories of what often happens when you are inside the death trap continue.
My fear is that once control passes from the Metropolitan Police, we can expect the same levels of enforcement for licensed taxis in London as are at present enjoyed by private hire in London, which is virtually nil. Can the Minister reassure us that this will not be allowed to happen to licensed taxis? If it does happen, then London can wave goodbye to its black cabs. I think that the world would be a poorer place for their loss. Which sane person would willingly fork out £28,000 for a purpose-built vehicle, submit himself to an exhausting intensive course of training lasting for three years, learning all about London, when he could make just as much money driving a saloon car costing a third of that sum with an electronic A-Z map device installed in it? Who needs the "Knowledge" anyway?
Another area of concern I have is the future of the Taxicard scheme, known as DART, or Dial-a-Ride Taxicard Users' Association to give it its proper name. We on these Benches applaud and support the Government's commitment to taxicard schemes for the elderly and disabled which they showed when they stated in their White Paper of March 1998 A Mayor and Assembly for London:
"TfL will acquire specific responsibility for Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard schemes".
Instead of this excellent service being available only in selected London boroughs, under the GLA and Transport for London, all disabled and elderly people throughout the GLA area will be eligible for such a scheme. But the GLA Bill does not include a specific commitment to transfer Taxicard to TfL, and the so-called "peg" clause which allowed the transfer of Taxicard to TfL was removed by the Government at the Committee stage in another place. Surely that is not a good strategy to adopt when all other forms of public transport in London are to be managed by the GLA, including the important taxi element.
516
If Taxicard is to become an integrated part of the public transport strategy for London, it will have to be available in all the London boroughs, not just in some. It must be transferred to TfL; otherwise its funding, and therefore its future, will be at risk.
I know that the Government support "non-smoking" taxis, both from the driver's point of view, as he should be able to work in a smoke-free zone, and from the stand-point of passengers, many of whom find smoking offensive. Yesterday, I got into a taxi. It was like getting into a smouldering ashtray. It was really very unpleasant. I hope that time can soon be found to change the law to allow that. The GLA Bill provides a good opportunity to achieve this, despite what the Minister for Transport in London said on 4th May to the contrary.
I ask that noble Lords bear with me as I still have two causes for concern remaining. I shall be as brief as possible. The proposed administration charges which would allow the Public Carriage Office to charge for the "Knowledge" process, which will continue to be obligatory for all licensed taxi drivers in London before plying for hire, is a reasonable request which makes sense. I understand that an amendment to achieve this was tabled by Linda Perham in Standing Committee in another place but was subsequently withdrawn after reassurances that the Government would reintroduce a similar amendment at a later stage of the Bill's parliamentary progress. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the intention?
My last concern relates to headings (a) and (b) of paragraph 6(4) of Schedule 16. Heading (a) contains the words:
"charges for admission to railway station not to exceed sum allowed by Secretary of State".
Does that mean what I take it to mean—that charges for licensed hackney carriages to enter railway stations in London are on the cards and will be included in the remit of Transport for London? Please will the Minister comment on that?
Finally, on behalf of all Londoners who use licensed taxis and all those visitors to London from this country and overseas who use and admire our taxis, perhaps I may urge the GLA not to allow the very high standards under which taxis have operated until now to be lowered in any way when it takes over control of taxis. The Metropolitan Police have done an outstanding and thoroughly commendable job with London's licensed taxis for the past 150 years, and I cannot help but fear for their future under the proposals contained in the Bill.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with an apology. Although I had the privilege of hearing the noble Lord the Minister make the opening speech, I had had in my diary for the past five months, not unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, an invitation to address a charity function, and felt that I could not cancel it at the last minute. I apologise to the House for not being present to hear the speeches of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the Liberal Front Bench. I shall, of course, read their remarks in detail tomorrow.

517
I welcome this Bill. Having been born in London and begun my political life as a member of the Greater London Council representing Romford and Hornchurch, I had felt for some time that a city of 7 million people, covering an area of 900 square miles, with 32 boroughs and 74 constituencies, should be represented by a mayor. I made those views clear when we were in government, and reiterated them when the Labour Party put forward their ideas for the future of London government. As the Minister pointed out, London is the only major city on earth that does not have a figurehead—what was described in the Green Paper as "a voice for London".
I also agree that the mayor should be strategic in approach, working closely with the borough leaders, as we do not need to return to the days of the GLC, with its 17,000 employees and a desire to be responsible for changing light bulbs in Uxbridge.
In Committee I shall take advantage of being able to express these views in greater detail. But as I have spent the past two years trying to find out what Londoners expect of their mayor, I should like to concentrate my present remarks on four particular anxieties that I have in regard to the Bill.
First, I feel that if we are to create a new government for London, we should above all aim for openness and accountability. Yet we find that this Bill prefers to set up the usual smokescreens which are more associated with the ministerial model that we have become so used to in Whitehall. That means that the mayor will be able to keep secret the advice that he receives and allow crucial policy documents to remain unpublished. That is wrong. We should insist on the transparency that is normally expected in local government.
I believe in the principle of freedom of information for Londoners. All information used by the mayor in decision-making should also be made available to every citizen of London via the Internet. I would go further. We should gather much more information than we do today, to enable us to create a more efficient and accountable government for London.
Perhaps I may give the Minister an example. In New York, Mayor Guiliani can, at the press of a button, find the crime figures, borough by borough, and ask particular borough policing systems why one borough is so much worse than another. I rang the Metropolitan Police and made exactly the same request. They were unable to give me that information. I believe that it should be available to all Londoners.
Secondly, following on with the theme of openness, I am concerned that the role of business as enshrined in the Bill still remains rather limited. I accept that six businessmen are required to sit on the board of the London Development Agency, which is frankly no more than commonsense, but I suggest to the Minister that we go one step further. We are living in the financial and business capital of Europe. Our business community is justly the envy of our European partners. I believe that the new mayor should automatically allow the London business community to nominate its own candidates for those six places. This has not been done in the past.
