Sitting of 1 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BAXI PARTNERSHIP LIMITED TRUSTS BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited during the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of
  2
  any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them forthwith.

  TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT OF RULES) BILL
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [28th October] as relates to the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill be now considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them forthwith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Fireworks
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: How many incidents which involve fireworks have been reported to the police in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [94990]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Separate figures are not kept on firework incidents reported to the police. Most such incidents will be reported to the ambulance service in the first instance. In 1998, 831 people were reported as treated by hospitals for injuries caused by accidents with fireworks. That compares with 908 people in 1997, 1,233 in 1996 and 1,530 in 1995.
  Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Obviously, the figures are pointing in the right direction, although 800-odd too many people were injured last year.
  Let me say first that I am not anti-fireworks; I want people to enjoy them, but I am concerned at the number of injuries that they cause. Does my hon. Friend have any figures for incidents reported to the police involving fireworks thrown in the street? My concerns are heightened because of the millennium celebrations that will be taking place. The regulations on fireworks safety must be strengthened, and people must adhere to them. Will the Minister assure my constituents that those regulations will be observed?
  Mrs. Roche: I am sure that the whole House would endorse the sentiments behind my hon. Friend's remarks. All fireworks intended for use by the public, whether made here or imported, must meet the requirements of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the Home Office takes very seriously any infringement of the regulations and criminal activities. Bonfire night should be enjoyed, but enjoyed peacefully and safely.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I do not know whether the Minister knows that I have a retail business in Swansea. We have been selling fireworks for many years, and it is not always easy to guess someone's age. Will the hon. Lady remind shopkeepers that they should never gamble when it comes to the sale of such
  4
  explosives? It is best to err on the side of caution and not to sell the fireworks. Will the hon. Lady also confirm that people who may be enticed into buying fireworks for others who are under age will be pursued if they do so? In general, safety should come first and—I know that this will not make me popular with other shopkeepers—people should buy their fireworks late so that they do not hang around in the house and possibly cause damage.
  Mrs. Roche: I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I know about his business interests because of my previous experience at the Department of Trade and Industry. He has spoken a great deal of common sense. I would add that there are some very good public fireworks displays to which parents can take their children. Indeed, this Saturday there is a magnificent fireworks display at Alexandra palace, in my constituency, and I will be there with my family.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tories, led by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), talking out a private Member's fireworks Bill was an act of gross irresponsibility? If the Bill had been enacted, newspapers such as my local Bolton Evening News would not be calling today for increased safety and even a total ban on retail sales of fireworks.
  Mrs. Roche: It is the duty of all Members of the House to consider each piece of legislation that comes before us. That was indeed an important measure; instead of seeking to talk out Bills, Members should seriously consider their implications. Many people will echo my hon. Friend's remarks.

  Avon and Somerset Police
  Mr. David Heath: What was the change in the number of police officers in the Avon and Somerset constabulary between March 1996 and March 1999. [94991]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Between March 1996 and March 1999, the number of police officers in Avon and Somerset increased by 18, to 2,999. The chief constable and police authority can apply for a share of the Government's new crime-fighting fund to provide 5,000 extra police recruits over the next three years. We will publish detailed guidance on that shortly.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he know that, as long as 10 years ago, I went with the then chief constable to the then Home Secretary to argue for an extra 300 officers for Avon and Somerset, simply to bring us back to the point where we should have been? Does he accept that the change from limiting numbers to limiting cash has produced little benefit for police authorities? Can he give me an absolute assurance that the number of police officers available to police Somerset and the streets of Bristol at the end of this Parliament will be greater than in 1996?
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman goes back 10 years. As he well knows, over the five years from March 1992 to March 1997, the number of police officers

  5
  in Avon and Somerset fell by 92 under the previous Government. I confirm that money will be available for the police authority in Avon and Somerset to bid for new recruits. We hope and expect that that will lead to more police officers on the ground there.

  Fireworks
  Ms Hazel Blears: What action he is taking to prevent the deliberate use of fireworks to cause alarm, distress and injury to people and damage to property. [94992]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The law relating to criminal damage and to offences against the person applies to deliberate damage by fireworks, as it would to damage deliberately caused in other ways. In addition, the letting off of fireworks in any public place is an offence under section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875.
  Ms Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but I am not satisfied that the regulations relating to fireworks are being enforced. There have been some horrific incidents in my constituency in the past few weeks. Youngsters aged nine, 10 and 11 have been putting explosives into car exhausts or down grids to blow them up. The latest trick is to put an explosive inside a traffic cone and then put the cone inside a telephone box. When it explodes, the whole telephone box goes up. That is not youngsters having fun but people terrorising the neighbourhood. I ask the Government to consider seriously the enforcement of the regulations and to ensure that magistrates take such offenders seriously.
  Mrs. Roche: I am well aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has experienced in her constituency and of the detailed, firm action that she has taken. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited her constituency. Among other things, the regulations prohibit the sale of aerial shells, bangers and mini-rockets to the general public and place restrictions on the size of fireworks that can be sold generally. I know that she has been in contact with my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. I undertake to liaise with them to see what can be done. We are talking about criminality and it will be dealt with by the police. I hope that it will be investigated and arrests made.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful for the Minister's initial response to the question, and agree fervently with it. However, in view of the parliamentary answer provided by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on 25 March, and of the 23 per cent. and 12 per cent. reductions in accidents caused by firework hooliganism in 1997 and 1998 respectively, will she confirm that the Government have no further plans for additional restrictions on the use of fireworks?
  Mrs. Roche: I have made it clear that the regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), we are talking about criminal activity. We do not want the enjoyment of the
  6
  many spoiled by the reckless and criminal activity of the few. The Government must keep the position under constant review. The House would expect no less.
  Helen Jones: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is liaising with the DTI. In those discussions, will she raise the fact that fireworks are on sale for so long before 5 November that that in itself contributes to much of the harm and damage that is done? Will she consider the possibility of restricting sales of fireworks to individuals to a short period before 5 November, to minimise the chances of crimes occurring?
  Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend's point is well made and I will make it to the DTI. It is important that the DTI has regular detailed discussions with the industry and representative bodies to ensure that such points are taken on board.

  Police Retirement Rates
  Mr. David Amess: What representations he has received on retirement rates of police officers over the next three years. [94993]
  Mr. Edward Garnier: What estimate he has made of the number of police officers who will leave the police service over the next three years. [94999]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): While I am not aware of receiving any formal representations on the retirement rates of police officers over the next three years, I frequently discuss aspects of this issue with the police associations.
  Given the uncertainty as to the number of officers who take early retirement on medical grounds, or who leave the service before normal retirement age for other reasons, precise projections of wastage of police officers in the future are very difficult to make. The number of officers who left the service during the past three years for any reason was about 17,000.
  Hon. Members will want to be aware of papers and calculations that I presented to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday last. Those suggest that the police service was likely to recruit 15,000 officers over the next three years, to which the 5,000 recruits to be funded from the crime-fighting fund would be additional.
  Mr. Amess: When the Home Secretary announced 5,000 extra recruits, despite contrary advice from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, why did he not even touch on the subject of the retirement of police officers, so that the general public could receive an accurate picture? Is the Home Secretary aware that the residents of my constituency of Southend, West think that he is soft on crime because he does not provide enough police officers to fight crime?
  Mr. David Winnick: What happened to Basildon?
  Mr. Straw: It was a Labour gain. I wish the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) well in my home county.

  7
  My speech to the Labour party conference was entirely accurate as to the effect of the 5,000 officers being additional—the inaccuracy was that the baseline information that I provided was 4,000 too low. [Interruption.] I understand why Conservative Members are laughing—their fox has been shot. The simple truth is that, during the past three years, wastage has been running at 17,000, and the overall effect of the figures that I have now accurately presented is that there should be 20,000 additional recruits over the next three years. The effect of that should be that overall police numbers increase.
  I acknowledge that, for reasons related to the police funding formula, Essex police have done less well than have some other forces. However, I hope that—not least because of that—the chief constable and the police authority of Essex will apply for the additional new money that is available under the crimefighting fund.
  Mr. Garnier: Let us have it straight from the Home Secretary. By the end of this Parliament, will there be more or fewer police officers than there were at its beginning?
  Mr. Straw: I hope very much that there will be more. However, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, and all on the Conservative Benches who were Members of the House before 2 May 1997, that under an Act for which they voted, but which we voted against, the power of the Home Secretary to set police numbers was removed by law.
  I further remind the hon. and learned Gentleman—I hope that he makes this point in his constituency—that we are providing extra new money, next year: £35 million over and above the comprehensive spending review. We shall provide further new money in the following year. The money on which those sums are based was money that he and his colleagues damned as being reckless and irresponsible. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways—saying in their constituencies that expenditure on the police should rise, while voting in the House for lower police expenditure.
  Maria Eagle: What progress has my right hon. Friend made to prevent the early retirement of police officers who face disciplinary charges?
  Mr. Straw: Under arrangements that I announced last year, and which came into force on 1 April this year, major changes have been made in the overall disciplinary arrangements for police officers. We also expect chief officers—and they have agreed—to enforce a long-standing but rather ignored rule, which required chief officers not to allow any officer to retire through ill health if disciplinary proceedings against him were pending. I am sure that that has the approbation of the whole House.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to review pension arrangements for officers retiring prematurely due to ill health, who, immediately or subsequently, take up alternative, full-time employment?
  Mr. Straw: There is a major issue to do with the way in which the police service conducts its scrutiny of those applying for medical retirement through ill health. We all
  8
  accept that some police officers who have run into problems of ill health or sickness, or—which is worse—have been injured while on duty, should be retired and should receive a generous pension. However, at present, there are also some officers, who, in each case, have passed medical scrutiny and are retired on ill-health grounds, but who bring the rules into disrepute by taking full-time, remunerative employment straight after their retirement.
  We have set clear targets for police forces to reduce the proportion of officers who retire through ill health and I am pleased to say that those targets are working, as are the associated efforts being made by the police service to reduce sickness day by day. The work done in the past year by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to tackle the issue of sickness has released 500 additional officers for front-line operational duties.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: May I pursue the question of police numbers and funding? When answering last week's debate, the Home Secretary said that it was his "wish, hope and expectation" that, from the end of this financial year and for the next three years, there will be more police officers on duty than there would otherwise have been next year. Is he now saying that, taking the number of police officers at the beginning of this Parliament—since when that number has decreased by more than 1,000 in England and Wales—the Government plan that there should be more police officers by the end of the Parliament? Will he also give a commitment, not only that there will be more officers, but that, in real terms and after paying pensions, the allocation of money to local forces to spend on police will increase? In short, will there be more officers and more money in real terms to pay for them?
  Mr. Straw: What I said last week was a statement of fact: it is my hope and expectation that there should be more police officers at the end of the three-year period about which we are talking than at the beginning of it. The hon. Gentleman asks me to make a prediction based on the date of the next general election, but that could take place tomorrow, next year or the year after, and it is that which determines the duration of this Parliament. Because of that and because wastage rates are uncertain, I cannot make such a prediction. However, Labour's record will be infinitely better than that of the Conservatives, who, from 1992 to 1997, presided over year-by-year decreases in officer numbers, despite their promise that officer numbers would increase.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Having received from the Home Secretary no satisfactory explanation as to the lines of communication between him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, may I ask him to comment on the lines of communication between him and Lord Bassam, who is Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department and who has responsibility for the police? As late as last Thursday, Lord Bassam continued to claim in another place that there would be 11,000 recruits over the next three years, to which 5,000 would

  9
  be added, making a total of 16,000, not 20,000 as mentioned by the Home Secretary today. What is going on in the Home Office?
  Mr. Straw: It is business as usual in the Home Office—and the right hon. Lady has every reason to know about that. We did not fight the election on a manifesto promising that life would be perfect in the Home Office after 2 May 1997, but I have to say that life there is a lot better than it was before that date. If she wants to exchange numbers on occasional errors, I have to tell her that her score is already far higher than mine. As for the right hon. Lady's question, I had not caught up with the matter to which she refers. However, we all know that the other place is rather old fashioned and that news takes a little time to reach it.
  Miss Widdecombe: Do I gather from that that the right hon. Gentleman not only failed to communicate to his Minister the correct state of affairs as he saw it, but that his Minister failed to communicate to him that he had not received that information and had made incorrect statements?
  Mr. Straw: If I were at the Dispatch Box in opposition, I would make better use of it than does the right hon. Lady. I have given her an explanation.
  Miss Widdecombe: You do not like the facts.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady knows that I dislike the fact that there was an error in the original figures I gave, not least because it led to the most outrageous claims that I had tried to mislead the Labour party conference and the public, which I had not done. [Interruption.] I have given the facts. Our best estimate was that the police service would recruit at least 15,000 officers in the next five years, but we found new money to allow it to recruit 5,000 additional officers. That contrasts with the false promises of the right hon. Lady who, on 29 January 1997, promised 5,000 extra police officers while presiding over a continual decline in the number of officers. Our additional money will be ring-fenced. As the right hon. Lady has damned the current level of spending on the police service as reckless, does she welcome the additional funding that I have secured from the Treasury?
  Miss Widdecombe: I will pass over—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will pass over the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about his patent failure to communicate with his Ministers regarding his own announcements, and ask the Home Secretary to comment on the statement of Sir Paul Condon, who said that he
  "shared public unease in respect of policing during the state visit of the President of China".
  If Sir Paul shares public unease, one must conclude that he did not issue instructions or make suggestions to the police regarding that visit. If the Metropolitan Police Commissioner did not do that, who did?
  Mr. Straw: I have already explained to the right hon. Lady, as I did to the Select Committee, that neither I nor any Home Office Minister or—as I have now ascertained—Home Office official was involved in any
  10
  briefing of the Metropolitan police service before the state visit and the associated demonstrations. I have also made it clear that there was briefing by Foreign Office officials.
  I commend the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as I fully support the way in which he and his officers policed a very difficult and delicate situation. Once again, the police found themselves, on the one hand, having to ensure the safety of the President of China and his party and of our royal family while, on the other hand, ensuring that they gave proper effect to the right to demonstrate peacefully. I support the Police Commissioner and his officers in their action, and I hope very much that the right hon. Lady does, too.

  Leicestershire Police
  Mr. David Tredinnick: If he will increase the budget of the Leicestershire police authority; and if he will make a statement. [94995]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Our plans allow for police expenditure to increase by around 2.8 per cent. in 2000–01. No final decisions have been taken about the allocation of funding to individual forces for the coming financial year. We expect to announce provisional allocations towards the end of the year.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he had a chance to visit the Leicestershire police authority website? Is he aware that Leicestershire police report that 1998–99 was a more difficult year, that budgets were tighter and that the financial climate remains challenging? What reassurances can the Minister give people in Leicestershire—who are wondering whether existing police levels in the county will be maintained—that there will be an increase in police numbers? Given the controversy about the Home Secretary's announcement at the Labour party conference regarding the so-called 5,000 extra police, will the Minister confirm that it is really magic roundabout money for police that is being diverted from one budget to another? In the real world, we will not see anything like a proper increase in police numbers in Leicestershire.
  Mr. Clarke: In the real world, we have announced and allocated real money. I confess that I have not studied the Leicestershire constabulary's website as my focus has been on the "Widdyweb", which is much more interesting and entertaining for a variety of reasons.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that the Leicestershire constabulary saw its allocation last year increase by 3.5 per cent.—or £3.6 million—over the previous year, which was well above the national average. Leicestershire had more police officers in March 1998–99 than in March 1997–98, and the number of civilian support staff has also increased. The record in Leicestershire is good, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay the Government some credit for that instead of launching whingeing attacks.
  Mr. John Greenway: Of course, the 10 extra officers were paid for by the increase in funding given by the previous Conservative Government. How will the Leicestershire police pay for the new public safety radio project? What share will the authority receive from the £50 million promised by the Home Secretary a month

  11
  ago? Does the Minister agree with the Labour chairman of the West Yorkshire police committee that £50 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the £1.5 billion total cost and the value to the Government of existing radio frequencies? Does he not realise that it is impossible for any police authority, including Leicestershire, sensibly to plan the recruitment of any additional police officers until it knows how the police radios will be paid for?
  Mr. Clarke: I am interested to note that today and last week the hon. Gentleman has focused the Conservatives' attack on this major new technological advance—the public safety radio project—which is a critical development that police forces and police authorities throughout the country want and need, and which should have been invested in before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced a couple of weeks ago an extra £50 million, which had not been previously allocated, towards the project. As I said in the debate last week, it is a 15-year project that will receive £1.5 billion over that period. It is wanted, the money is committed, and we shall ensure that every police force in the country has it.

  Police Establishment
  Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the size of the police establishment of officers. [94996]
  Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the number of police officers in England. [94997]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I made a full statement of the position on police numbers to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to this House on Tuesday last, 26 October.
  Under legislation passed by the previous Government, the powers of the Home Secretary to set overall police numbers were removed. The Government have allocated money for a crimefighting fund which, among other things, will provide the funding for 5,000 more recruits over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years, commencing in April 2000. Some £35 million of new money will be available to support this next year, and there will be further funding in the following two years. All this is additional to the comprehensive spending review settlement for policing.
  Mr. Viggers: The Home Secretary gave the Labour party conference the impression that there would be more police officers whereas, in fact, numbers are falling. If the right hon. Gentleman did not set out to mislead people, can he explain to us why so many people were misled?
  Mr. Straw: What I said at the Labour party conference was entirely accurate. Moreover, if I had failed to provide a baseline—as it turned out a baseline 4,000 too few, which was hardly to my advantage, and very much to my disadvantage—I could justly have been criticised for failing to provide the whole story. I provided a baseline and provided the additional numbers over and above which that baseline would add. The figures for wastage for the previous three years were well known and, as it
  12
  happens, it is matter of record that the then Liberal Democrat spokesman on the subject, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), pointed that out on the very same day. The only people who were misled were those who—frankly—wanted to be misled, but that was certainly not as a result of what I had said.
  The point that the hon. Gentleman needs to bear in mind—I hope that he does and that he tells his constituents about it—is that under his Government, whom he supported in the Lobbies, from 1992–97, despite promises of more police made not least by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald here in January 1997, police numbers fell by 1,500 over that period. It is precisely because of such falls that I was able to negotiate with my very good friends in Her Majesty's Treasury and secure this additional funding, for which I hope that Hampshire, among other forces, will apply.
  Mr. Burns: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last general election the West Chelmsford Labour party mouthed the slogan, "Everybody wants more bobbies on the beat"? As a fellow Essex man, has he noticed that in the last full year for which figures are available the number of police officers in Essex fell by 37, from 2,928 to 2,891? Could he tell me and my constituents in which year he expects the number of police officers in Essex to be the same as it was when we left office, and when he expects it to be higher than when we left office?
  Mr. Straw: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking the question, but, for reasons that he fully understands, I cannot give him that answer. He voted in 1994 to take away the power of the Home Secretary to set overall police establishments. As it happens, I voted against that. The matter—genuinely within available resources—is one for chief constables and the police authorities.
  As I said to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I accept that, for no other reason but the way in which the formula operates—it grieves me, as it concerns my home county—Essex has done less well than the average. As a result, I very much hope that Essex makes a good bid for additional funding from the crime-fighting fund for next year and the year after.
  I should make another point about the West Chelmsford Labour party, although I do not carry all its incantations in my head—despite my affection for the constituents of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Yes, we said that we would take measures to release more officers for operational duties, and that is precisely what we are doing through, for example, efficiency savings in early retirement and sickness arrangements, and the management of back-office arrangements. As a result of very good work by police authorities and chief constables, many more officers, in a great many forces, within the total, which may remain level, have been released for front-line operational duties.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Am I right in recalling that when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was a member of the previous Government, crime doubled? Does the Home Secretary share my view that she and her colleagues give the impression that they will not be satisfied until half the population are in prison and the other half are in the police force? Although police numbers are important, do not members of the public want

  13
  a success made of crime partnerships, which involve councils, the police and community and business organisations, so that crime can be tackled from the streets where they live and not from some police service headquarters?
  Mr. Straw: As ever, my hon. Friend's memory is perfect. He is entirely right to recall a fact that Opposition Members are trying to excise from the national memory: under the Conservatives, crime doubled.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Crime fell.
  Mr. Straw: The way in which the Conservatives produce such smoke and mirrors—if I may coin a phrase—is by picking on different dates. Crime doubled under the Conservatives, and it is one of the many reasons why it will be decades before the British public ever show the confidence to vote for them again.
  My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the crime partnerships. Many police chiefs say to me that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is one of the best ever pieces of legislation to come their way. In the west midlands, where I was this morning, there is tangible evidence of the effectiveness of such partnerships—in Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Coventry, of course, and Birmingham. The best evidence of how an imaginative chief constable has been able to put more officers on front-line operational duties is in the west midlands, where Ted Crewe, the chief constable, has released 700 officers from back-office headquarters jobs for front-line operational duties. I wish that Opposition Members would start applauding such innovation.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend's constituency is just a few miles away from mine, and is served by the same Lancashire constabulary. I am sure that he will know that the Burnley Express is running a campaign—"More Bobbies for Burnley"—based on what it calls my right hon. Friend's impressive speech, which it was, at the Labour party conference. Will he respond positively to that? Will he give an assurance that the Dordrecht initiative, which has been supported by the Home Office in Burnley and has had a massive effect in reducing the level of burglaries and robberies, will continue to enjoy his Department's support?
  Mr. Straw: I am always anxious to satisfy my friends from Burnley—both my hon. Friend and, of course, Mr. Alastair Campbell—not least because of what my hon. Friend would say about a certain football team if I did not. I am aware of the importance of the Dordrecht initiative. Such matters must be decided on objective criteria rather than on simply who is, as it were, one's old pal. However, I shall ensure that that application is given very careful consideration.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to the work of the Sussex police, who continue to do a fine job, albeit with fewer and decreasing resources? Will he acknowledge that, although there are difficulties in calculating exact numbers because of the number of police at Gatwick airport, there is widespread anxiety in the villages, particularly those of Mid-Sussex, that the number of
  14
  police who are assigned to look after them is gradually falling? Will he give my constituents some hope that that number will increase?
  Mr. Straw: I acknowledge the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is a truth at all times that there will never be sufficient police officers to satisfy everyone and chief constables have difficult decisions to make about where to put them.
  I am aware of what has happened to police numbers in Sussex. I take one period. Between 1995 and 1998, Sussex received a 12.5 per cent. increase in its budget and numbers went down, but numbers have gone up in some forces that had either the same or a lower increase. That is where chief constables' decisions on how to allocate resources make a difference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blame them."] It is not a question of blaming chief constables, but it is a fact that, since 1994, it is chief constables—of course, within the overall money—who have set the number of officers and the number of civilians, and have made decisions on the use of and expenditure on equipment. If one looks down the table—I would be happy to provide it to the hon. Gentleman—one finds that there are significant variations in how chief officers have used their discretion within the same level of resources.
  The pot of money from the crime-fighting fund is not unlimited, but I hope that Sussex, along with other forces, will make an application for additional officers.

  Travellers
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: What plans he has to ensure the effective dispersal of illegal encampments by travellers. [94998]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The police and local authorities have, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, all the powers necessary to ensure effective dispersal of illegal encampments by travellers. Those are in addition to the rights of landowners to take civil action through the courts. However, the exercise of those powers is subject to operational guidelines that are issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  The use of such powers in any individual case is an operational matter to be determined by the senior police officer at the scene, but Home Office and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions guidance makes it clear that such powers can be used at an early stage, where necessary, and recommends an inter-agency approach to deal with problems.
  Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this summer's remarks by the Home Secretary regarding the behaviour of some travellers were met with a chorus of approval in my constituency, especially in the communities of Beccles and Bungay, where a group of travellers spent four weeks in one public open space? Just when the council was about to complete the civil procedures, they moved and spent another four weeks on a school playing field, leaving piles of rubbish and filth on both sites.
  Does my right hon. Friend accept that the public want illegal encampments to be dispersed quickly, and that the civil remedy is not effective in that respect? Will he issue

  15
  even stronger guidance to the police to ensure that they use all available legislation to disperse illegal encampments because Suffolk police have said to me that their policy is hardly to use such powers?
  Mr. Boateng: The Home Secretary's remarks did strike a chord throughout the country. It is important that everyone should understand that criminal and disorderly behaviour cannot be tolerated, from whatever source it comes. The DETR and the Home Office have made it clear that they expect the powers that are available to the police to be used in a way that reflects that public concern. The Crime and Disorder Act gives the police additional powers.
  We are examining whether it is necessary to review the guidance that has been issued by the DETR and the Home Office to strengthen the hand of local authorities and the police. Such anti-social behaviour simply cannot be tolerated; the Government will not tolerate it.
  Mr. John Randall: Does the Minister agree that one of the Metropolitan police's problems in dealing with such illegal encampments in the constituency of Uxbridge is the continuing reduction in the resources and manpower of the Metropolitan police Hillingdon division? Therefore, is it not time that the Home Office did something to reassure the law-abiding citizens of the suburbs?
  Mr. Boateng: The very reverse is true. Under the previous Administration, the Metropolitan police lost 2,000 police officers. The current Government, however, have made available to the Metropolitan police the resources necessary to cope with illegal encampments. We should recognise the importance of backing police and local authorities in firm action against that type of illegal activity, and the Government have provided that backing across the United Kingdom with a series of seminars promoting good practice. We shall continue to do that, and to provide the police with the resources that they need to tackle the problem. We are providing to the police more resources than they ever received under the previous, Conservative Administration.
  Mr. Phil Hope: Is not effective co-operation between the police, local authorities and county councils one important aspect in how we might more effectively resolve the problem? Since the previous Conservative Government withdrew legislation ensuring the availability of legal campsites on which travellers could camp, the problem of illegal encampments has simply grown worse. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary take the opportunity to re-examine the guidance, to ensure that local authorities and the police work effectively together on the problem, and that the policy of neighbouring police services is consistent, so that encampments do not move from one county to another?
  Mr. Boateng: The previous Conservative Government certainly did nothing to improve the situation. We are ensuring, however, that the type of partnerships that deliver results are encouraged. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 encourages such partnerships. We are also spreading good practice. We have to ensure not only that local authorities and the police work together, but that that work is underpinned by work with the community and local business. Together, we can beat the problem.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What recent representations he has received on the Government's proposals for freedom of information. [95000]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The consultation document on freedom of information, published on 24 May 1999, invited comments on the draft legislation. We received a total of 2,248 submissions—all but 400 of which were part of an organised petition on scientific experimentation on animals. None the less, copies of the submissions have been placed in the Library. On 22 October, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the changes that we propose to make to the draft Bill after the consultation period. We shall introduce a Freedom of Information Bill as soon as the legislative timetable allows.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Why does the proposed Bill still allow for facts on which policy decisions have been based to remain secret, given, first, that the United Kingdom code of conduct, which the Bill seeks to replace, allows disclosure; secondly, that the Republic of Ireland, in 1997, introduced its own freedom of information legislation allowing disclosure; and, thirdly, and perhaps most extraordinarily of all, that the Home Secretary himself—on 21 July, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Public Administration—said that, on balance, he thought that it was probably right that background and factual information should be made available? Is it not wholly inadequate that we should merely rely on encouraging authorities to use their discretion to make such essential information available?
  Mr. O'Brien: Much factual information is already available. The Government have considered with great care the various submissions that have been made, and have introduced a draft Bill that we believe strikes the right balance. Although it is correct to say that, in the past, Governments have been too secretive, the Bill will open up government.
  Nevertheless, freedom of information cannot be absolute—there is a tension between balancing interests, such as the individual's right to privacy and the confidentiality of some commercial information that is given to Government. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that up to 60 per cent. of requests for information under United States freedom of information legislation are made by companies seeking to elicit confidential information held by the Government about other companies.
  We also have to ensure the good and effective administration of Government, which entails that discussions are held properly within Government. In many cases, however, the background factual information may already be in the public arena or—because of the legislation and the culture of openness that we seek to introduce—may be placed in the public arena by Ministers.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a jealous clinging to secrecy by every Government this century, and that it is essential that this Government should prove themselves

  17
  conclusively different? Will he, please, remember that the Home Secretary has an endearing personal habit of telling the truth, frequently to his own disadvantage, and that that might be an example that it would be very useful for the rest of the Government to follow?
  Mr. O'Brien: As my hon. Friend says, my right hon. Friend has a record for being open with the House and bringing forward legislation that makes substantial changes. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the disclosure of any information. We must be clear about that. Exemptions do not necessarily prevent the publication of information. Ministers can decide to publish material covered by an exemption if appropriate. We intend to create a new culture of openness in government. The Bill must be seen in the context of the new statutory right of access to information, the new requirement to consider exercising discretion, new publication schemes and a new information commissioner, who will have strong powers to elicit information from the Government and from other public authorities.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Despite the 21 exemptions in the Bill, does the Minister agree that its purpose is to ensure openness and clarity in government? Does he agree that episodes such as that which happened this morning, when the Home Secretary told a BBC reporter in Birmingham that the chief constable of Staffordshire had his figures wrong, demonstrate that there is no clarity in government? Does not backing the police force mean backing chief constables and not calling them liars?
  Mr. O'Brien: Staffordshire had the biggest increase of any constabulary between 1995 and 1998. The hon. Gentleman must be sure of his ground when he starts talking about freedom of information, because when he stood for election, the Tory campaign guide—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has quoted from it before, but it is worth hearing again—said that the party's view on freedom of information legislation was:
  "The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a freedom of information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies."
  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman includes himself in that category.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an inquisitive left-wing busybody, may I ask how Home Office Ministers fancy the idea of their Bill being contrasted with a Bill, which would be the dream of Mr. Maurice Frankel, put forward by the Edinburgh Parliament? Would that create problems?
  Mr. O'Brien: We will ensure that the Bill that comes before this House deals with matters for Britain as a whole. We want to ensure a change in the legislation and a new code of practice to make it effective, as well as a change of culture in government. We have a manifesto commitment to introduce effective freedom of information legislation. We shall have to wait and see what proposals come forward in Scotland. The Scottish
  18
  Parliament may decide to do things differently; that is the prerogative of devolution. Our freedom of information legislation will substantially change the way in which the Government operate. For 18 years, the previous Government did nothing. We shall deliver freedom of information legislation.