518
However, as this is a wholly new form of government why not take a new approach? For example, perhaps the Minister will consider allowing the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, London First and the London CBI to make their own nominations to the LDA.
Let the business communities themselves decide whom they would like to see on the board so that when they report back they are not the mayor's cronies but people they have selected who can put the case and report back to their own boards. Surely, these appointments would be completely free from the accusation against any mayor that they had been affected by party affiliation.
But even with six businessmen on the LDA the Bill does not appear to provide for enough consultation with the business community, which after all provides the jobs, salaries and best prospects of London's long-term future. Businesses are the major local taxpayers. Why should they not have a say in policing, transport and planning strategy? As things stand, the Bill makes some provision for the manner in which businesses may be consulted but does not ensure that the mayor will consult as a duty. I ask the Secretary of State to consider issuing guidance under the general powers pursuant to Clause 25(7) and (8) as well as the clauses in the Bill that relate to various strategies (covered by Clause 33(1)) on which the mayor is required to consult business on all matters that are likely to affect it.
Thirdly, I remain sceptical about the way the Government have put forward their ideas for road pricing which, incidentally, I am against. The clause in question does not even guarantee that the money raised from Londoners will be put back into the London transport system. There are two flaws in the Government's plans. I shall start with the first 10-year commitment. Why should Londoners not have a perpetual right to the benefit of the money that they pay in extra road taxes? Why should the cash revert to the Treasury after just 10 years? How could a new mayor hope to come forward with a 15 or 20-year plan for the future of London Transport in the knowledge that the income flow would be likely to dry up after only 10 years?
But even for those 10 years there is no way that the proposed road charging can be described as hypothecated when the money merely replaces with one hand funds that are taken away with the other. The Government have already announced that the subsidy for London Transport will cease once their plans have been finally presented. It follows that road charging will simply be a new and additional tax on Londoners at a time when they already pay £12 billion a year to the rest of the country, or £2,000 for every taxpayer in London. First the Government take away the subsidy and then they ask Londoners to pay an additional tax, with the result that once again it is Londoners who are expected to pay more.
Fourthly, I should like to see provisions to ensure that the GLA can impose a charge on utilities when digging up London's roads. We know that often the utilities make no attempt to co-ordinate their digs. How often have people said to noble Lords, "BT was here last

519
week; the gas the week before; the electricity the week before; the television companies the week before that digging up the same part of the road, making exactly the same hole". Why do they not consult each other? As I stand in this House, why are there seven holes on this side of the river before one reaches Vauxhall Bridge, and five on the other side of the river? Of the nine, no one worked today on seven of them. They were simply holes circled by cones. The time has surely come for the Minister to consider providing in the Bill for a charge on companies for road space and road areas. I bet that those holes would be put back very much more quickly if that provision were part of the Bill. Those groups can often afford to pay. For years they have benefited from the free access.
That seems a fairer approach than raising much-needed cash from London drivers, asking them to pay another tax, not forgetting how much they already pay in road and petrol taxes. There is a section of society in London which requires cars and cannot necessarily afford a further tax.
In conclusion, despite those few criticisms, I welcome the Bill because it creates a new opportunity for London to remain at the forefront of world capitals. But this time we cannot afford to get it wrong. During the Committee stage in another place, the Government have already put forward so many amendments to the Bill that it might lead one to believe that they have a tendency to make up the legislation as it goes along. So I can only hope that the Minister will be open to one or two more considered amendments, offered in a real spirit of attempting to end up with something that is best for all Londoners.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, reads Hansard he will find that he has missed a wide-ranging and interesting debate. It has been a debate tinged with nostalgia, and some selective memory; and I shall join in.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said that Ken Livingstone and his colleagues tested the GLC to destruction. He is right; I agree. My regret is that the government of which he was part were unable to resist the temptation to carry out that destruction. I was a London politician at the time. My memory tells me that if they had resisted the temptation to destroy, Ken Livingstone and his colleagues would have destroyed themselves. They would undoubtedly have lost at the ballot box. That would have been the proper democratic way and London would not then have suffered 13 years of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, described as a mess.
There was fault on all sides. We called neither for the abolition nor the retention of the GLC. We wanted its reform. In the polarised politics of the mid-1980s, that was a small voice soon lost between the two extremes. As we consider this Bill, all of us who are honest about the matter will say that we should have reformed the GLC in the mid-1980s, perhaps creating what we are now creating—the GLA. We have had 13 wasted years.
520
It just so happens that this month I celebrate—and I really do celebrate—25 years as a London borough councillor. I spent 12 years as an opposition leader under—I use that term loosely—the GLC. I have personal experience of a member-level meeting with GLC committee chairs to discuss the painting of yellow lines on residential roads in my ward. That was in the mid-1970s. I wondered how it could possibly he described as a strategic matter for London. I have spent the past 13 years as leader of a London borough council. I became leader within a month of GLC abolition. I vividly recall that during my first year I spent almost as much time trying to sort out post-abolition London as I spent trying to sort out post-Tory Sutton. I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that it was an alphabet soup. It was a mess. We did our best, because we had to, to try and make it work. We had some successes and did not do too bad a job.
Much though I deplore the abolition of the GLC—I did and I do—I must recognise that there have been some benefits. At least, partly as a consequence, London boroughs have become much more self-confident and stronger. Perhaps that would have happened anyway, but I suspect not. Furthermore, we have seen the growth or partnerships. That is not just because the absence of the GLC caused a vacuum which we had to fill; it is partly as a result of a changed climate. Many of the politicians who were running London in the mid-1980s are now running the Government in the other place and the climate is much more constructive.