  Student Visas
  Mr. Richard Allan: What is the current average processing time for an application for the extension of a student visa by the immigration and nationality directorate. [95002]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The time taken to process an application for variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom will vary according to complexity. In many cases, straightforward applications from overseas students are being processed within about six weeks, but applications requiring further inquiries will take longer to process.
  Mr. Allan: I hope that the Minister accepts that international students make a huge economic and cultural contribution to my city of Sheffield and to the nation as a whole. I hope that she agrees that it should be an aim of public policy to place as few administrative burdens as possible in their way, consistent with the proper operation of immigration policy. Does she understand that it is distressing for international students to be left without their travel documents, even for only six weeks, although in many cases it runs to months? Will she further consider that more use should be made of local immigration officers, such as we have at Sheffield airport, for processing claims and stamping passports so that students can keep their passports while their claims are being dealt with?
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of sense. I agree that, in the main, overseas students bring great benefit to the UK—principally the reputation of the UK that they take home with them after their time here. About 1,500 applications a week from overseas students are being decided within six weeks of receipt, and applications received since 11 October are being processed within two weeks of receipt. I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the matter, and I will undertake to look at all his constructive suggestions.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I suspect that some of the more problematic applications for extensions are those where students are trying to switch from one course to another. Will the Home Office do all that it can to ensure that, whenever possible, students applying for courses lasting two or three years are given visas for the whole of that period, which would cut the need for repeat applications for extensions?
  Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and we do look at this matter. This is one of the areas of difficulty that take a little longer to process.
  Mr. David Lidington: May I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench in her new Home Office capacity? Does she agree that the problems over the extension of visas for students represent just one detail of what appears to be the increasingly chaotic handling by the Government of the immigration and nationality directorate? British citizens are having to wait up to three months for their post to be opened, and the backlog of immigration and asylum cases amounts to 149,000—it has risen by nearly two and a half times during 1999 alone. Does she agree that this contrasts with the honeyed words of the Home Office's annual report, which talks about the IND and says:
  "The situation has now settled, and the majority of problems have been resolved"?
  Will the hon. Lady get a grip on her Department's handling of immigration matters? Can she start by telling the House today what date she has given the IND by which it is to comply with the Government's target of processing all asylum applications within six months?
  Mrs. Roche: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous welcome, which is much appreciated. I must then depart from that to say that I do not agree with a word he had to say. I am amazed that he had the gall to come to this House and say what he said when the Government of whom he was a supporter left the system in such a shambles. He and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) are adding to the problem following a vote that took place in the other House. The Opposition amendment would drive a coach and horses through the Government's legislation and would cost the taxpayer—including people in the right hon. Lady's own Kent constituency—£500 million. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the day after the vote in the Lords, the right hon. Lady described the amendment as "sensible" and "common sense". What nonsense she talks.

  Road Deaths
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: If he will ensure that deaths on the road caused by negligence are treated the same as any other death caused by negligence. [95003]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): A driver who is grossly negligent and causes death may be charged with gross negligence manslaughter, just as he might if death occurred elsewhere than on the road. In other circumstances, deaths on the road can lead to convictions for causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.
  Where death results from carelessness, there is no separate offence of "causing death". This is the same as in other situations where negligence falls short of gross negligence.
  Mrs. Brinton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case in Sheffield only last week when a 16-year-old girl's life was valued at a paltry £1,000 in fines and a three-year driving ban for the driver whose actions directly caused her death? Does he agree with me and many other hon. Members that that is yet another tragic example of why the Government must take decisive action as soon as possible?
  Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot comment on specific legal cases, but I am aware of cases of the type that she has described; they give great cause for concern in many ways. She brought a delegation from her constituency to see me and discuss these issues in great detail. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the proportion of those convicted going into custody, the average sentence length and the number of people sentenced to five years or more are all increasing year on year. That is a trend in the right direction.

Ellington Colliery
3.30 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement this morning of the closure of Ellington colliery in my constituency, with the loss of more than 400 jobs.
Ellington is the last deep mine in the north-east. It was closed once before by British Coal, and RJB reopened it, primarily to supply Alcan. A much reduced work force—there used to be nearer 2,000 men—worked hard and efficiently to turn in a profit every year. People in Northumberland have had to accept a substantial amount of opencast mining, partly on the grounds that its product was necessary to enable Ellington's deep-mined coal still to be used by Alcan.
The matter should be considered for debate, first because Ministers must take responsibility for the state of the energy market—with subsidised or below-cost imports and some resumption of the dash for gas, there is too much coal about, which is why RJB can bring in coal from elsewhere to meet its Alcan requirement—and, secondly, because Governments have been involved from the start in the Ellington complex, where coal goes straight from the pit to Alcan's power station to provide the fuel for the smelter. That should not be lightly abandoned in favour of any short-term coal supplies that RJB may happen to have in any of its stockyards across the country.
RJB says that the reserves that can be worked will soon be worked. How soon? We would like to hear Ministers' views. RJB also says that it wants to sell the mine. Will the Government be willing to help a new buyer? The area has double the national unemployment rate and cannot afford to lose more than 400 jobs. If the mine closes, a massive responsibility will fall on Ministers to give further help to the whole of east Northumberland. None of it has objective 1 status and not all of it has even objective 2 status.
We need a debate to find out what Ministers will do if the job losses go ahead. To people in Northumberland, the matter is much more important than whether we print documents on vellum, which is one of the subjects for debate later today. Even if you cannot grant an urgent debate tomorrow, Madam Speaker, I hope that opportunities will arise for me and hon. Members with constituencies neighbouring mine further to reinforce how important the matter is to Northumberland.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have to give my decision without stating my reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, so I cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any representation from a Department of Trade and Industry Minister regarding the pit closure? Is there any way in which we can get a Minister to the Dispatch Box through you?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by a Minister that he wants to make a statement, but the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others know their way around the House and will know how to pursue the matter.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before I make my point of order, I refer you to my relevant entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
Since the Bernie Ecclestone affair, in which the Labour party had to return the £1 million that he paid it not to ban tobacco advertising, the Government's policy on the ban has been somewhat confused. Irrespective of the merits of the Government's arguments in favour of a ban, is it in order for Ministers and their supporters to abuse the courts for making decisions that they find politically inconvenient? The Government are entitled to their opinion on tobacco advertising and smoking; I agree that smoking is a danger to health. They are also entitled to appeal the decision made on Friday to stay their ban on advertising. However, are they entitled to resort to abusing the courts? Secondly, have you had a request from the Secretary of State for permission to make a statement explaining why the Government felt it appropriate to make those remarks, as opposed to arguing their case on appeal?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. and learned Gentleman understands, the Speaker has no jurisdiction over comments made outside the House. I have enough responsibilities for comments made in the House, let alone those made outside. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question, I have to inform him that I have had no request for any Minister to make a statement.

Orders of the Day
  Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      ARBITRATION PROVISIONS
      '.—(1) Where—

      (a) a right under section 1 to enforce a term ("the substantive term") is subject to a term providing for the submission of disputes to arbitration ("the arbitration agreement"), and

      (b) the arbitration agreement is an agreement in writing for the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996,

      the third party shall be treated for the purposes of that Act as a party to the arbitration agreement as regards disputes between himself and the promisor relating to the enforcement of the substantive term by the third party.
      (2) Where—

      (a) a third party has a right under section 1 to enforce a term providing for one or more descriptions of dispute between the third party and the promisor to be submitted to arbitration ("the arbitration agreement"),

      (b) the arbitration agreement is an agreement in writing for the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996, and

      (c) the third party does not fall to be treated under subsection (1) as a party to the arbitration agreement,

      the third party shall, if he exercises the right, be treated for the purposes of that Act as a party to the arbitration agreement in relation to the matter with respect to which the right is exercised, and be treated as having been so immediately before the exercise of the right.'.—[Mr. Lock.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.35 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Lock: The new clause deals with arbitration and will ensure that, where appropriate, the Arbitration Act 1996 applies to the enforcement of third-party rights under the Bill. No one disputes that that is the right policy, but the subject is technical and—I apologise to the House for introducing further amendments on such a subject at this late stage—concerns that were raised during the recess have made us examine the wording carefully.
      I record my gratitude to those who raised the concerns and to the arbitration experts who helped us ensure that the drafting was right. Subsection (1) of the new clause will bring in the provisions of the Arbitration Act where the third party's right to enforce a substantive term in his favour is subject to a term providing for the submission of disputes to arbitration.
      Subsection (1) will also ensure that when a third party whose right of enforcement is subject to the dispute being referred to arbitration seeks to enforce his right by litigation, the promisor—the other party to the contract—will be able to seek a stay of the proceedings under
      24
      section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The Bill as now drafted would not allow that course of action if the third party, whose right under the Bill is subject to arbitration, chose to litigate instead. The Government have decided that it would probably not be safe to rely on the court's using its inherent power to stay the proceedings brought by the third party.
      Subsection (2) of the new clause is concerned with situations in which the "conditional benefit" approach will not apply—for example, where the contracting parties give the third party a right to arbitrate a dispute other than one concerning a right conferred on the third party under clause 1, such as a tort claim made by the promisor against the third party. We do not believe that such situations will occur often, but to require the third party to arbitrate where there is no other benefit to him would be to impose a pure burden on him, which would be contrary to the policy of the Bill. Subsection (2) therefore brings in the Arbitration Act only where the third party has chosen to exercise the right to arbitrate.
      Amendment No. 1 would delete clause 7(4), which is being replaced by the new clause on arbitration.
      Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Speaker, because this is the first opportunity that I have had publicly to welcome both the new Parliamentary Secretaries to the Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), to their Front-Bench posts. I congratulate them on their appointments.
      Promotion to the Lord Chancellor's Department seems to be the precursor of further preferment, so I wonder where both hon. Members will be in a year's time. I am especially delighted because I believe that the hon. Member for Wavertree has set a precedent, in that she is not a lawyer. I do not know whether she is the first non-lawyer ever to be a Minister in that Department, but if so the precedent is welcome, especially to me, because I am the only lawyer among the 26 new Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. I shall draw the precedent to the attention of our new party leader.
      I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its excellent work on the Bill. I am also grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his letter to me of 18 October and for advance notice of new clause 1. He will be aware that I raised several points on Second Reading that were dealt with by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), in his letter to me of 12 July.
      For reasons of certainty and to incorporate various other provisions—for example, guarantees of performance by third parties given by banks or insurance companies—most commercial organisations will continue to insist on written agreements with third parties, which are usually called collateral warranties or collateral agreements. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make it clear when he responds that if there is a conflict between a written collateral warranty or agreement and the Bill—including the parties agreeing to contract out of the Bill—the provisions of the written agreement will prevail. I welcome the new clause, because it will go some way to meeting the problems that I envisaged on Second Reading and that were dealt with by the letter I received from the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I join the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)

      25
      in his congratulations to the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) on their appointments. It is an especial pleasure to welcome them because I worked with the hon. Lady on cross-party matters in the previous Parliament and because the hon. Gentleman and I come from the same chambers in Birmingham. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that, in addition to his appointment and mine, the head of our former chambers—now called St. Philip's chambers—is the new leader of the Midland and Oxford circuit. Our chambers therefore has triple cause for celebration.
      Like the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, the official Opposition accept that new clause 1 is a useful clarification. The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to write to me as well to explain the new clause and, as somebody who was at one stage an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and dealt with cases involving collateral warranties, I recognise that the Government are right to doubt whether it would be safe to rely on an inherent power in the court to stay proceedings brought by the third party in the circumstances mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary.
      New clause 1(2) is a wise change, because it will bring in the Arbitration Act 1996 only in cases in which the third party has chosen to exercise the right to arbitrate. It is helpful that the Parliamentary Secretary has given the Opposition parties advance notice of the Government's intentions, and we welcome the clarification contained in the new clause.
      Mr. Lock: I can confirm to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) that it is the Government's understanding that new clause 1—and, indeed, the whole Bill—will not affect the operation of collateral warranties. It will be up to the parties themselves whether they choose to enter into collateral warranties or rely on the terms of the Bill. Indeed, under the terms of the Bill, the original parties to the contract will be able to specify the extent to which, if at all, the contract will apply to third parties and can, if they choose, contract out of the third party rights in their entirety. In those circumstances, it is correct to say that the provisions of any collateral warranty will take precedence over any rights under the Bill.
      I am grateful for the kind words from the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), and I concur with what the latter said about the position of our previous chambers. I also welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) to prove that the Lord Chancellor's Department is neither an all-boys club nor entirely a lawyers club.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 2

        NORTHERN IRELAND
        '.—(1) In its application to Northern Ireland, this Act has effect with the modifications specified in subsections (2) and (3).
        (2) In section 6(2), for "section 14 of the Companies Act 1985" there is substituted "Article 25 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".
        (3) In section 7, for subsection (3) there is substituted—
        26
        "(3) In Articles 4(a) and 15 of the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the references to an action founded on a simple contract and an action upon an instrument under seal shall respectively include references to an action brought in reliance on section 1 relating to a simple contract and an action brought in reliance on that section relating to a contract under seal.".
        (4) In the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, the following provisions are hereby repealed—

        (a) section 5, and

        (b) in section 6, in subsection (1)(a), the words "in the case of section 4" and "and in the case of section 5 the contracting party" and, in subsection (3), the words "or section 5".'.—[Mr. Lock.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        3.45 pm
        Mr. Lock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 3.
        Mr. Lock: In 1998, the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland issued a report which recommended for Northern Ireland reforms similar to those contained in the Bill. As contract law in Northern Ireland has traditionally paralleled that in England and Wales, it was originally the Government's intention to implement the Law Reform Advisory Committee's recommendations by extending the Bill directly to Northern Ireland. However, as the prospect of devolution grew ever closer, it was decided that, as contract law will fall within the transferred area of competence, the reforms should be a matter for decision by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. Regrettably, however, the Assembly is not yet up and running, and the Government have decided that this valuable piece of law reform should therefore be extended directly to Northern Ireland.
        Amendment No. 3 directly extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland, subject to the consequential amendments that are contained in the new clause.
        Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the new clause make minor consequential amendments to clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, so that the references to legislation will apply to the equivalent statutory provisions in Northern Ireland.
        Subsection (4) of the new clause repeals section 5 of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, which has no direct equivalent in England and Wales. That section modifies the rule of privity of contract in respect of contracts that expressly confer a right on the spouse or child of the contracting parties. As the Bill before us makes comprehensive provision for third-party beneficiaries under a contract, there will no longer be any need for that provision on the Northern Ireland statute book when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
        Subsection (4) also makes a minor consequential amendment to section 6 of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, which takes account of the repeal of section 5 of that Act.
        Mr. Burnett: I shall not delay the House long. In the absence of any Member of Parliament from the Province, I simply ask whether full consultation has taken place with the legal and other professional bodies in the

        27
        Province, and have they raised any objections, or any points requiring clarification, concerning the Bill's impact on the Province?
        Mr. Hawkins: I, too, can be brief. I was simply worried about what the Minister said in his covering letter to me, when he raised the question of uncertainty over the Northern Ireland Assembly. The future of Northern Ireland is in all our thoughts, for reasons much more serious than the contents of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister might say a word or two about what he meant by the uncertainty over the Northern Ireland Assembly. I also associate myself with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.
        Mr. Lock: In answer to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, yes, there has been consultation, and yes, as I said, these provisions arose from a report of the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland published last year and, as far as I am aware, no substantive objections have been made to the extension of the rights in the Bill—which is a Law Commission Bill—to Northern Ireland.
        In answer to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I do not feel that it would help the delicate position in Northern Ireland to say anything further at the Dispatch Box this afternoon about the relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland, save that I do not feel that it is right that, given that these rights will be of value to people in Northern Ireland, we should hold up their implementation while other political events continue elsewhere.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Clause 6

        EXCEPTIONS
        Mr. Lock: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 4, after '2', insert 'or 3'.
        Amendment No. 2 adds part B of schedule 3 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 to the list of international transport conventions in subsection (8) of clause 6. Contracts that are subject to the rules of the conventions in this list are excluded from the effects of the Bill because we do not believe that we should interfere where other legislation deals expressly with the question of third-party rights. This schedule, which was inserted after the Law Commission had published its report and which was therefore not in the original Bill, is concerned with the regulation of the international carriage of cargo by air.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 7
        SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO THIRD PARTY
        Amendment made: No. 1, in page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Lock.]
      Clause 8

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Amendment made: No. 3, in page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
        '(4) This Act extends as follows—

        (a) section (Northern Ireland) extends to Northern Ireland only;

        (b) the remaining provisions extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.'.—[Mr. Lock.]

        Order for Third Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
        3.51 pm
        Mr. Lock: This welcome Bill is the result of another excellent piece of work by the Law Commission and has met with support from all sides, both in another place and in this House. I should like to express my gratitude to the Law Commission for all its work on this Bill, and to all the organisations and individuals who have contributed to the development of our policy, including all those who have taken part in the debates during the Bill's passage through this House and in another place. I am particularly grateful to Professor Andrew Burrows for his continued help after the Law Commission's Report was published in 1996.
        Although this is a short Bill, it is immensely technical in character. Virtually every word reflects a careful policy decision by the Law Commission, for which the Government are grateful. This important Bill reforms the common law rule of privity of contract, under which a person can take action to enforce a contract only if he is a party to it.
        It might be helpful if I gave a brief example of the benefits of the Bill. Let us assume that a couple are getting married. A relative goes to a shop where a wedding list is kept, buys them a three-piece suite as a wedding present and arranges to have it delivered directly to them. It is made clear in the discussions with the furniture shop that holds the list that the suite is a gift for the couple. Under the rule of privity of contract, the couple would not have any recourse against the shop because they were not parties to the contract. Any action against the shop for breach of contract would have to be taken by the relative who was one of the original contracting parties.
        The Bill provides that a third party will have the right to enforce a term of a contract, both where the contract expressly provides that he should and where the contract purports to confer a benefit on him, provided that it does not appear that it was not the parties' intention that the term should be enforceable by the third party. In my example, the Bill would allow the couple who received the suite as a wedding present, and who are third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the relative and the shop, to take action directly against the shop for any breach of contract.
        In view of the questions that were asked on Second Reading and in Committee, I should stress that whether the Bill applies to a particular contract will depend on the express or implied intentions of the original contracting parties. I must also stress the need for clear and careful drafting of contracts so that the intentions of the

        29
        contracting parties are obvious. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) who made a similar point on Second Reading.
        We have also been asked whether the Bill should state that it binds the Crown, so that where the Crown is the promisor it may be sued by a third party. The Bill does not impose any obligation or restraint on the Crown. It is simply an enabling measure for the benefit of parties to contracts, to make it possible for them to give third parties enforceable rights by agreement. The language of "binding the Crown" is inappropriate here. It is the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 that enables proceedings in contract to be brought against the Crown, whether they are brought by the promisee or by a third party.
        The construction industry has shown a keen interest in the Bill, both through the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in this House, and in the other place. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to meet representatives of the Construction Confederation to hear their concerns. Having heard those concerns, I hope that it may be helpful if I explain the policy behind two of the Bill's clauses.
        First, the intention of clause 1(5) is that all the remedies available to a person bringing a claim for breach of contract should be available to a third party seeking to enforce his rights under the Bill, and that the normal rules relating to damages, injunctions, specific performance and other relief should apply accordingly. It has been suggested that we should amend the Bill so that it specifies that the rules on foreseeability in damages claims should apply. If the Bill listed only one of the rules on damages, it could cast doubt on the application of the other rules on damages, such as the duty to mitigate loss.
        Nor is a comprehensive listing necessary because the clause refers to
        "the rules relating to damages".
        That means all the rules that the courts have deemed necessary to regulate the assessment of damages. It would be inconsistent with our aim to try to set out all the common law rules that could apply and to freeze the statute in time in the face of a developing common law. Our intention is that the Bill should avoid that by setting out the principles of fundamental change which it makes to the law without descending to the level of unnecessary detail.
        The other issue on which I have promised to provide further explanation is concerned with the use of the term "variation" in clause 2. The clause will affect provisions in construction contracts which allow the items of work under a contract to be varied as the construction proceeds, so as to accommodate changing circumstances. The construction industry's concern, which I accept is legitimate, arises because the Bill uses the word "variation" in its strict and correct legal meaning—a variation of the terms of an agreement by further
        30
        agreement between the parties to the original agreement. But when the construction industry uses the term it often refers to alterations to the work done within the terms of the original agreement and without varying its terms.
        The usual situation is a contract which allows one of the parties to change the specifications of work unilaterally, subject to a change in the amount to be paid. The Law Commission was aware of the way in which the construction industry used the term when it produced its report, and made it clear that such changes to work specifications would not be covered by the restrictions in clause 2, even if they were described in the industry as variations to the work. The point is dealt with at paragraph 9.37 of the Law Commission's report, with which I agree.
        As clause 2 does not apply to variations of work rather than of the terms of contract, the third party's rights will be subject to any provisions in the contract which allow what has been built to be varied unilaterally. If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has been persuaded that the Law Commission was not correct, I may respond, with the leave of the House, to any concern that he may raise.
        I am grateful to the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for their constructive and helpful approach to this valuable law reform measure. I commend the Bill to the House.
        3.58 pm
        Mr. Hawkins: I greatly welcome the Minister's helpful clarification. I am grateful to him for meeting a delegation of leaders of the construction industry which I took to see him a few weeks ago. He made it clear then that he was prepared to clarify these points so that we could rely on what has been said in future cases, in line with the Pepper v. Hart decision, and I am grateful to him.
        The industry has continuing concerns but is prepared to accept the Minister's helpful clarification. The Opposition echo what the Minister said about the value of the Law Commission's work, and we made it clear in Committee and on Second Reading that we greatly welcome the Bill, which is a helpful, and perhaps overdue, change in the law. As the Minister has clarified matters specifically to help the construction industry, I can do no other than welcome what he has said.
        3.59 pm
        Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the provisions on variations. I am grateful also to the Law Commission for its excellent work and for promoting this Bill, which we support and will not impede.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    INSURANCE BROKERS REGISTRATION COUNCIL
    That the draft Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
    FINANCIAL SERVICES
    That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Restriction of Exemption) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 27th July, be approved.

    VALUE ADDED TAX
    That the Value Added Tax (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1994), dated 14th July 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community Documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    HARMONISATION OF COPYRIGHT AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IN THE SINGLE MARKET
    That this House takes note of European Union Document Nos. 5562/98, a draft Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the Information Society, and 8723/99, an amended draft of this Directive; and of European Union Documents Nos. 5123/99, a draft Directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce in the internal market, and 10644/99, an amended draft of this Directive, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 18th October 1999; and concerning the draft Directive on the harmonisation of copyright, supports the Government's view that while harmonisation of copyright laws for the digital age is essential, the outcome should be a regime that safeguards a fair balance of rights and interests between the various categories of rights holders and between rights holders, users and intermediaries, and has due regard to subsidiarity; and concerning the draft Directive on electronic commerce in the internal market, welcomes the Government's continued efforts to put in place a light but effective framework for the development of electronic commerce within the internal market; and supports the Government's view that such a framework is necessary to ensure consumer and business confidence in electronic commerce.

    TAXATION OF ENERGY PRODUCTS
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6793/97, a draft Directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products; and supports the Government's objective of securing a permanent exemption for the domestic use of energy.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

  Record Copies of Acts
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Administration Committee on Record Copies of Acts (HC 539).]
  Madam Speaker: We come now to motion 7 on record copies of Acts. It is for the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) to move the Lords message.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I beg to move that this House agrees with the Lords in their resolution.
  Madam Speaker: May I give the hon. Gentleman a little guidance? I require him to move the first motion, which is that the Lords message be now considered. Once that is formally moved, we can make a start.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for that guidance. I beg to move
  Mr. Brian White: Objection.
  Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman objects, he must divide the House.
  Mr. White: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I misunderstood when the Division was due.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Message of 19th October, communicating a resolution relating to record copies of Acts of Parliament, be now considered.—[Dr. Palmer.]
  4.1 pm
  Dr. Palmer: I beg to move,
  That this House agrees with the Lords in their resolution.
  I convey to the House apologies from the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I know that she has already written to you, Madam Speaker, but she had a long-standing prior engagement that she could not break.
  The Lords message contains the recommendations made by the Administration Committee in its second report. In effect, if not in fact, the House is being asked to approve our report. As it was unanimous, I can speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Broxbourne and all my Committee colleagues. I thank the Clerk of the House for detailed way in which he put his case and the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in another place and the Clerk of the Parliaments. As the matter was of equal interest to both Houses, the Committee was pleased that the other place kept us informed fully of progress on the parallel proposals there.
  Although I support the modernisation of Parliament's procedures and practices, I am not an iconoclast. I do not advocate or support change for its own sake. I had to be convinced that the proposal to keep record copies on paper rather than vellum was justifiable and that it would be appropriate both in terms of practicality and of what I might call the dignity of the House.
  There are two strands to our report. The first would end the deposition of duplicate record copies of both public and private Acts at the Public Record Office. That appears

  33
  to serve no useful purpose and the Committee received no representations against the proposals from hon. Members, the PRO, the Master of the Rolls or anyone else. My short speech will therefore concentrate on our other proposal that, from next year, record copies of Acts should be preserved on archival paper rather than on vellum goatskin.
  The proposal has generated some interest among hon. Members and others, including the impressively powerful campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), who has fought hard on behalf of his constituents who work for William Cowley's, the company that produces vellum. The proprietor of Cowley's and his relatives have vigorously mobilised opposition; they have inspired letters from, among others, the British Library, the National Library of Wales, the National Library of Scotland and Trinity college, Dublin. All those bodies claim that vellum is best for maintaining record copies; they have expressed various concerns and have made arguments about why that should be so. I shall address those concerns, and hope to convince the House that they are groundless. I shall add a—perhaps—more fundamental reason why those libraries have made those objections.
  It has been pointed out that vellum is less susceptible than paper to fire damage. However, the problem with that argument is that vellum and paper are both flammable, so security cannot depend only on the document's material. If there is a serious fire, a document will burn whether it is of vellum or paper. I remind the House that all the records of the House of Commons were destroyed in the fire of 1834, whereas most of the records of the House of Lords survived. That was not because the House of Lords documents were recorded on a different material, but because officials, policemen and soldiers braved the flames and were able to save many of the documents by throwing them out of the window. We depend partly on that type of physical security; the Administration Committee and other Committees are anxious to maximise it. However, to rely only on the fact that the paper itself will not burn is not adequate.
  Let us suppose that the record copy of an Act was destroyed or damaged. That would not be such a disaster as it would at first appear. One possible course of action would be the issue of a new, authenticated version by the Clerk of the Parliaments of the day. The Stationery Office has helpfully offered to provide a CD-Rom of the authenticated text for the Public Record Office. That would be much easier for hon. Members and for the Library to consult than a paper or vellum record, so the paper copy would be requested less often, and would be less likely to be damaged in the first place.
  It has been claimed that electronic documents cease to be readable after a few years, unless constantly upgraded. That is a misunderstanding based on the fact that people who work with different versions of Word, for example, are aware that they may not stay current after several years. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will agree, the computing industry met that concern with the introduction of portable document format and other formats that are designed to last and can be supported by future documents.
  Mr. White: I am slightly confused. Is my hon. Friend saying that internet technology and CD-Rom are
  34
  incompatible with the storage of records on vellum? I would have thought that both could occur at the same time. Why is that technology an objection to the continued use of vellum?
  Dr. Palmer: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that we now have additional ways of providing secure copies is not an argument against vellum; it is merely that the fact that it is possible to set fire to a piece of paper is not a conclusive argument against paper.
  It was claimed that the Committee was biased against the use of animal products—because vellum is goatskin and paper is not. The idea that we should not use animal products unnecessarily is an attractive one. However, we did not advance that argument either in our report, or in the memorandum appended to it by the Clerk of the House. Neither sentiment nor animal welfare considerations affected our judgment. We reached our conclusion for practical—even prosaic—reasons.
  The crucial matter is the durability of paper as a suitable medium for record copies of Acts. That is confirmed in the memorandum from the Clerk of the House, which forms the appendix to our report. The memorandum states:
  "British Library Conservation Department laboratory tests have proven a life expectancy of 250 years and indicate that archival paper can have a life expectancy exceeding 500 years."
  If the Clerk's memorandum has a fault, it is there—it is far too conservative, although I hate to label the Clerk as one of the dark forces of conservatism. The House should consider how paper can last and, indeed, has lasted—I am talking about true paper, as invented by the Chinese in the first century AD, rather than about papyrus, which was invented even earlier.
  The British Library contains paper documents from the Han dynasty; although they bear no specific date, they can be dated by association to between 25 AD and 220 AD, but let us be conservative and assume that they date from the end of that period. The documents are almost 1,800 years old—they are twice as old as Westminster Hall, three times as old as the earliest Act of Parliament in the House of Lords Record Office and they predate Magna Carta by 1,000 years. I yield to no one in my respect for the Acts that Parliament passes, but I suggest that that is a reasonable period of time for the original paper copy to last, given that we also have electronic support these days. Those of an historical bent might be interested to learn that the earliest complete and printed book in the world, the Diamond Sutra, is more than 1,100 years old. Record copies of Acts will be kept in proper archival conditions and, as with all House documents, they will be printed on paper with an alkali reserve to ensure that a non-acid pH balance will be maintained over the years.
  Another factor that influenced the Committee's decision and which has not been called into dispute is that archival paper is considerably less bulky than vellum. That is an important consideration, given that storage space is finite, especially in the Lords Record Office, which, like many other archives, is getting short of space. When hon. Members raised the matter with her, the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who is the Chairman of the Committee, organised an illustration of the difference in thickness by comparing copies of the Finance Act 1998. The House will be aware that such Acts are rarely short: the vellum copy of the 1998 Act was three times as thick

  35
  as the paper version. The question of thickness will become even more important when Bills and Acts are printed in a larger typeface, as has been proposed. That welcome move will assist visually impaired Members of Parliament and others, but larger print will mean more pages—in the case of vellum, three times more.
  On the question of cost, the Committee's report mentions savings of about £30,000 a year. Some hon. Members have described that as a derisory sum, but the Committee believes in principle that no sum accruing to the taxpayer is derisory and that if we can save money, we should.
  Mr. White: Were the costs considered purely the costs to the House authorities?
  Dr. Palmer: The cost is the raw cost of purchasing paper compared with the cost of purchasing vellum. However, £30,000 is not all that would be saved, as that is only the savings on the cost of raw material.
  Because printing on vellum is highly specialised and because only one company in Britain does it, it is costly and we do not have the opportunity to take tenders for the contract to print Acts from printers other than the Stationary Office. If we print Acts on archival paper, genuinely competitive conditions for the award of new printing contracts could result in savings. The Committee anticipates that the savings thus secured would considerably exceed £30,000. I cannot quantify those savings, but I can state that, since 1993, the House authorities have been able to make savings of about £3 million in expenditure on publishing House documents. About one third of that saving has been made since the privatisation of HMSO. Although that move is not supported universally on other grounds, it must be acknowledged that House officials have been able to use the same competitive conditions that will apply if we introduce archival paper.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am listening with rapt attention as the hon. Gentleman develops his argument. The anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) are well understood and respected on both sides of the House. Will the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) advise the House at what point in the process the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East apprised the Administration Committee of his concerns on behalf of his constituents?
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention: it is always a pleasure to have his rapt attention. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East approached the Committee as soon as he heard about the proposal and realised that it would affect a firm in his constituency. However, my hon. Friend is in a better position to answer that question.
  Mr. White: I first heard about the proposal when I read the Committee's report.
  Dr. Palmer: I am sure that my hon. Friend raised his concerns at the earliest opportunity. We acknowledge that he has been fighting extremely hard on behalf of the company in his constituency.
  36
  Against the background that I have mentioned, it may seem puzzling that distinguished libraries have recommended retaining vellum. Why are they so interested? Another factor has undoubtedly influenced their views; it is a five letter word: m-o-n-e-y. With the indulgence of the House, I shall quote from a letter that the Committee received from Trinity college, Dublin, which reads:
  "The availability of this material"—
  that is, vellum—
  "at a price and quality our libraries and archives feel they can afford depends on the efficiency and productivity of the vellum makers … The half dozen skins that we"—
  that is, the libraries—
  "purchase each year … will do little to sustain the craft or business … This indirect support"—
  from the House—
  "will do much to aid our preservation work".
  I understand that argument: if I were a chief librarian, I would wish to secure an effective subsidy from the House to help meet the costs of my library. The question is: should we force the taxpayer to subsidise our national libraries so that they do not have to pay the going rate for vellum?
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that public money should be used to preserve our national treasures and to support libraries. However, let us support the libraries directly: let us not wrap up that support in a subsidy for vellum.
  Mr. David Lidington: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments about libraries, can he assure the House that the conservation programme of the Public Record Office will not be adversely affected by the economic factors that he has described?
  Dr. Palmer: I understand that the Public Record Office accepts that this proposal will result in a significant saving to the public purse. I have not spoken to its officers directly—I am slightly handicapped in that I am acting as deputy to the hon. Member for Broxbourne—but I understand that the cost to the Public Record Office will be more than compensated for by savings to the public purse.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise for not being in the Chamber to hear the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, but I am extremely interested in his concern for the public purse—it is interesting to hear a Labour Member express such a view. As the hon. Gentleman sets great store by a saving of £30,000 to the Exchequer, will he remind the House how much rooms across the road for Members of Parliament cost?
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is a very interesting point and the information is available, but it is not at all relevant to this motion.
  Dr. Palmer: As much as I would like to answer the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I am, alas, unable to do so.
  Hon. Members may say that we are getting rid of a tradition, but it is a tradition that can no longer be justified. The printing of Acts on goatskin should go the