We have seen partnerships grow not only out of necessity but out of mutual desirability between local government and businesses. It came as something of a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, and his colleagues in business, as I am sure it did to some of our colleagues in local government, that each was not as bad as the other thought and that we could work together with a considerable degree of self-interest and consequent success.
We have also seen a growth in partnerships between borough councils of different political persuasions. That has been irrelevant to the strength and success of the partnership. I welcome all of that. It is in part a consequence of the abolition of the GLC, but not wholly. My plea is that with the creation of the GLA and the strategic authority, which we strongly welcome, we build upon those strengths. There must be a risk that they will be lost or weakened, but we must avoid that. We must build on the strengths that London government has developed over the past 13 years without a strategic authority.
Liberal Democrats have always strongly supported a strategic authority for London. Other noble Lords have described the effects of not having had one for the past 13 years and why London deserves one. It is true and well known to your Lordships that we would have preferred a parliamentary system of electing the mayor. We believe that the mayor should be elected by the assembly rather than through the presidential system of direct election. However, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf will be relieved to know that while

521
that still remains our preferred option, we accept that it is not the way it is going to be. That is not a line we shall pursue, although it remains our view.
Accepting the way that it is going to be—a directly elected mayor with a potential mandate of 5 million-plus voters, although I fear there will not be anything like that number—what is more important is the relationship between the mayor and the assembly; the mayor and the London boroughs; and the mayor and the many communities of London. I refer to business, the voluntary sector, the community sector, minority groups and so forth. All of that is of critical importance. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the culture of the GLA. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, put it well in his speech—praise from this side of the Chamber may well be the kiss of death on his ambitions—saying that it is important to recognise that the GLA, the mayor and the assembly are a new form of politics. To work, there will need to be co-operation. At least as important as the formal provisions which we shall be debating in the months to come will be the relationship between the authority's constituent parts.
We approach the GLA positively and strongly, and I believe the other parties when they say they will do likewise. If that happens, as I believe it will, there is a fair chance that for all its flaws—and it has some—it will work, because we will make it work. The electoral system will help. It is not the system we would have preferred. Reference was made to my honourable friend in the other place, Simon Hughes, saying, apparently, that the system of mayoral election we are to have is known only in Sri Lanka. I have no comment on Sri Lankan presidential elections, but I am not sure that that is necessarily a recommendation for London.
Similarly, and not surprisingly from these Benches, we would have preferred the single transferable vote to the additional member system we are to have. But I think I speak for all my colleagues when I say that none of us is what I believe are now called "anoraks" on electoral reform. We are pleased that there will be a proportional system. That will help to dictate the nature of politics in the assembly and the way in which the assembly works together rather than its members working against each other.
I have heard the assembly referred to in another place as inevitably being a hung council. That is a complete misconception, not that I personally see anything wrong with hung councils. I can say that as my party has a majority of 38 in my council. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has even greater cause for embarrassment over the defects of our present electoral system. The point is that the assembly is not an executive. That is a basic misunderstanding. It is a scrutiny body, and it will need to work together as an assembly. I hope that those who make that mistake will come to understand an important difference there.
My colleagues have referred to the various concerns, very real concerns, that we have on the detail of the Bill—important detail. We are very concerned about the powers being given to, and retained by, the Secretary of
522
State. Others estimate 250 new powers. I do not know whether that is the correct number, but it is certainly very large.
I regret that the Government apparently cannot bring themselves to trust the mayor and the assembly which they advocate so strongly, and have to retain so many powers under what I think are sometimes called the "Livingstone clauses", although others might wish to call them the "Archer clauses." I do not really mind what they are called; I just think we should get rid of them.
We have talked about our concern that the Greater London Authority, the largest authority in the country in terms of population, area and so on, will not have the power to raise finance. Some noble Lords have quoted the Deputy Prime Minister as saying that the GLA is not regional government, but nor is it local government. If it is not local government, it should not be subject to the same financial regime as local government, a regime which, incidentally, we oppose anyway. If the GLA—and certainly the mayor—is to be taken seriously, it must have greater financial powers than are currently proposed.
We feel that the GLA's strategic role is still too limited. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the need to have a strategic role in health provision in the capital city, and said that I would refer also to the need to have post-secondary education as a strategic role. There is a crying need in London, and no doubt elsewhere in the country, for more strategic planning in the areas of further education, life-long learning partnerships, TECs and so on. I do not see how the mayor and the GLA will be able to carry out as effectively as they could and should their responsibilities in economic development and regeneration without the inclusion of a strategic role for the provision of post-secondary education and training and all the accompanying functions.
My noble friends Lady Thomas of Walliswood and Lord Ezra referred to transport. This is the key issue, the issue without any doubt on which the mayor's success or failure will be judged. No one doubts that. I do not believe that many people think that the mayor will stand too much chance of success, especially as we learn now that it is very likely that throughout the first term the mayor will not even have responsibility for the London Underground, let alone the opportunity to start putting things right.
A very important area of concern to us and, I am pleased to hear, to other noble Lords was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dholakia; that is, the promotion of equality and racial harmony. My noble friend referred to the Race Relations Act 1968. However good the service it has given, it is certainly now time for revision.
In a city which has just seen the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and which has the largest ethnic-mix population, what better opportunity could we possibly have than this Bill and the new authority for including appropriate provisions similar to those provided in the legislation for Wales and Northern Ireland, to which others have referred? I am not surprised but I am pleased to find support from other sides of the House. I hope that the

523
Government will think again. I know that the proposal received fairly short shrift in the other place. But the rather calmer atmosphere of your Lordships' House provides an opportunity to reflect. Given the widespread concern that exists, I hope that the Government will do SO.
Others of my noble friends referred to concerns in relation to biodiversity, culture and archives and, indeed, taxis. We should not underestimate the importance of taxis. I am sure that at this time of night, none of your Lordships underestimates the importance of issues relating to taxis.
On the subject of the police, the Minister referred to a number of amendments which the Government will be bringing forward at a later stage. I believe he said—and I ask for clarification—that it is likely to be some time before he brings forward the substantial amendments in relation to the police. Will they be brought forward in Committee or on Report? If it is to be on Report, I urge the Government at least to be clear about the content, if not the detail, of those amendments. Otherwise, our debate in Committee will be rather meaningless, knowing that something, but we know not what, is to be brought forward at a later stage. However, as the Committee stage is likely to take some time, it may be possible to see them at that point.
I was able to hear most of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, to which I listened with considerable interest. My noble friend Lady Hamwee expressed our longstanding support for community or parish councils in London. I have never understood why Londoners, uniquely among all the English, are not allowed by law to have parish councils if they wish to.
Perhaps I may indulge in a little nostalgia now. Over 25 years ago, I was briefly a Member of the other place. To my surprise and embarrassment, I was successful in the Private Member's ballot and chose to introduce the London Urban Parish Councils Bill in 1973–74. Such was the government's concern about it that on the day before it was due for Second Reading, Mr. Heath called a general election. The Bill was lost.
But it was a matter of concern because among the sponsors of my Bill were two other young London MPs—a Mr. Lamont and someone then known as Mr. Selwyn Gummer. They were very pleased to be supporters of the Bill. One of them, now in your Lordships' House, will have the opportunity to demonstrate that support some 25 or 26 years later. I look forward to hearing the speech that I might have heard on the day after the 1974 general election was called.
In conclusion, despite the real concerns we have on parts of the Bill, we welcome the Government's move to establish a strategic authority for our capital city. It is long overdue. I speak for another moment wearing another hat as the Liberal Democrat leader on the Association of London Government. Perhaps I may say and put on the record that we are committed to making the GLA work. We owe it to Londoners to make it work. We certainly cannot afford to allow it to fail. We shall be fully committed to its success.
524
But that makes it even more important that we give this Bill full and proper scrutiny in order that the GLA has the best opportunity to work effectively and in order that we can foresee and, if possible, iron out any difficulties or impediments that there might be in helping it to work. I say that in the most constructive way.
I listened over and over again this morning on the radio to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, saying that if the Government suffered any defeats in this House it would be because of party political point-scoring. Perhaps I may say that we are not interested in party political point-scoring. I hope that the Government do not suffer any defeats; that will mean that they have been listening to what we and others are saying. It will show that they are prepared to listen and perhaps even to bring forward their own amendments if they feel that in some way ours are flawed.
But we will give the Bill serious scrutiny. We will assist the Government in any way that we can in order to ensure that the Bill goes through on time and receives Royal Assent in this Parliament, as I am sure it will. All of us are looking forward to the elections next May and, even more importantly, to having at long last another strategic authority for London as from the following July.
11.5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate on this Bill and have still more to come when we hear the Minister's reply. It is clear to me from nearly all the speeches that have been made that we can also look forward, if that is the right word, to a long Committee stage with many amendments, some no doubt of a probing nature and some no doubt on serious issues. I hope, as does the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we do not have any Divisions and that the Government accept any sensible amendments that we put forward.
My noble friends Lady Miller of Hendon and Lord Dixon-Smith covered substantial parts of this Bill, so noble Lords will be relieved to know that, from this side of the House, I intend to deal only with the, transport issues involved, although with 113 transport clauses and 11 schedules, that would make a fair-sized Bill on its own. But, as other noble Lords, have said, there is no doubt in my mind that if we ask Londoners in three or four years' time what they judge the performance of the mayor by, it will be what he has been able to achieve to improve transport in London. I am convinced that that will be at the top of the list.
Perhaps the main concern for Londoners at the moment is the future of the Underground. The Government announced their intention to end funding for London Underground next year. Responsibility is to pass to the authority to oversee the public private partnership which is intended to replace government funding. But how much private sector interest is there in the PPP? By all accounts in the newspapers it is getting nowhere and is set to hit the buffers—to use a rather corny phrase. It will almost certainly be late, whatever

525
happens. One must conclude that the Government are hoping to use the mayor as the scapegoat when things go wrong.
Much criticism has been made of the record of the previous government. But I remind your Lordships that from 1987 to 1997 total investment in the Underground was £7 billion, which compares with the proposed £7 billion from the PPP over 15 years. The PPP has been heavily criticised by, among others, the much-respected transport team of the London School of Economics. In a recent report from the accountants, Chantry Vellacott, it was estimated that fares would have to rise by 30 per cent to finance the PPP. That is hardly a return to the Fares Fair policy, so much enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, back in the early 1980s. The only thing I remember about that was that, when it was declared illegal, those of us who were London ratepayers at that time received a nice refund—at least we could spend that on the extra fares.
Furthermore, the mayor will not have the power to make decisions about the PPP and will just have to take it as it comes. According to a report in the Financial Times of 30th November last, an unnamed Minister commented that the reason for this provision is that the Government do not want tube privatisations being an issue in the first mayoral elections, and is quoted as saying,
"the chances are that candidates would campaign on a platform of blocking the sale. That would be a disaster":
That says quite a lot.
During the passage of this Bill we shall need to probe the Government extensively on their intentions regarding the Underground and in particular on the timing of the abolition of London Regional Transport and the handover to the mayor and, above all, on the interim financing issues which have been so ably expressed already by my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to name but two noble Lords.
I turn now to congestion charging. The Bill gives the authority and the boroughs the power to introduce two new charges on the motorist, subject to the approval of the mayor; namely, a congestion tax and a tax on workplace parking. The motorist is still reeling from the massive extra taxes and duties which have been levied since the general election. Now the London motorist faces the prospect of even more. However, if we are to have these extra charges, we believe that a number of key principles must apply. First, all money raised by charges must be truly additional to existing expenditure on transport. There must be no substitution of new money for old. Secondly, income and expenditure from new charges must be transparent and the charging authority must publish open and transparent accounts which must be submitted annually for approval to the Secretary of State. Thirdly, the money raised from motorists must be spent on popular, workable value-for-money packages of transport services relevant to those motorists who are paying the charge. There must be a measurable and significant difference in quality and quantum arising from the introduction of a charging scheme. The charging authority must report
526
annually on key performance indicators detailing how the charging scheme is meeting objectives for reducing congestion and improving air quality. The Bill, as drafted, does not give these guarantees.