  37
  same way as tally sticks and collapsible top hats. It is slightly ironic that the House of Lords, which one sometimes hears criticised for not being in touch with the modern world, readily accepted the proposals without a Division. Our constituents will react with total incredulity if the House rejects this motion and insists that our laws be inscribed on goatskin. That policy might be prestigious for a tribe of nomadic goatherds, but it is, frankly, bizarre for the Britain of today. To put it bluntly, such a decision would serve only to make this House look out of touch.
  The Committee has carefully considered all the representations made and produced a concise, convincing report, which I commend to the House.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: I shall not delay the House for long in giving the Opposition's view that the resolution should be approved. The printing of Acts on vellum is an anachronistic practice that dates back to 1849. In October 1956, Madam Speaker, one of your predecessors was wise enough to institute a partial change by suggesting that private Acts should no longer be printed on vellum and deposited in the Public Record Office.
  I shall be so bold as to suggest that the Opposition regard the move as part of the common-sense revolution. It is ironic that in these days of computers and electronic data storage, we should be debating the merits or otherwise of continuing to keep the work of the House stored on vellum. The case for change has been made admirably by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on behalf of the Committee. Vellum is very expensive, and the note by the Clerk of the House that is appended to the report suggests that printing last year's Finance Act alone on vellum cost nearly £12,000. That cost is increased by the necessity to place duplicate copies on vellum in the Public Record Office.
  I do not know, and the hon. Member for Broxtowe did not mention, why, in 1985, his predecessor Committee rejected the proposal to extend the proposals to public Acts.
  Dr. Palmer: I understand that the then Committee included an hon. Member in whose constituency there was a vellum manufacturer. He argued very forcefully against the proposals, and the matter was not proceeded with.
  Mr. Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments because they probably make the case exceedingly well.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Far be it from me to interrupt the eloquence of his flow for long, but the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe are a source of anxiety to me because I have attended closely to the letter that I received from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). In paragraph 7 he informs me that he understands that the vellum producers nearest to those in his constituency are in France. I sense a split between Labour Members, and I would be grateful if that could be resolved as speedily as possible.
  Mr. Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Unfortunately, I can throw no light on the question of where the nearest alternative source of vellum
  38
  is to be found other than the correspondence that I, too, have had with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White).
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Perhaps I may assist the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). As I understand it, representations were made in 1985 on behalf of a firm that manufactured vellum. That firm no longer exists. The firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) produces vellum. The impression that the House has been given that the nearest alternative supply of vellum is in France is correct.
  Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for that clarification.
  I said that I would not delay the House in giving the Opposition's view. We have no objection to the motion, and shall let the matter stand there.
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Brian White: I apologise for the earlier confusion when I objected to the first motion.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), I was in the computer industry before I entered this House, so I have no problem with the modern techniques of recording Acts. I have supported wholeheartedly the efforts of the Modernisation Committee to modernise the processes of the House.
  I oppose the motion for three reasons: first, because of the way in which the matter was handled, to which I shall return; secondly, because I disagree with the Committee's arguments, which I hope to demonstrate are wrong; and thirdly, and most importantly, because the decision means the end of an industry in which Britain leads the world. I hope that, for each of those reasons, the House will support me in what I understand is a free vote, and reject the Committee's report, so that we can find a different way forward.
  Committee members did not talk to the supplier until it was too late and they had made their decision. Let us take the issue of the Finance Bill, to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred. The House authorities asked for a certain quantity of vellum; it was supplied. Then, at very short notice, they asked for a considerable quantity more, demanding it within 24 or 48 hours. Any reasonable request could have been met.
  Mr. Bercow: I reiterate that I understand and am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's legitimate anxieties. Will he clarify for the benefit of the House whether the company in his constituency was given any opportunity to make representations? If it was not, that would, at the very least, count as a rank discourtesy, and the hon. Gentleman would have every reason to be dissatisfied about it.
  Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the supplier's feelings more eloquently than I can. The supplier has written several letters and received replies, but in a letter to me in September, he said:
  "I have tried to find out more about the reason behind the review of Vellum.

  39
  I cannot find any reason why the officials of the Public Bills Office were so 'determined' to hold the Press to its contract when there was no … reason."
  It seems to him that there has been a campaign to end his contract; that it was a question of making a decision and then finding reasons for it. He is rightly upset about that. One of the things that worry me is the way in which the episode has been handled, because I do not think that it has been handled correctly. Many issues, such as those of cost, thickness and storage, could have been resolved in discussion with the supplier. There did not need to be a change of material.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that this important debate was not important. The jobs in his constituency are very important; I accept the arguments on behalf of his miners. The supplier is very important to an old part of my constituency, so I contend that this an important debate.
  Dr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend asserting that, with further consultation, it would have been possible to reduce the bulk of vellum by one third and to eliminate all the extra cost?
  Mr. White: I am saying that it would have been possible to reduce the thickness and costs. Whether that was what the Committee had in mind would have been resolved by discussion.
  One of the arguments compared vellum with archival paper. I quote from a letter that I have received from the British Library:
  "my colleagues at the British Library were consulted about recommending an archival quality paper, which they were happy to do. I understand that they were not asked to compare the longevity of parchment with that of paper."
  Therefore, the question that they were asked was not necessarily the one that should have been asked.
  Equally, the Institute of Paper Conservation has said:
  "We are concerned by the Select Committee's statement that archival paper has a proven life expectancy of 250 years, possibly more."
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe was right to say 500 years. The institute goes on:
  "It seems to ignore the more fundamental problem of finding and securing supplies of archival paper made to the high specification required."
  Again, the House has been given only part of the story. It is possible to get the sort of quality from the paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred, but it comes at a cost. It is not a matter of going to the local branch of Staple's and picking up some paper. There are issues to be resolved on the question of high quality.
  We have already heard that the recommendation is about achieving a saving to the House, but fundamental costs to libraries and to archives would increase, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe accepted.
  When we compare longevity of 250 or 500 years with the 1,500 years of vellum, the cost of £30,000 pales into insignificance. The supplier has assured me that the thickness requirement is dictated by the House authorities. He could easily supply vellum at half the current thickness if he were asked to do so. New techniques are being developed all the time that improve the quality of vellum at a much thinner specification. Again, no one has
  40
  discussed that with him. It was taken as read that the current thickness was required. No one asked whether the vellum could be thinner.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe recognised that it is not an animal welfare issue. The calf skin is from animals that are already dead, or that would be used for other purposes—it is waste material.
  It has been alleged that there is a short supply of vellum. Again, the evidence that I have would dispute that. One of the most fundamental suggestions in the report is that it is difficult to print on vellum, but that seems to ignore modern developments that mean that printing on vellum is possible from a standard ink-jet printer. If that can be done, there will be no problem in continuing to use vellum. Other people are not suggesting that there are printing problems with vellum.
  I have a letter from Sotheby's, which suggests an idea for the House:
  "Would you like to borrow a piece of real medieval vellum? … If you were speaking about the durability of vellum and could exhibit a piece, you could virtually defy anyone in the House to tear it in half."
  My notes are on vellum. Before I came into the Chamber, I offered them to the Government Whips and said, "If you want to rip them up, feel free to do so." As hon. Members can see, they were unable to tear them in half.
  There is a fundamental reason for opposing the motion. Arguments in the Committee's report could be discussed. In fact, arguments on both sides could be discussed with the supplier. There is only one supplier in the country who deals with vellum; Britain leads the world in the sector. If we were to lose that supplier, an industry would be lost. The company has one major contract, on which all the others depend. It is sustained by its contract with the House—so that, in turn, it is able to supply vellum to its other clients, such as bookbinders, archives and museums. The contract also enables the firm to supply very small quantities of vellum to other clients, such as—as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said—the six pieces supplied to Trinity college.
  We can save our vellum industry, and the unique skills practised in it. The National Library of Scotland stated:
  "This material is more durable and long lasting than even the archival papers in common use today. Archival papers are long lasting but they do not have the life of parchment/vellum and are yet unproven … If it is the intention to preserve the original records of state for as long as possible, then parchment/vellum should be the information carrier."
  Christopher Clarkson, a conservator of library and archive materials, said:
  "I teach in many countries, including America, and I can in all honesty say that many workshops rely on England …
  Your colleagues in Parliament may think that discontinuation of the use of parchment is an economy, but they must be made aware of the larger picture."
  In the aftermath of the Florence flood disaster, the skills of many people were required. Subsequently, many of those skills have been lost. If the House cancels the contract, Britain will lose conservation, bookbinding and archival skills, and, in the years to come, we will come to rue the decision.
  The National Library of Wales said:
  "Vellum is essential for the conservation of historic books and manuscripts, but it is used in far smaller quantities for conservation than when it is used for printing, and in my opinion the combined purchasing power of British conservators is insufficient to sustain the sole surviving British manufacturer of vellum."

  41
  The House may decide that making a £30,000 economy justifies destroying an industry—but such a decision would be wrong. We are again in danger of being penny wise, but pound foolish. If the company loses the contract and goes out of business, we shall be putting a dozen people out of work. Although that number of jobs lost—compared with those lost in the coal, steel or shipbuilding industries—is not great, we shall be losing entirely another industry and the skills that create products that we export around the world.
  I ask the House to reject the report, so that we might find another solution. If we reject the report, we shall be able to continue discussions with the supplier on finding savings. If the report is accepted, we shall damage not only the company and my constituency, but—most of all—the United Kingdom.
  I refer Opposition Members to today's editorial in The Times, which urges them to treat the matter with the importance that it deserves. I tell Conservative Members that, if last week's rhetoric meant anything, they should vote today to support a British industry that depends on British agriculture. Any Conservative Member who votes today to accept the report will only be exposing as rhetoric the statements that the official Opposition made last week.
  I remind my colleagues that, when we were in opposition, we were unable to save the shipbuilding industry or the coal mines—which others had resolved to destroy. If we accept the report, we too shall be destroying an industry, albeit a small one.
  We should deal with the matter properly. There should be proper consultation, so that we might find the best way forward and treat people decently. The proposal would make a small saving for a small number of people, but we would lose something important for everybody else.
  I ask the House to reject the report and give us time to find a different way forward that does not destroy an industry. The nearest vellum producers are in France. Whether the other business would go there remains to be seen, but we would lose it for this country. I shall be pushing for a Division. We need to have further discussions to look at the wider picture and engage in joined-up thinking rather than just saving money for the House authorities at the cost of jobs and industries and increasing costs for libraries and other parts of the public sector. Please reject the report.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) with considerable interest. I understand, and have some sympathy with, his legitimate constituency concerns. However, we support the Committee's recommendations and the resolution. They are in the interests of the economy and of the better running of the affairs of this House.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) may be pleased to know that he will not be the only one voting against the motion, because I—and, I believe, one or two of my colleagues—will support him. It is one of the tragedies of our time that the Government clothe every
  42
  change that they make with the word "modernise". That is held to be enough to uproot our traditions and change the way in which we do many things.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Is he aware that the proposal comes not from the Government, but from an all-party Committee chaired by his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)?
  Mr. Howarth: Yes, I can read. I understand that this is a House matter and that the Whips will not be in evidence tonight. I am glad that this is a matter for the House to debate. I preface my remarks by saying that it is one of the tragedies of our time that the Government clothe everything with the word "modernise" and believe that that is sufficient justification for their actions. Some Committees of the House do the same. This is a case in point. We are told that we must modernise. Even my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that we have an antiquated arrangement.
  I am a traditionalist. I believe in tradition, as do the people of this country. That is the first reason why I object to the conclusions of the report. The note by the Clerk of the House in the report says that the matter was considered in 1985. A similar proposal was agreed by the other place and was considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. The note continues:
  "it is believed that Members took the view that the anticipated level of savings did not justify a departure from long-standing tradition."
  I take the view that, if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. That is the foundation of tradition. I share the view of the 1985 Committee.
  As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has said, it is not just the House that benefits from the 12 jobs in his constituency. University College Dublin has made representations to us because it derives some benefit. I thought that the Conservatives were in favour of cross-subsidisation. If the House can play a small part in helping to maintain a skill and tradition in this country that is not available elsewhere, save perhaps in France, we should take that into account. We should not lightly dispense with a skill available to this country that is of great value and practical assistance not only to University College Dublin, but to other institutions. We have long been admired for the way in which we conserve pictures and books. We need to maintain that, and should reject it only for good reasons.
  The Committee and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) have referred to costs as one of the real reasons to depart from the recommendations of the Committee in 1985. It seems to be a rather small amount, worth about eight months' pay for one Member of Parliament. To use the terms of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, it is eight months of one Member for 12 of his constituents. I would not like to ask the House to anticipate which the public would see as the better deal. They would probably be prepared to dispense with any number of hon. Members for 12 of the hon. Gentleman's skilled constituents.
  It is true that £30,000 is a lot of money but, set against the cost of the new building at Westminster—some £1 million per Member, I am told—£30,000 is not a lot to maintain a tradition, preserve skills and make available a service to museums and other conservators. That is a