Further, like my noble friend Lord Archer and others, I do not believe that the 10-year period of ring-fencing for transport purposes, known as hypothecation, is long enough. It is not even as long as the 15-year PPP for the tube. It should be at least 25 years, as London First propose. If these proposals are to be acceptable to the motorist and to get the motorist out of his car, then experience shows from elsewhere in the world that improvements to public transport must be apparent before, or at least at the same time, as the charges are introduced.
I am fortunate in that I do not have to travel on the Underground at half-past eight in the morning very often. I use the Underground every day, but fortunately at a later time. I suspect that many noble Lords are in the same position as I am. But if one has to travel on the Underground at half-past eight in the morning, one will find that it is full to capacity. So where will these extra people go? It is essential that there is more capacity and that improvements are put in place before the charges are introduced, and not after. To achieve that the mayor and authority need the power to borrow against future revenue streams, which has been suggested by a number of noble Lords, but so far the Government have not given any ground on that.
Generally, we do not approve of these new charges; nor do we believe that it is sensible to introduce them in London which, geographically, is one of the most complicated cities in the world, before introducing them elsewhere. They will hit those unlucky people whose shopping, school run, visits to hospital or to friends or relations takes them across the charging boundary. There will also be what I shall call a Bluewater effect. Why pay extra to shop in, say, Croydon when one can go to the new Bluewater retail park around the M.25 and park for free? I confess that I have been to that retail park and it is a magnificent memorial to consumerism. It may be very unpopular indeed with environmentalists and all those who are politically correct, but my goodness it is popular with the general public! However, we shall have to take very great care that these charges do not have an effect opposite to what is intended and kill off our town centres.
As regards workplace charging, has a cost-benefit analysis been done and what will be its impact on London's business? That should be carried out before that proposal is pursued. We shall again need to examine the proposals most carefully at later stages during the passage of this Bill.
As has been said, perhaps most notably by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, if this Bill is to work it is essential that there are good relationships between the mayor, the authority and the boroughs. There are a number of issues of concern as regards the transport provisions in the Bill. It may not sound much, but I gather that the setting of boundaries between GLA roads and borough roads is a crucial operational issue for the boroughs and one which is causing them great

527
concern. Indeed, it is an issue which, apparently, was not discussed during the passage of the Bill in another place.
Other issues have been raised by the Association of London Government; for example, will Transport for London have a constitution? There is a need for clarification of how borough disputes with Transport for London will be resolved and there is also the question of what criteria TfL will use to make its decisions to direct local authorities not to proceed with any proposals which it deems to affect a GLA road, or roads in another borough.
At first sight, the relationship between TfL and the boroughs seems very complicated. If this Bill is to work, I suggest that it is essential that there is some clarification of such issues. These and other issues will, again, need to be explored at later stages of the Bill. As has been said, there are enormous public expectations on the outcome of this Bill; that is to say, on the arrival of the mayor and the authority. We, on this side of the House, will be as constructive as we can during the passage of the Bill. Having decided that there is to be a mayor for London, we must all make certain that that works to everyone's satisfaction.
11.16 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this late hour I apologise for the fact that I cannot possibly cover every point that has been raised during the debate. I should like to make a few general remarks to start with. Indeed, just to liven everyone up, I think that I probably ought to start with the points I disagree with because most of the debate has been highly constructive and will stand us in very good stead for the coming Committee stage.
However, there are some fundamental points with which I disagree. I make no apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for the complexity of the Bill. Putting London right is a complex and diverse problem. There are enormous powers involved. Therefore, we have a complicated Bill. Similarly, I cannot apologise to her for the powers that we retain for the Secretary of State—the anti-powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, called them. There are very wide-ranging powers for the mayor in this legislation. That needs to he balanced with the national interest, because there is a central national interest in what happens in London and how well London performs. Therefore, there must also be some national government powers. I cannot apologise to the noble Baroness for the attempts in the Bill to bring in the people of London to the decision-making process; indeed, quite the opposite. That is central to our whole approach to London.
I agree with the noble Baroness and others who said that there have been some improvements even in the bleak period since the abolition of the GLC. Of course there have been some improvements in London. Our businesses and our communities have achieved much; but that has been in spite of, not because of, the absence of a central strategic authority in London. London has suffered drastically from the absence of the GLC. We are now beginning to put that right.
528
I do not exactly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, but he takes the view that simply constructing an authority would not solve the problems of the environment, of transport congestion and of the quality of life in London. We are not claiming that it would; we are claiming that the establishment of an authority would begin to tackle those problems. The fact is that no one has really been there to tackle them over the past 13 years. Similarly, I do not agree with him that we should worry about the fact that this is unique. There is no answer to the issue as to whether this is local or regional government. It is unique because London is unique. We are creating a new institution.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lady Thornton—in her case on behalf of the London Labour Party—claimed the origins of this idea. However, it has developed over the past 10 years and it is a new authority; in other words, a new way of approaching the problems of London. It was reflected in our manifesto and in the White Paper. We are now acting to implement it.
Nor can I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that we have not learnt from history. We have learnt from the mistakes as well as the successes of the GLC, the LCC and ILEA. Probably the most symbolic example of the Pol Pot approach to history—the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, referred to this—was the insistence of the Thatcher regime on selling off County Hall, initially to a Japanese business. It was later turned into an aquarium, open to the public. That, I think, is a blot on the record of the previous administration. We, by contrast, propose to learn from history and to create something which will last a long time. I agree with the noble Lord's final remarks, however, when he said that history teaches us that we must have a strategic authority for London. As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, we can leave the boroughs to deliver the vitally important day-to-day services in London. The GLA's role will be strategic.
I approve of the remarkable synergy which arose from the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, and his namesake, my noble friend from Liverpool, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. That was a synergy of God, Mammon and the London borough of Haringey! That combination is difficult to resist; it is based on the role of the mayor as one of leadership; developing a strategy; creating a consensus in London behind that strategy; and recognising that that strategy must tackle not only wealth creation but also social inclusiveness. It is a great joy to me to note how business in London, those who represent the voluntary sector and those who represent local government conic together in recognising the need for that strategy.
I shall now try to deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate. First, I refer to the constitutional points raised in relation to Parts I and II of the Bill. I was slightly surprised at the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and even more surprised at those of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf—although I know his feelings on these matters—on the issue of elections. They said that the system of elections we propose is complex. I do not believe that the citizens of London find adopting a voting system for the

529
assembly any more difficult than do the citizens of many democracies in western Europe, Latin America or indeed in Scotland and Wales.
As regards the system for voting for the mayor, all people are required to do is to mark their first choice and then their second choice. I do not believe that many citizens of London will be put off by the complexity of that system. If we were to have a low turn-out for the first election for the authority, it is not the electoral system that one would blame but rather the lack of credibility in our political system as a whole. That is a matter that we must address. I believe that to give a new start to London and to London's democracy is an important ingredient of reversing the alienation from the political process that low turn outs have revealed.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, also dealt more broadly with the powers in the Bill. It contains wide powers for the mayor and for the Secretary of State. We shall no doubt debate Clause 317 at length in Committee. The noble Lord also seemed to imply that we ought to consider whether the differential form of devolution that is emerging in this country is the correct one. I believe that we are in a stage of organic development but I do not think that we should necessarily follow the "tidy" constitutions of certain other states. It is not necessarily sensible for Rhode Island to have the same powers as California or Bremen to have the same powers as Bavaria. Perhaps the Spanish have the matter right in that Catalonia has different powers from the Canary Islands. We need to consider these matters on a more flexible basis.
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who mentioned the possible impeachment or recall of a mayor. I beg the noble Baroness's pardon, perhaps it was the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I beg the pardon of the noble Baronesses; I do not usually confuse them. This constitutes an issue of democracy. I do not believe that the inclusion of an impeachment procedure in the constitution of the London authority would be sensible. Indeed I fail to see how anyone could advocate a process of impeachment after recent events in Washington. I refer to those cities which have the equivalent of an assembly and a mayor. Would it have been the mayors who were incompetent or corrupt who were impeached, or would it be political opponents of such mayors of New York as La Guardia or Guiliani who would use such an impeachment process? It should not be political opponents who get rid of the mayor: it should be the people of London.
A number of other constitutional issues were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the question of the direct election of the deputy mayor. The role of deputy mayor here is seen as an important link between the two parts of the authority, so that the mayor can choose someone who has been elected to the assembly. It is not sensible to create two posts which have an equivalent franchise. The whole point is to create a strong mayor who will be accountable for executive decisions and who can also be held to account by the assembly.
530
I was a little surprised that the noble Baroness also advocated changes to Clause 25 because in another place, as I understand it, her colleague, the honourable Richard Ottaway, with others, supported the provisions of Clause 25. If the noble Baroness is asking whether the list of principal purposes is now complete and clear, the answer is yes. These are the purposes to which the authority must have regard in the exercise of all its powers. That is now clear.
The noble Baroness also asked about the relationship with the health service. The GLA will clearly not be a health authority, as some have advocated. However, it will have a duty to promote the health of Londoners and to implement policies and develop strategies to contribute to the health of Londoners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others referred to sustainable development. That is an important aspect of everything which the mayor will be conducting in all his strategies. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked why there were not targets for these strategies. It will be down to the mayor to develop the precise terms of these strategies and we are considering whether any provisions are needed to ensure that the mayor sets clear performance targets.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer, raised the matter of openness of decision and asked whether we were correct, in terms of the openness and transparency of the advice to the mayor, to adopt something closer to the ministerial practice rather than the practice in local government. I believe that in this context, if not in all, the mayor is closer to a Minister than he or she is to the normal run of local government. Like Ministers, the mayor will be fully accountable for his actions. Although advice to the mayor will not be available to the assembly, the GLA will include robust mechanisms to promote accountability and transparency lying behind the mayor's decisions, including his requirement to make a monthly report to the assembly, setting out the reasons for his more significant decisions.
There has been much talk, here and in the other place, about consultation provisions. My noble friend Lord Morris intervened, as did the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. We have included extensive consultation provisions in the Bill. We have not specified every body which should be consulted, but we have indicated clearly certain broad categories of interests on the face of the Bill as consultees or potential consultees. They include, for example, representatives of business in London and also of different racial, ethnic and religious groups within London. That means that the relevant powers of the mayor can only be exercised after consultations with such bodies as fall into these categories.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer, and perhaps others, indicated that they were still concerned that the duty to consult business was too weak in the Bill. I do not believe that is the case. The way we have written this Bill means that consultation must take place, wherever the interests of business will be affected, under whatever provision of the Bill. If the mayor does not undertake such consultations then his reasons for failing to do so could be tested and challenged at law.

531
Those were the main constitutional points, but there was an additional point, and a rather different one, made by my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington, referring to the parish council dimension. We are committed to greater devolution beyond the local authority level. In March we published a Bill—to which my noble friend and the noble Lord. Lord Tope, referred—for transforming the political management of councils and keeping in touch with the people. We support both the principle that councils should encourage local communities to become more engaged in their work and a diversity of approach, a true decentralisation that puts the principle into practice. I am not totally persuaded that parish councils as we understand the term are the most appropriate form of decentralised government in London. As it would be devolution from the London boroughs rather than from the GLA, nor am I convinced that it would be appropriate to include such a provision in the Bill. No doubt that matter will be discussed in Committee as the Bill progresses.