  43
  small contribution that this House could make. People might think it odd that we are prepared to spend all that money on ourselves, while taking action that would put 12 of the hon. Gentleman's constituents out of work.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Cabinet were to take a further measure of pay restraint, the savings could be found by that route instead?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend presupposes that the Cabinet would be prepared to do that. According to the newspapers today, the Deputy Prime Minister—the trade union shop steward on behalf of the Cabinet—takes a dim view of such pay restraint. My hon. Friend nevertheless makes a good point in comparison.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made a strong case about the durability of vellum. I wonder how many hon. Members have taken visitors to the other place to see the showcase of significant Acts of Parliament and other parliamentary documents. One of my great delights in showing people those is to say, "That is not a facsimile, copy or replica. That is the Act of Parliament, dating back to 1497, which bears the signature of the King—and it survives to this day." I do not believe that that tradition should be tossed aside lightly.
  People who see those documents are in awe. The death warrant of Charles I is there—not a copy or facsimile, but the actual document. Who is to say whether archival paper would survive for 300 or 500 years? The jury has to be out, and none of us will be here to act as the jury to find out whether it works. Therefore, we should not take a chance, and we should stick with vellum, which has proved that it can survive over time.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is a computer specialist. I understand that computers do crash, and that they are not made from such robust material as vellum. It would be a foolish House—which has the stewardship of these matters for future generations—to entrust the records of the proceedings of our times to a bit of plastic that might not stand the test of time, and to do so in the full knowledge that vellum does stand the test of time and has lasted for 500 years.
  Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while it is right to be able to see the vellum next door, it is also right to be able to see the same Act of Parliament whether one is in Australia, Northumberland or wherever? The two go together; they are not incompatible.
  Mr. Howarth: Yes, I accept that point.
  This is a House of Commons matter, not a Government matter, but what has happened has been very much in the tradition of the way in which the Government like to handle matters. I believe in tradition. I see no good reason why we should dispense with vellum. Indeed, I see grave risks in our doing so and entrusting ourselves to the world of the computer. I shall vote against the motion.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: The outside world will be looking on in amazement at our debate on this issue when, for instance, the debate on agriculture
  44
  was arbitrarily stopped at 7 o'clock the other night when numerous hon. Members still wanted to talk about the largest farming crisis since the 1930s.
  My interests are declared in the Register: I was previously in the leather business and there is some connection with the trade in vellum. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I, too, believe in tradition. It is sad that we are wilfully throwing away a material that works. That is the first thing to be said in praise of vellum: it has worked since the middle ages. There is no track record of 500 or 1,000 years to let us know whether archival paper will work.
  Why not leave matters where they stand? A few technical criticisms were thrown at vellum. As I understand it from the leather conservation centre in Northampton, vellum can be taken down to 0.4 mm to 0.5 mm. That is as thin as archival paper and would do the job just as well. There are no practical problems.
  Cost has been spoken of, but let us consider the £30,000 against the £1 billion that the Government are spending on extra government in organisations, spin doctors and general hangers-on. It would probably not cover half the expense account for six months of one of the Government's more glossy and glamorous spin doctors. The easiest way of reducing the bill of £11,000 on the Finance Bill is to have a shorter Bill; it is far too long and far too much government is enacted in the House without enough scrutiny. I regret the fact that we are considering this issue rather than welfare, for example.
  I shall vote for tradition and for keeping a material with a splendid track record going back to the middle ages, and one that keeps a tiny business in the constituency of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North—East (Mr. White) going. If the contract is withdrawn, I suspect that several of the 10 or a dozen people involved will be on the dole and the British taxpayer will pick up a larger bill than the £30,000 that this stingy, miserable, petty report says that we will save.
  4.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) for so ably moving the motion and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) for his spirited contribution.
  This is clearly a matter for the House to decide. Last week, the House had the opportunity to discuss the history, tradition and precedence of parliamentary privilege. Today, we have the opportunity to discuss parliamentary history again. Many of our practices date from experience in the 19th century. Altering an 1849 resolution about the record copies of Acts is not something that we would want to do without mature consideration, and we have had some of that this afternoon.
  I am aware of some hon. Members' concerns that this may not be the best use of parliamentary time, but it is essential that the legislation be enacted by the end of the Session if it is to take effect in time for the first Act of 2000. On 16 June, the other place approved the second report from the House of Lords Offices Committee, which recommended that the record copies of Acts of Parliament kept in the House of Lords Record Office should he printed on archival paper instead of vellum, with effect from the first Act of 2000.

  45
  It was also agreed that the supply of a duplicate copy for the Public Record Office should cease. The Public Record Office consented to that and believes that its services will not be affected.
  We are indebted to the Administration Committee for looking into the matter, and it recommended that record copies of Acts should be preserved on archival paper rather than vellum. As we have heard, substantial cost savings can be made.
  In the other place a fortnight ago, one peer said that he thought that the records should go straight to CD-Rom. Such is the pace of technological change that I imagine that—unlike its predecessor, the 1849 Act—any new resolution agreed in 1999 will not survive unamended for 150 years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North—East referred to the effect of the change on a small firm in his constituency. I understand that it is the only firm in the United Kingdom with the necessary skills, and it is important to acknowledge the craftsmanship with which that firm has preserved our legislative work over all those years, and to thank it for that work. We should also acknowledge the service done by my hon. Friend over recent weeks in pursuing his constituents' case so vigorously.
  Despite my hon. Friend's comments, and the concerns that he raised, it seems sensible to make the change in time for the first Act of Parliament of the next millennium. That would be a modest piece of modernisation in line with the Government's objective of improving the quality as well as the form of legislation, and I commend the report to the House.
  4.57 pm
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond briefly to a couple of the points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made a passionate and effective defence of the interests of his local company. I have resolved that, if I am ever defeated in Broxtowe, I shall move to Milton Keynes, so as to get the benefit of my hon. Friend's advocacy.
  On the specific issue of consultation, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Administration Committee tries to abide by the terms of the Ibbs report, which means that we rarely take evidence in open session. We ask the Officers of the House to make inquiries, to discuss matters and to correspond with companies, as was done in the case in question.
  I confirm that members of the Administration Committee were apprised of the contents of the letters from William Cowley, and had the opportunity to bring the issue back to the Committee before the decision was published. We decided that we were still satisfied with the case.
  Mr. White: How many times did the Committee discuss with the supplier the issues of substance in the report?
  Dr. Palmer: As I said, the Committee does not normally take direct evidence in session from companies
  46
  or individuals, but our officers corresponded with the supplier; as my hon. Friend will know, there was a substantial correspondence on the subject.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: How long has the firm been under contract to the House?
  Dr. Palmer: I am afraid that I do not have that information, but I shall be happy to supply the hon. Gentleman with it when I get hold of it after the debate.
  As for durability, several hon. Members drew attention to the fact that, in principle, vellum will last for perhaps 1,500 years, and archival paper for between 500 and 1,000 years, or even, perhaps, 2,000 years. They argued that that was the crucial element. However, as I said earlier, the important question is not only the survival of the original documents but the security with which documents are kept, and the availability of computer back-up.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said that that was not a viable argument because computers crash. However, Members who work more actively with computers will agree that storage, especially storage of documents available on the internet, is not affected by the crash of any individual personal computer such as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members may own. We are talking about long-term storage with thorough back-up facilities, as thorough as those used by the Bank of England or other established bodies to secure the long-term viability of data.
  Several hon. Members suggested that £30,000 is not a very large sum. Opposition Members attempted to ride with the hounds and run with the fox by attacking the Government for alleged overspending while recognising that the report is from an all-party Committee. I pointed out earlier that the availability of many more firms able to work with archival paper is likely to produce substantial savings of a kind that will be familiar to Opposition Members. It is unfortunate that they have presented their case as a partisan attack on the Government, and that approach will not benefit them in the vote.
  It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and the hon. Member for Aldershot that it would be a shame to lose our foothold in an industry in which Britain is a leader in the world. Valuable though it may be to be the leader in the world in printing on goatskin, if we are unable to sustain the industry except by subsidising it with unnecessary orders from Parliament, the industry is not sustainable. I believe that that is the view of Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers, and of most hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not in the business of preserving industries merely for the sake of it.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am concerned by my hon. Friend's reference to subsidy. Does he agree that several valuable industries have been sustained by subsidy and that Britain remains an industrial nation as a result?
  Dr. Palmer: My hon. Friend's point would lead us into a broader political debate, but I agree with him that key industries have effects on other industries and need to be preserved during difficult times so that they can survive in the longer term. I suggest that the printing of documents on goatskin is not one of them. I note also that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes,

  47
  North-East mentioned the need to support British agriculture, but I understand that the goatskins in question come not from Britain but from Morocco.
  Mr. White: My hon. Friend has referred to goatskin throughout the debate, but it is calfskin that is used.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for that correction. In any event, the skins in question do not come from British cows.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot, who is the authoritative voice in this House of the 19th century—and earlier centuries—noted the value of the death warrant of Charles I. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that any future royal death warrants will not be put on archival paper. The motion refers only to Acts of Parliament.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful for that explanation. However, should some measure that is not an Act of Parliament require the approval of the House, from where will we get the material?
  Dr. Palmer: In the event of a future royal death warrant or other matter, we might exceptionally violate the call of the Leader of the Opposition and import the material from France.
  The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) argued that Finance Bills are too long. That is a non-party issue, which goes beyond the current debate, but I suggest that the way to shorten Finance Bills is not necessarily to preserve them on animal skin.
  The hon. Gentleman also pleaded the case of tradition. Let me give a serious response to the arguments about preserving tradition. I do respect the traditions of the House and those of the country. I believe that we should support traditions that are in keeping with our concept of Britain today, but to preserve a tiny industry that prints on animal hide for the sake of tradition alone does not seem to me sensible, and would not be understood by our constituents as sensible.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 121.

  Division No. 279]

  [5.6 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Allen, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hill, Keith

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Boateng, Paul

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Breed, Colin

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Burnett, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Chaytor, David

  Lock, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Morley, Elliot

  Cotter, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Darvill, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Dowd, Jim

  Pope, Greg

  48

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tyler, Paul

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Walter, Robert

  Ruane, Chris

  Webb, Steve

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stunell, Andrew

  Dr. Nick Palmer and

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Andrew Miller.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Amess, David

  Healey, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Heppell, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bercow, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Best, Harold

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Betts, Clive

  Jamieson, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Boswell, Tim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brady, Graham

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Leigh, Edward

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Lepper, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Clapham, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  MacShane, Denis

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Clelland, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cohen, Harry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Coleman, Iain

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Connarty, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Cox, Tom

  Mountford, Kali

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Olner, Bill

  Davidson, Ian

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Pike, Peter L

  Dismore, Andrew

  Pollard, Kerry

  Dobbin, Jim

  Pound, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Edwards, Huw

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Efford, Clive

  Rapson, Syd

  Etherington, Bill

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Rogers, Allan

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Rooney, Terry

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Salter, Martin

  Flight, Howard

  Sanders, Adrian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sawford, Phil

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Fyfe, Maria

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gapes, Mike

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gerrard, Neil

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Stringer, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Grant, Bernie

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Watts, David

  49

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Brian White.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Andrew George be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Richard Livsey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Fabricant be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Miss Julie Kirkbride be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Paul Keetch be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Dr. Evan Harris be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Heath be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. David Chidgey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Jenny Tonge be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Nigel Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Moore be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Sir Robert Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Yugoslavia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Had this debate started at 10 o'clock, I would have spoken for a succinct six minutes, and shared the time available with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I went in September to Serbia—the subject of this debate on the reconstruction of the Balkans—with my hon. Friend, and with Tim Gopsill of the National Union of Journalists and Bob Oram of Unison Manchester. However, as it is 5.17 pm, I should like to use the opportunity to talk quietly and seriously to my political friend of 30 years, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. It is no use pretending that there are not deep and rancorous differences of opinion on the Balkan war between myself and the Secretary of State for International Development. What has actually been said can be left at that, although it would be nice if there were a reconsideration as time goes by.
  The best way of presenting my case is to give a chronological description of the visit. The first question is who paid for it. Did the Serbs? No, they did not. We paid for it; in no way are we beholden to the Serbian Government.
  Because Belgrade airport is covered by sanctions, we arrived, as everyone has to, at Budapest. One has to have transport provided by Serbian authorities, or one does not go. We were met by a senior official of the Serbian embassy in Budapest. That led to several interesting conversations. We were very blunt and said that dreadful things had happened; we never hid that. For example, there was a dreadful occurrence at Rachak. I report his reply to the House. He said that Rachak was awful, but that there had been a terrible occurrence at Waco and asked whether we would condemn a whole nation for what happened there? Would we arraign in court Mrs. Janet Reno, the Attorney-General of the United States, simply because a terrible thing happened?
  I do not say that this is the whole story, but the Serbian people deeply resent the fact that they have been blamed when they have more refugees than anywhere else in Europe. Some put the figure at 800,000, some at more than 1 million, starting with the 200,000 Krajina Serbs. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will deal at some length with the refugees, so I shall leave that and consider what happened on our first visit, which was to Novi Sad.
  We were met by Professor Budhakov, who got his doctorate at the university of Nashville in the United States and went on to do research at the university of Pittsburgh. There were no language problems and no deep-seated hatred of the west or anything of that sort. Here was a man who was deeply hurt at what had happened. My hon. Friend the Minister has not had the opportunity of going to Novi Sad; I understand that. It is not only that there are bridges down over the Danube. Pictures cannot convey the sheer horror of seeing those bridges dumped there.
  That point leads me to my first question: what do the Government think that our obligations are to the countries that lie on this greatest of European arteries? I refer to Bulgaria and Romania in particular. Later, we went to the

  51
  ministry of reconstruction in Belgrade. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will bear out the fact that the people there said the bridges would not be cleared until they got a clear offer on the table in deutschmarks, not only for clearance but for reconstruction costs.
  I understand that eight major bridges were destroyed out of the 11 targeted. One cannot be certain about the costs, but I saw an estimate that the cost of destroying them was about £6 million. We were given a rough estimate of £10 million per bridge for reconstruction. In my opinion, and this was also the opinion of my colleagues, the Serbs are determined not to mend the bridges until NATO comes up with a clear, watertight, firm offer that payment will be made.
  Secondly, what happens in the winter, when the ice forms? What happens when there is severe flooding down river, as we have been told could occur? I hope that, in his answer—like me, he will have plenty of time—my hon. Friend the Minister will make some serious comments on the state of negotiations between the British Government and the Danube commission.
  However, the worst thing at Novi Sad was not the bridges; it was the bombing of the oil refinery. I repeat the question that was eloquently put by the Finn, Dr. Pekka Haavisto. He asked whether, in modern warfare, it is really acceptable to bomb oil refineries and chemical complexes. We must answer that question. At the oil refinery at Novi Sad, no one knows how long the ammonia, benzene, chlorine, mercury, phosgene, pyralene, and many other chemicals and chemical compounds will last; no one knows where they have gone, and how they got into the Danube water. It is not merely a matter of what happens just after the bombing; the chemicals get into the silt at the side of the river, and can last for an extremely long time. I hope that the Minister's brief contains some scientific advice as to the effect on groundwater.
  We have turned an awful, local crisis into a Balkan catastrophe. As my notes confirm, the Prime Minister and other Ministers repeatedly stated from the Dispatch Box that we would rebuild the Balkans. As of the end of September, there was not much sign of that in Serbia. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has been to Kosovo and will talk about Kosovo. Perhaps the Government have a good story to tell—as they perceive it—but very little is happening in relation to Serbia. Whether we like it or not, Serbia was the economic engine of the Balkans. How one can rebuild the Balkans without rebuilding Serbia is beyond the imagination.
  At Novi Sad, we came across the first instance of the taste of unemployment. In the second city of Yugoslavia, we were told that 30,000 people were now out of work; many were earning only two fifths of the not very great wages that they received before the start of the conflict. The economic situation is horrendous. The following day of our visit was—if anything—even worse. We arrived in Belgrade, late at night, and, in the morning, were taken to the motor vehicle factory at Zastava, about 100 miles south of Belgrade. That was the site of the motor and vehicle industry, manufacturing the Yugo, not only for the whole of Yugoslavia, but for areas beyond that country.
  52
  I have some notion about motor vehicle factories; for 25 years of my life as a Member of Parliament, I was immersed in the problems of the British Leyland truck and tractor division at Bathgate. To put it bluntly, I know my way around motor vehicle factories.
  The area of Zastava was seven times greater than that of the plant at Bathgate. I do not pretend that it was the most modern motor vehicle factory on the face of the planet: by modern motor vehicle production standards, much of the machinery was rather old and we saw none of the robots or other technology used at Sunderland and Dagenham. Nevertheless, that machinery provided the bread and butter for 130,000 workers. We had a long session with the trade union representatives, whom I found to be both sad and impressive. They wondered what the winter would bring to a town in an area that is wholly dependent on the motor industry—where else were they to obtain the means to support themselves?
  What are our obligations, if any, in the rebuilding of that motor industry? I do not know any western motor company that would look at Zastava and I suspect that the machinery is not repairable. There is a vast number of unemployed skilled people in the middle of central Europe. We were told repeatedly throughout the conflict that it was taking place in Europe and that we had an obligation. The point was made that, unlike Chechnya, Yugoslavia is so near to us that we had an obligation to act. What are we going to do about the massive problems at Zastava?
  Is there to be some sort of conference, as the trade union leaders would like? They asked us, semi-humorously, but in earnest, where better for an international conference such as we were promised to be held than on the site of the Zastava plant?
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for interrupting the flow of his speech, but I have a point of order that is relevant to the end of the Adjournment debate. On Wednesday, the House is to have a guillotine motion on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and there is some suggestion that the Government are modifying the way in which they will deal with certain clauses relating to national insurance for those working through a limited company—it is known as IR35 in general parlance. I have been contacted by constituents and others asking what the Government's intentions are—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is not a point of order to be dealt with now, but a matter to be debated when those issues come before the House.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order. We should return to the Adjournment debate, which is on an important matter.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without intending any discourtesy to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), may I ask on what occasion the