There were relatively few comments about the general financial provisions of the Bill. Most comments about finance related to the transport provisions. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked whether I could give the precise figure for the first budget of the authority. I fear that I cannot, at least not tonight. The budget must be set after the local government finance settlement for the year 2000–01; I am certainly not in a position to pre-empt that tonight. So far as concerns raising money outside of that—this also applies to transport—we have always made it clear that the GLA would be subject to the law of local government finance regimes. However, that does not mean that we are putting unnecessary barriers in the way of the mayor mobilising additional resources. We have to balance a prudent approach to public financing with an innovative approach to financing particularly the transport side of the mayor's responsibilities.
I turn now to the question of transport. Both the noble Lords, Lord Tope, and Lord Brabazon, said that this is the area on which the mayor will be judged. I cannot disagree. Transport is almost certainly at present the biggest problem, perceived and real, for London. The Bill creates Transport for London. It will be the central delivery mechanism for a totally new transport policy. It will also give new powers for the mayor and for the London boroughs to introduce a system of road user charging and a levy on workplace parking in London. It will include provisions to implement the PPP for London's Underground. On that basis we will be able to move into the 21st century with new public transport and road systems for London.
It will do more than simply transport people. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, said that "impaired" people, as he described them, are disabled by their lack of access to transport. That will be one of our major considerations as we approach our transport priorities. We need not only to provide better public transport but better infrastructure for motoring and better community transport, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred.
532
As to concessionary fares on public transport, under the current arrangements the London boroughs have provided travel concessions for their elderly and disabled residents for almost 15 years. The Bill will make provision for those travel concessions to continue on those services that will transfer from London Transport to TfL. We intend to bring forward a further amendment to improve the reserve scheme; for example, start and finish times will be brought into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme. We also intend to increase the stability of the voluntary scheme by making it easier for the boroughs to reach agreement year by year.
Other aspects with regard to disabled people were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. They will clearly be consulted about the way in which the concessionary scheme will operate and about other aspects of access to transport.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the question of the mayor's relationship to surface rail transport. That matter also raised concerns elsewhere. The mayor will have a real influence over the rail network into and out of London. While we want the mayor to make London's railways better, there is clearly a need to balance that role with the wider strategic transport issues beyond London. Noble Lords will be aware that we intend the strategic rail authority, once it is formally established with its new responsibilities, including those of the franchising director, to look at all of Britain's railways. There will therefore need to be a relationship between the mayor, the new strategic rail authorities and its regulation powers. We will be discussing that in Committee on the basis of a number of government amendments.
I shall now move on to the public private partnership. This is central to our view of the future of London Transport, or TfL as it will be. As my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at Second Reading in another place, we will not be tied down to a predetermined timetable and end date. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, first, do not believe everything you read in the papers and, secondly, remember, as I have cause to remind him from time to time in the House, that the artificial and politically determined target date for the privatisation of British Rail is not a very good model for us to follow in establishing a proper system for a public private partnership in this area. We will therefore not be restricted to a timetable. We want to get it right.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in terms of any financing problem that arose in the interim, we are already considering funding for the London Underground for the period after April 2000 up until completion of the PPP. We certainly would not envisage any investment hiatus just before the PPP contract is awarded. However, the negotiations on PPP are complex. A good deal of work needs to be done to put the legal agreements in place setting out the functions of the parties. The capacity and the reliability of the infrastructure that the public wants and can afford can work only if it is based on a sound footing, both financially and technically.

533
I now move on to road user charging. The noble Lords, Lord Archer, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Brabazon, attacked road user charges as simply another tax on the motorist. That is not the case. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, dissociates himself from that position. Nevertheless, certain noble Lords opposite claimed that all we are doing is clobbering the motorist. The worse thing to do for the motorist in London is to leave things as they are. We need to develop a new instrument for guiding motorists in their choice of road and their choice of time for coming into the centre of London. Only about 13 per cent of the total number of people who work in central London go there by car. They cause all the pollution, congestion and economic loss for the rest of us. It is important that we use the price mechanism via road user charges to discourage some of that access to London. Other elements can contribute. Taxis can contribute and cycling can contribute. But at the end of the day we have to discourage the use of the car.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is right to say that none of this will work unless public transport is developed at the same time as we restrain private transport, it is also the case that public transport—buses in particular—will not improve until we take some cars off the road. I do not believe it is sensible to regard these as a tax. What they are is a way of controlling traffic while at the same time raising money for transport infrastructure and public transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer, and others complained that the hypothecation that we have established for these charges will relate only to the 10 years. First, that is a major breakthrough in British public finances. One should not underestimate the importance of it. Transport for London will also have powers to borrow. Although it will be subject to the normal local government capital finance system, it will be able to borrow through the credit approval system, which will need to take its total position into account. As charging schemes can expect to be self-financing, there is also a good case for looking at PFI schemes in that area, in which case it may well be that we can extend the period beyond the 10 years.
In that context, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in particular for sharing with us the results of the London First consultation on possible road user charging for central London. That work is timely, constructive and extremely helpful. It also demonstrates that London's business community is indeed willing to support the idea of congestion charging, provided that all revenues are hypothecated for transport expenditure. The Bill as presently drafted provides for that for at least 10 years from the implementation of individual schemes in the coming 10-year period. That will no doubt give rise to further debate in Committee, but at present all I can say is that the Bill makes clear that the arrangements for the retention and use of charging will be reviewed in 10 years' time. It does not state, as some noble Lords have implied, that future revenues beyond
534
that point will revert to the treasury. it is indeed only sensible that an entirely new policy of this kind should be reviewed after a period of 10 years.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with points on the remaining provisions of the Bill. On economic development, again I welcome the work of London First and other business representatives in creating the background to establish a London Development Agency. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Archer, says in terms of ensuring that those bodies have representatives on the London Development Agency.
There will be total open consultation with the business community. But it is important, as we stressed during the passage of the Bill dealing with regional development agencies in the rest of England, that those boards should not be seen as representative but should be able to contribute their talents and experience to examining the needs for economic development for London as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, expressed a fear that the LDA could quash nascent cross-borough co-operation in this area. Quite the opposite should be the case. The LDA should be there to facilitate and will have the resources, expertise and contacts to facilitate cross-border, cross-London and cross-sector initiatives to provide work and prosperity for London.
On the section of the Bill dealing with the police, I very much welcome the comments of my noble friend Lady Hilton, that this measure will be welcomed by the Metropolitan Police. It is wrong to assume that London's police forces oppose being more accountable to the people of London. They would welcome that. They would also welcome the removal of some of the arcane and archaic systems, particularly the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, it is in that area that I shall have to come forward with some rather complex amendments. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord an absolute guarantee that they will be available before the end of even a substantial Committee stage. They are important, but they are primarily technical. They do not affect the principle of the police section of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friends Lord Harris and Lady Thornton touched on the very serious problems relating to race relations and racial equality within the police force, both in terms of its own operations and its relationship with the communities of London. Wider questions have also been raised. We understand that this is an important and sensitive issue and one that we must get right. I am not sure that we can totally legislate for it in this Bill. Clearly, the police force will be subject to other race relations initiatives over and above the existing legislation to which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has committed himself. It will certainly be part of the success of the Metropolitan Police Authority to ensure that the deteriorating relationship between the Metropolitan Police and some sections of our London community is improved.

535
I can touch only briefly on planning and culture. It is very important that the mayor has strategic planning powers. It is not, however, the intention to create a second-guessing of the boroughs' planning powers. The mayor will be able to intervene only on strategic issues and only in areas which will be clearly defined by legislation and regulation. Nevertheless, it is a means by which we begin to create a comprehensive approach to planning and economic development across London. The spatial development plan strategy will be a very important instrument to which both the public and private sectors will need to respond.
Finally, on the environment and culture I assure the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that all the powers that he looks for are there. There will be a strategy on biodiversity, and sustainability will run throughout the Bill. The mayor's environment plan will be central to the responsibilities of the authority. As to culture, the new cultural strategy group will be an important manifestation of the new authority.
Questions have been asked about the Centre for Young Musicians and other areas of cultural excellence within the capital which previously received grants and help from the GLC. It is the intention that the mayor will have the ability to make such grants. However, the advice from the lawyers is that it would be inappropriate to require the GLA to take on responsibility for the Centre for Young Musicians or any other nominated organisation. The advice of the Officers of the House when an amendment was tabled in another place was
536
that that would have made it a hybrid Bill. Nevertheless, such organisations will clearly deserve the support of the mayor of London in pursuing his or her cultural strategy.
I have done my best to reply to at least same of the individual points. For everybody's sake I should perhaps wind up. With that endorsement throughout the House, I believe that we shall have a constructive but long Committee stage on this Bill ranging from the future of London Underground to smoking in the back of taxi cabs. I do not believe that this will be a political ding-dong. My remarks, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred, related to my slight anxiety that events on other legislation passing through this House might affect this Bill. I hope that that is not the case.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I have some historic respect for what the GLC achieved. Like my noble friend Lord Desai, I have some fond memories of the GLC. People who are 10 or 20 years younger than me have even fonder memories of the fun that the GLC created. But all of that nostalgia is irrelevant. We are not going back to the GLC but forward to the 21st century. I believe that this Bill provides the kind of democratic authority and executive powers which London will need for that century, and that we can all support it. I hope therefore that we can go into Committee stage on an extremely constructive note.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before midnight.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  EEC Entry Negotiations
  EEC Entry Negotiations
  Kosovo: NATO Airstrikes
  Kosovo: NATO Airstrikes
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Vietnam: Prisoners of Conscience
  Vietnam: Prisoners of Conscience
  Nguyen Thanh Giang
  Nguyen Thanh Giang
  Russia: Private Capital Flight
  Russia: Private Capital Flight
  Monetary Policy Committee
  Monetary Policy Committee
  Prisons and Probation Panel
  Prisons and Probation Panel
  British Board of Film Classification
  British Board of Film Classification
  Schengen Acquis
  Schengen Acquis
  European Parliamentary Elections: Ballot Papers
  European Parliamentary Elections: Ballot Papers
  Secondary Education: Percentage of Children in Private Schools
  Secondary Education: Percentage of Children in Private Schools
  Secondary Education: Percentage of Children in Comprehensive Schools
  Secondary Education: Percentage of Children in Comprehensive Schools
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Secondary School Places: Admission Appeals
  Secondary School Places: Admission Appeals
  Maintained Schools: GCSE and A.-level Statistics
  Maintained Schools: GCSE and A.-level Statistics
  Human Rights: Joint Committee
  Human Rights: Joint Committee
  Financial Services and Markets Bill: Human Rights Issues
  Financial Services and Markets Bill: Human Rights Issues
  Organ Transplanta Lion
  Organ Transplanta Lion
  OECD Convention on Combating Bribery
  OECD Convention on Combating Bribery
  Tigris Dam
  Tigris Dam
  Minicab Licensing
  Minicab Licensing
  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Vodafone Planning Application
  Vodafone Planning Application
  Audit Commission Procedures
  Audit Commission Procedures
  Audit Fees
  Audit Fees
  Penalty Fares: London Underground Staff
  Penalty Fares: London Underground Staff
  Fare Evasion: London Underground
  Fare Evasion: London Underground