  53
  Government will be able to make available to the House the information that they will otherwise introduce on Wednesday in a guillotine motion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter to be dealt with by me at this stage of this evening's business.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
  Mr. Bottomley: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely different point of order?
  Mr. Bottomley: Yes. At the end of this debate, the House will have adjourned and there will be no opportunity available to the Government today; that leaves only tomorrow, Tuesday. Hon. Members and those outside the House will have only overnight to consider any proposals the Government make. It would be appropriate for Ministers who have heard these exchanges to consider the matter and return to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that Ministers on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but that is not a matter for me at this time.
  Mr. Dalyell: We returned from Zastava to Belgrade the following day. It is incredible what technological weapons have done to a modern European capital such as Belgrade. We experienced great difficulty repairing parts of Manchester after the bomb damage there. It cost £60 million to repair the Bishopsgate building. Throughout the centre of Belgrade, huge, solid buildings of the Austro-Hungarian empire are reduced to unsafe rubble and twisted metal.
  Is the Serb capital city to remain in that state? If so, we have some moral obligations; if not, who will start paying for it? Will there be an international effort, or will we leave Belgrade to deteriorate and thus become infinitely more expensive to repair and a greater technical problem than it otherwise would have been? Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that we have such obligations? We must always bear in mind that the House was told time and again that we had no quarrel with the people of Serbia. On that basis, the House—apart from very few of us—assented to military action. Therefore, I am entitled to probe Government thinking.
  Our first meeting in Belgrade was with Dr. Leposana Milicevic, the Minister of Health, who is a distinguished doctor. She told us that we should not imagine that the graphite bombs aimed at power stations simply knocked out the power for a short time; they created all sorts of other problems. Those for the health service were incredible. For example, Dr. Milicevic told us that 4,000 people were on kidney dialysis. What happens when not only the main but the auxiliary power supplies are knocked out?
  All sorts of other medical problems were pointed out to us. For example, hospitals were hit. I do not doubt that that was unintentional, and I appreciate that much of the precision bombing was remarkably precise, but collateral
  54
  damage is inevitable. We must consider whether modern aerial warfare is justified in the long term when one has no quarrel with the people of the country being bombed. That was the basis on which the bombing commenced.
  We visited the Red Cross in Belgrade, and its presentation made it clear that we must confront collateral damage and not only short-term, but long-term damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, the representative of Unison and I think that the problems in hospitals are likely to be acute for a long time, not only because of the damage done to medical cases, but because of the trauma effect. The bombing that took place night after night was traumatic for a whole generation.
  How does the west intend to mend its fences with the Serb people? The answer might be, "They brought it all on themselves", but I do not think that the problem is as simple as that. There are two sides to the story. My hon. Friend the Minister may deal in some depth with the reports in the Sunday press yesterday that suggested that the numbers of those executed in Kosovo were markedly fewer than were claimed in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's statement to the House, which suggested that there had been mass genocide. I am not jumping to conclusions, but there will be a briefing on yesterday's reports in The Sunday Times. Will the Minister give us the Government's reaction to the briefing? Is The Sunday Times justified in saying that the number of people executed was markedly fewer than the Foreign Secretary asserted, or was my right hon. Friend justified in talking in terms of genocide?
  We must also consider a Serb view of events, so I shall describe what was said to us and ask for a Government comment. The Serbs said that the Albanians, who live in very large families, made group decisions to send one or two family members to Germany. In Germany, they worked as Gastarbeiter where they earned—let us say—DM2,000 a month. They lived very frugally and the overwhelming proportion of that money was remitted to their Albanian families. Therefore, a family soon had sufficient deutschmarks to buy a house in a village in Kosovo. When the Serb owner of a house refused the first offer of market value, the Albanians said that they would offer double the market value. That was very tempting, because such an offer would enable a Serb family to buy a house in Belgrade, send a child to the university there and better themselves.
  That process was repeated once or twice in the same village. As the Albanians came in, other houses could be bought quite easily at market price and the rest would be sold dead cheap because, by that time, the Serbs felt that they had to get out. Their children were bullied at school and they faced all kinds of social pressures. Therefore, the cradle of Serb civilisation—whether we like it or not, that is how the Serbs see it—systematically went over to what I was going to call Albanians. However, I had better be careful. In general, the Kosovo Albanians were not blamed, because people who had come from Albania—they had doubtless fled from the odious Enver Hoxha—took over that part of Kosovo. I mention that, because the question is not one of good and bad; it is one of varying shades of grey. Therefore, simply to say that the Serbs deserved all that they got is just not the reality.
  Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend mentioned the report in The Sunday Times. I suggest that he looks at yesterday's edition of The Observer,

  55
  which describes in graphic detail the horrifying atrocities that were committed by Serb paramilitaries against innocent people—why our intervention was absolutely necessary. My hon. Friend spoke about the Serbians feeling out-manoeuvred by Kosovo Albanians, but does he not realise that that is precisely the same argument used in this country by racists and white supremacists, who talk of being swamped, and so on, by immigrants who are undermining British culture and British civilisation? In giving the Serb point of view—the Milosevic point of view, to be more accurate—he is giving the impression that he is campaigning on what the racists, from whom I know he dissociates himself, have been campaigning over many years in our country.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that it is as simple as that. The people who made such complaints were as anti-Milosevic as one could find. They had demonstrated, day after day, in the streets of Belgrade. I wish that they had had rather more help from the west when doing so some years ago.
  The problems of the Balkans are not in black and white. This debate is about the future. I am trying to pre-empt the argument that the Serbs deserved all that they got. That is not a fair way of looking at a very complex problem.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I assure my hon. Friend that he does not need to pre-empt that argument because I do not intend to advance it.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that we have got that out of the way, because certain people in the press have put around, "Hell mend the Serbs! As long as they keep Milosevic, we have no obligations." I think that we have some obligations, and it is the purpose of this Adjournment debate to try to elicit what they are.
  5.48 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for being so generous in sharing his debate with me. I endorse many of his comments, particularly those on the demonisation of the Serbs and the way in which they have been blamed—quite unfairly—for every ill in the Balkans.
  On Thursday, in business questions, I raised the persecution of Serbs, and called for a debate. We had just read the latest story of a column of 150 Serbs who were leaving Kosovo when they were attacked, and their vehicles set alight, by ethnic Albanians. Hansard is incorrect: I said, and should like to put on record, that nearly 1,000 people had been killed or abducted since the KFOR occupation, but Hansard states 100.
  As my hon. Friend said, I went with him and other colleagues to Serbia to see first hand the effects of the NATO bombings on the civilian population and to get some idea of the need for humanitarian aid and economic reconstruction. That was necessary because the plight of Serbia proper has been almost entirely ignored by the media. Western Governments have imposed sanctions that have been designed specifically to prevent the
  56
  reconstruction of civilian infrastructure, even though, as my hon. Friend said, we were constantly told that the war was not aimed at the ordinary Serbian people.
  We were told that the sanctions were imposed for specific reasons. According to a House of Commons Library briefing that I received today, the British Government imposed sanctions unilaterally and participated in the multilateral imposition of sanctions under the auspices of the United Nations and the European Union. The reason behind the imposition of sanctions by the UN, the EU and the British Government has always been linked to a lack of democratic government and grave human rights abuses by the Government of Serbia. Further, the current basis for the EU sanctions, at least against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is laid out in the most recent regulation, which was adopted by the Council on 4 October, amending the prohibition of the sale and supply of oil and oil products.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Lady is reaching a point that I wanted to touch on. She knows that I do not entirely agree with her and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the conduct of the conflict, but the Balkan winter is as cold for Serbs as it is for Kosovan Albanians. What assessment was she able to make of the adequacy of fuel supplies to enable people to get through the winter with reasonable heating? Does the sanctions regime need to be amended further to enable that to happen?
  Mrs. Mahon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall talk about that later, but, clearly, oil sanctions are hitting hard. We have some graphic photographs of people having to buy petrol to get to Kragujevac and other places. There is none in state petrol stations. People have to buy it on the black market, on the street corner. It was interesting because almost everyone selling it was smoking a cigarette, as were the people buying it. I have photographs of that and it was horrifying. There are serious implications for heating, for hospitals and for everything else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said.
  On the legal basis for sanctions, the EU cites as justification continued violations by the Yugoslav Government of UN resolutions and the pursuit of extreme and criminally irresponsible policies, including repression against its own citizens, which constitutes serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.
  Can we have some examples? What on earth does that mean? What precisely are the continued violations by the Yugoslav Government of the UN Security Council resolutions? Can the Minister give us examples because, at the moment, the people who are being persecuted, killed, having their homes burned and who are being made into refugees are the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo. Nearly 100,000 have been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo since the NATO occupation.
  The Minister will be aware of the demonstrations by Opposition parties in Yugoslavia, which want early elections. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but those demonstrations take place regularly and freely. I have not seen any of the over-the-top policing that I saw the other week when the Chinese President came to this country. Peaceful protesters were treated in a fairly rough manner by our police.

  57
  A friend of mine, a member of the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, went to Serbia after we went. She attended four demonstrations. She said:
  "In spite of media reports to the contrary, we witnessed no beatings and no police brutality."
  She said that she saw one or two fights in the crowds and the police stopped them, but she witnessed no beatings or police brutality. She took photographs. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) can choose to believe that, or not. A very good friend of mine, whom I trust, saw it with her own eyes. When we were in Serbia, we witnessed no police brutality.
  We are told by the west that there are no political prisoners—certainly, Amnesty International is not badgering us about political prisoners in Yugoslavia. The opposition media operate with restrictions, but they are no greater—I have been looking the details up; I am a member of the North Atlantic Assembly—than some that we found when we visited Croatia in April 1998. At that time, we met the opposition media there, who complained about the state-run media and described what a bad time they were having. We recommended that Forum 21, the opposition media, be given more freedoms and should not be harassed, and that Croatia did something about the lack of press freedom there.
  It is the hypocrisy of the west sometimes that needs to be exposed, and this is the place to expose it. On political prisoners, during a visit by the North Atlantic Assembly to Turkey in February 1998, we tried to see the members of Hadep, who were Members of the Turkish Parliament, who were sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on charges of separatism and membership of a terrorist organisation. Immunity was lifted and they were sent to prison.
  Those members include Lena Zana, the recipient of the Sakharov prize for human rights of the European Parliament and a well-known campaigner for the rights of the Kurds. The unconditional release of Mrs. Zana and her colleagues has been demanded by several interparliamentary organisations, including the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as well as the European Parliament. There is something seriously wrong when we live with that and carry on dialogue with the Turkish Government, despite all the human rights abuses that we have seen there, including the imprisonment of elected representatives, yet bring that out about the Yugoslav Government.
  Sanctions do hurt ordinary people. There will be enormous suffering in Yugoslavia this winter. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has confirmed that Yugoslavia has the largest concentration of refugees in Europe. We visited some; we visited some of the Roma people. They include not just Serbs from Kosovo—Yugoslavia has hundreds and thousands of Serbs from the Krajina, Serbs from Bosnia, and also other minorities.
  We visited Roma in the camp. I do not like going to refugee camps. I hate staring at people who are already living in absolute misery. It is a dreadful thing to do, but sometimes we have to make ourselves do it. Lots of people visited the refugee camps in Kosovo. I thank NATO. It was fairly well organised after the initial bad start, but people are not getting that sort of help in Serbia. Some groups do not naturally have a family in Serbia—not only Roma, but Turks, Bosniaks and Jews. Jews are being expelled. Can hon. Members believe that, in this day and age, Jewish families have had to leave Kosovo because it was not safe and because they were warned?
  58
  We visited those people. It is difficult to do. They are living in converted school rooms, barracks and factories. Entire families have been squeezed into single-room accommodation. Many were expelled from the Krajina and Bosnia; they have been there for years and their plight is difficult.
  Mr. Winnick: I have much admiration for my hon. Friend, but it saddens me that she has allowed herself, in many respects, to act as a spokesperson for the regime in Serbia. I would be glad to have her comments on the following point. Milosevic instigated wars that have led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. He lost those wars, and the Serbian people, to a large extent, as well as others, are paying the penalty.
  With regard to the position in Serbia, I draw her attention to the murder of a journalist during the conflict, a murder that was undoubtedly instigated by the Belgrade authorities. No effort has been made, understandably, to find the murderers. It would be useful if the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, of which she is the chair, denounced such crimes and put the blame for them, as well as for what has happened in the past eight or nine years, where it belongs—on a Milosevic clique.
  Mrs. Mahon: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend, as some of his remarks were unworthy of him. He knows perfectly well that any committee that I might belong to would condemn murder, and I am outraged that he thinks that the situation might be otherwise. I hope that, on reflection, he will decide to apologise for those remarks.
  The press has ignored the plight of the hundreds of thousands of refugees in Serbia. Although all the refugees are not Serbs—there are many other minority groups among the refugees—Serbs comprise the vast majority of them, and the conditions in which they are living are very bad. Many of the refugees have no family support and, unfortunately, are receiving very little help from aid agencies.
  Will the Minister tell the House what aid the Department for International Development is giving to the Yugoslav Government? The Yugoslav Government have to deal with the victims not only of the recent NATO war, but of the previous war—in which the Croats, with NATO's help, expelled hundreds and thousands of people from the Krajina. I have seen those refugees for myself; shamefully, the Red Cross seemed to be the only aid agency helping them. Red Cross workers told us that their soup kitchens are able to feed only a third of the worst-off refugees—100,000 of 300,000 people.
  Another problem, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned, is power cuts. Although there were power cuts while we were there, the problem will become much worse as temperatures drop and the demand for power grows.
  The power shortages caused directly by NATO's bombing are seriously affecting health care in Yugoslavia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, heating for homes and hospitals has been curtailed. Schools will also have to close because of power shortages. As we all know, elderly people will suffer as temperatures drop as low as minus 20 deg C.

  59
  Even The Guardian, which has been almost as warlike on the subject as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, has now said that sanctions should be eased. It is interesting that it should now be coming round to that view. It stated:
  "The US, ignoring the lessons of Iraq, continues to insist that tough economic sanctions, including fuel oil, must be maintained. It believes this will spur the Serbian populace to mass revolt as winter exacerbates its misery."
  The Guardian, like everyone else who thinks about the matter, concludes that the Serbian people will have to try to survive the winter and that all their energies will be spent in attaining that one goal. Nevertheless, we are very grateful for its support in calling for sanctions to be lifted.
  About £52 million has gone to help refugees in Kosovo, with which I shall deal in a moment as I was fortunate enough to visit it in late September. Although that money is desperately needed in Kosovo, where the housing situation is awful—people must have decent accommodation to cope with the winter—it dwarfs the aid that has been provided to Serbia. It is disgraceful that, although everyone knows about Serbia's huge refugee problem, people who raise money for Kosovo say not a word about the Serbs. The west really will have to answer for the way it has demonised the Serbs, almost creating a hatred of them, so that we do not think of them as deserving.
  What miserable Serb-hating group dreamed up the policy of providing oil only to Serbian cities that vote for Opposition parties? It takes a sick mentality to think that because a town votes in a certain way, its children and its sick and elderly people should starve in freezing temperatures, whereas those voting in another way should have access to oil.
  It is absolutely sickening that, in the oil for democracy scheme, the European Union should try to boost Serb Opposition parties by promising that, if President Milosevic were ousted from power, it would not only rapidly lift sanctions but, after five years, press Croatia to take back Serb refugees. Although Croatia has been a member of the Council of Europe since the Krajina Serbs were expelled, Europe has only now decided to press the Croatians to take back the refugees. I wonder what Europe has been doing meanwhile about Croatia's continuing disgraceful treatment of Serbs.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the hon. Lady conclude that the continuation of sanctions against Serbia has more to do with the ousting of Milosevic than with any other single objective? Why else should we be continuing to impose sanctions?
  Mrs. Mahon: I do not think that Milosevic will be ousted soon. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that that is the main objective of sanctions. If that is not the main objective, we would simply be taking revenge against 10 million people.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has been to Kosovo, and I have not; nevertheless, I have been told by responsible people—senior people in the British Army—that the situation in Kosovo is such that only the Irish Guards conduct night patrols; that, without night patrols,
  60
  one cannot provide any protection of Serb minorities; and that only elite units of British regiments are doing anything to fulfil the undertaking that Serb minorities will be protected—for, without night patrols, we can do nothing. Although I understand perfectly well Mr. Bernard Kouchner's remark that we cannot put a soldier or policeman behind every Serb in Kosovo, nevertheless, the general situation is such that the impression has been given that KFOR is either unable or unwilling—or a bit of both—to provide protection to such Serbs as remain.
  Mrs. Mahon: I am able to confirm what my hon. Friend says about the Irish Guards being the only group to conduct night patrols, because, on my visit, I made a point of speaking to some of those soldiers. I think that it is a good idea to talk to the ordinary soldiers, and not only to those who give the briefings—with which I shall deal shortly.
  The sanctions are a crime against humanity and should be lifted immediately. As the war continued, the civilian infrastructure was smashed deliberately by NATO bombs, to terrorise the civilian population. More than 1,500 Serb civilians were killed, and 4,000 were injured. There was damage to 27 hospitals and clinics, and I have a photograph and a dossier on each of them. Although it was called collateral damage, the fact is that schools, factories, bridges, roads and Government buildings were destroyed. The damage amounted to £40 billion.
  Kragujevac—which is home of the destroyed car factory described by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—was hit by 22 cruise missiles, injuring 120 people and utterly destroying the living not only of the factory's 36,000 workers, but of those who worked in the 47 factories supplying it with components. The devastation has affected the livelihood of more than 120,000 people living in the area.
  Kragujevac's local health centre was one of the medical centres damaged. The town relies on the factory's power plant for winter heating. We were told that the whole city has stopped, that people are living on Government hand-outs, and that refugees are still pouring in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, all its hospitals have been affected by power shortages: dialysis machines are not working; powered wheelchairs have stopped; incubators do not work; operations have been cancelled; and children and elderly people who have been traumatised by the bombing are suffering badly.
  I visited Kosovo on 25 September as part of the North Atlantic Assembly. My conclusion from that visit—which was not denied by anybody we spoke to—was that Kosovo was being ethnically cleansed of all minorities. We hear different figures. UNHCR said that 50,000 Serbs and other ethnic minorities had left Kosovo, KFOR said nearly 100,000 and somebody else said 120,000. I think that the generally accepted figure is around 100,000. The scale of the ethnic cleansing, with daily murders, arson attacks and other accompanying forms of intimidation, led us to conclude that KFOR is not protecting the minorities. It did not pretend to us that it was.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North talked about the journalist who was killed. I condemn that out of hand. I should like him to condemn an unprovoked attack in the centre of Pristina on a United Nations peace worker, who was taken away by the mob and shot in the head because when somebody asked him the time he

  61
  answered in Serbo-Croat. He was killed simply for speaking that language. The hatred is not all on one side and both sides have many things to answer for.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady will understand that those of us who are here do not want to affect the debate or criticise what she or her hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have said. However, I should like to point out that over the past eight years Mr. Milosevic and Serbia have carried out a succession of military interventions in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, with the threat of going beyond that. The context of the debate is that Mr. Milosevic ordered his forces into Kosovo and eventually ordered them out again.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is right. There was a war going on in Kosovo. The first research note in the House of Commons Library from before we went to war with Yugoslavia is even-handed about the Serbs and Albanians being killed. I recommend that paper to him, because it makes good reading. The Serb army was fighting the KLA in Kosovo. No member of the KLA has been indicted for war crimes. Indeed, Agim Ceku, the KLA commander who is being investigated for his role in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia, has recently been appointed to lead the so-called Kosovo protection force, which is just another name for the KLA. The appointment by the UN of a man who could well be indicted for war crimes is hardly calculated to reassure Kosovo's minorities that they will be safe.
  Mr. Dalyell: I should like to return to my hon. Friend's previous point about the UN official. His name was Valentin Krumov. The circumstances were outlined on 13 October by Laura Rozen on page 12 of The Independent. She says that he was brutally killed
  "as he went for a walk outside the Grand Hotel, on Pristina's main thoroughfare, and reportedly replied in Serbian when asked what the time was by a group of Albanians."
  If officials or the Minister have some reference to make to that case, it would be helpful to have it at the end of the debate. If not, perhaps he could write to us.
  Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I refer the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North to the second assessment of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe of the situation of ethnic minorities in Kosovo. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told us on 18 June to read the report about the atrocities committed by the Serbs against the Albanians. There is little difference between the two—they both involve people killing each other in the most horrible way. It does the debate no good if we fail to recognise that there were no good guys in the middle of the horrors of the break-up of Yugoslavia.
  Our delegation in Kosovo met the some of the Albanian and Serb leaders, although unfortunately two key figures—a bishop and a priest—did not turn up. They have pulled out of the transitional council because of what is happening to the Serbs and other minorities, so I met only one of the Serb leaders. However, we met Hashim Thaci, the self-styled Prime Minister of Kosovo—a man whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rang up regularly to get information about what was happening in Kosovo. From the evidence in the Library of 52 reports
  62
  of killings and massacres received during the war, 42 were received from the KLA or the Kosovo press, which are hardly independent sources. As we know, some of those reports have since been proved to be lies.
  We put questions to Mr. Thaci. We doubted that he was doing anything to stop the daily violence against the minorities, yet KFOR seemed to treat him as the Prime Minister in waiting. Opinion polls, including one in the Washington Post recently, say that Mr. Rugova, the moderate leader, has the majority of support, because the ordinary Albanians are sick of the violence that is being perpetrated on their behalf by the KLA.
  We met Bernard Kouchner and other UN personnel, as well as senior representatives from the Serb and Albanian communities. We were also briefed by the German general Klaus Reinhart, who has just replaced Mike Jackson. We visited Mitrovica, where there is almost daily confrontation between Albanians and Serbs. There is still a fairly large Serb population in the north of Mitrovica. The saddest sights were the small groups of Serbs and other minorities who were surrounded by tanks. They were prisoners, sometimes in monasteries. They were not allowed to go out for fear of their lives, so they could not lead a normal life. If they ever went out, they were subjected to abduction or killing. The situation is very sad.
  Mr. Dalyell: I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 August about Fergal Keane's description of the plight of the Kosovo Serbs. My right hon. Friend replied on 11 October:
  "When I visited Kosovo at the end of July I made a point of seeing the leaders of the Kosovo Serb community and reassuring them that the international community was opposed to ethnic intimidation and violence from whatever origin. I certainly did not 'tiptoe' around the issue as Mr. Keane suggests. In all my contacts with Kosovo Albanian and Kosovo Serb leaders I have left no doubt that nothing excuses ethnic cleansing and that there is no question of our tolerating such abuses."
  That is a clear statement from the Prime Minister.
  Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  About 70 churches and monasteries have been damaged since the KFOR occupation. We went to Decani—a famous 13th century orthodox monastery where about 40 monks still live. During the bombing, they took in Albanians and looked after them, protecting them at some risk to themselves. For their troubles, they cannot leave the compound and the KLA has put them at the top of their list of targets for destruction. That is a sad story.
  Since I came back, my Committee has issued a report. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right to say that Bernard Kouchner has said that he cannot put a soldier or policeman behind every Serb. He was pessimistic about the situation.
  We heard a lot about the Albanian border, which was left completely unprotected, and arms are still pouring in. Drug trafficking has started again, and the mafia is very active. International representatives, both military and civilian, have said that they expect the risk of terrorism motivated by ethnic and other reasons to increase in the months to come. It is not a good report to put to the North Atlantic Assembly, and it was a sad visit altogether.
  We have heard that there must be a democratic press in Yugoslavia before sanctions can be lifted. Yet the press in Kosovo—which is allowed to operate freely—recently

  63
  took a dangerous turn with an article condemning Veton Sorroi, a well-known moderate Albanian newspaper owner. The article called him a traitor to the Kosovo Albanian cause and warned that he is at risk of eventual and "very understandable" revenge. The article continued ominously that such "criminals" and "enslaved minds" should not have a place in a free Kosovo. That article created a storm, but the KLA—our allies, and those who would run Kosovo—defended the story, which was published widely in the region.
  I wish to refer to the steady stream of revelations coming from Kosovo about the numbers of the dead. Every death and every massacre is to be condemned, whoever has committed it and under whatever circumstances—there is no excuse. All power to the International War Crimes Tribunal if it can find the perpetrators of some of those horrendous massacres. However, I would like to see some more even-handedness, and the same energy and commitment being applied to those who are committing murders and massacres now. I still hope that that will happen.
  During the war, we were told by the Foreign Secretary and others why we needed to bomb Yugoslavia. We now find that the leader of the Spanish forensic team which has just returned from Kosovo has said
  "we did not find one—not one—mass grave."
  I do not know how people define mass graves—I have read of places where 100 bodies have been found. However, the area given to the Spanish team did not contain one such grave.
  The claims were extraordinary. I sat in this House when people referred to 150,000 Albanian men who were missing and who could be dead. The implication about their fate was made, and that did nothing to help reasoned debate. According to the Spaniard in charge, 187 bodies were found. He was told first to expect 44,000 bodies, and then 22,000. He was told that his team would be exhuming bodies until November, if not beyond. The figure of bodies was then reduced to 10,000, then to 2,000. Finally, they got down to the real figure, which was 187—many of whom had been killed by NATO bombing. Some had been shot, and some were prisoners in Istok prison, which had been bombed by NATO. He concluded:
  "A military action prejudices truth."
  We were told that the Trepca mines—this story came up again and again and is referred to in the document put in the Library by the Foreign Secretary—contained 700 bodies. We now find that war crimes investigators found nothing in the shaft of a Kosovo mine where hundreds of bodies were rumoured to be hidden. Nothing was found—not even animal bones. That rumour clouded opinion, and made people less concerned about the effects that the bombing was having on a civilian population—a population that had not declared war on NATO. It has been a terrible tragedy.
  My Government and NATO were wrong to bomb Yugoslavia, and history will prove that they were wrong. It has done nothing to help the situation in Kosovo. It has been a tragedy for the surrounding countries, such as Montenegro and Macedonia, which have been destabilised. The Danube has been blocked, and the countries will suffer as the blockage causes floods and continues to interrupt trade. There is also the tragedy of pollution.
  64
  Cluster bombs are now killing more people—those who have returned—than during the offensive. Children are having limbs blown off, and 14,500 of those bombs are still to be demined. What we have in Kosovo is a tragedy.
  Mr. Dalyell: It was reported under the byline of Robert Fisk in The Independent on 16 October that
  "Pekka Haavisto, chairman of the UN's Balkan environment task force, says NATO refused to co-operate with his team and that immediate action is necessary to obtain information from NATO confirming if, how and where, DU"—
  depleted uranium—
  "was used during the conflict.'"
  Did NATO refuse to co-operate with Haavisto and his team?
  My hon. Friend referred to pollution. Has the Department for International Development looked at the analysis of the environmental damage caused by the bombing of chemical and petrochemical industries in Pancevo and Novi Sad. Following a visit to Belgrade by the World Wide Fund for Nature from 27 July to 29 July, a full and detailed report was produced. I shall not read it out, but it is important that the Department looks at this matter—particularly at the chemical reactions at Pancevo.
  Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend knows that I saw the bombing of Pancevo. The soil was polluted, and some of the pollution has seeped into the waterways. That will be a problem for future generations. We must also get rid of the cluster bombs which, after all, are just land mines that are dropped from the sky. Their legacy remains for years afterwards.
  I am not certain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is the right Minister to be replying to this debate. I wish the Foreign Secretary had been here, as many of the things that we have referred to concern his Department. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I too will be watching the programme from Mr. Sweeney about the smiling killer. I am horrified when I see pictures and articles about Kosovo's numbers game. I think that there was such a game, and that it was sad. It clouded the truth, and we should all be against that.
  I have pictures and stories about children killed by NATO bombs, and they do not make for pretty reading—nor does the story of the column of 75 men, women and children who were killed while fleeing either bombing or ethnic cleansing.
  We should keep the matter in perspective. I wanted a peaceful solution, and we should have trebled the number of verifiers in Kosovo. The conflict could have been prevented but, for reasons best known to itself, NATO wanted to bomb. I am deeply of the opinion that that was the wrong decision, and history will prove me right.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I totally disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), as I did during the conflict. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax knows, before the recess I raised on a point of order the position of the Serbs in Kosovo and said that it would be appropriate to have a statement. I totally agree that the murder of the United Nations official,

  65
  undoubtedly for no other reason than that he answered a question in what appeared to be Serbian language, is to be absolutely deplored.
  More recently, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary asking what action is being taken to bring to justice not only those responsible for the murder of that Bulgarian UN employee, but others who are responsible for the murder of Serbs since the liberation of Kosovo. I have also tabled questions on the matter. Let us be perfectly clear: those of us who supported the war are anxious that the Serbs in Kosovo should be protected. Kosovo was not liberated in order to create a pure ethnic Albanian state. The international community has a responsibility to do everything possible to protect the interests of Serbians in Kosovo. That should be clearly stated from all of us on the Back Benches on both sides of the House, and put on the record.
  I disagree with the way in which my two hon. Friends condemn the military action. When the Foreign Secretary made a statement on 18 January about the mass murder of ethnic Albanians, two months before the military action started, I said that there would be no change in the situation until military action was taken and I urged air strikes. Naturally, I supported such action when it was taken. In all the circumstances, it was right for the international community to have taken such action.
  My two hon. Friends have spoken about the position of Serbs in Kosovo. No one has suggested that what is happening is organised or instigated by KFOR. It would be madness to advance such a view—if there is a criticism, it is that KFOR is not doing enough to protect the Serbs—but it is entirely clear, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has said, that before the liberation there was Serbian state-organised mass murder of ethnic Albanians. We could not turn away in those circumstances, saying that it was a faraway country and none of our business. Therefore, I cannot accept that the military action was not justified.
  I do not for one moment question the fact that innocent people died in the air strikes. No one could argue for military action without recognising that civilians will be killed in the process, however much one wishes otherwise. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow admitted that the military action minimised civilian casualties but the fact that anyone was killed is unfortunate, of course. That, however, is the price of going to war, as in the Falklands and in the Gulf. The question is whether we were justified in taking such action. I think that, in this case, we were.
  What is so depressing about what my two hon. Friends said is that, to a large extent, they advanced the view of the Milosevic clique. I do not believe that Serbians necessarily take the same view as my hon. Friends. A growing number of Serbians believe that crimes were committed in Kosovo and some, including representatives of the Orthodox Church, have admitted that paramilitaries, no doubt at the instigation of the Serbian leadership, engaged in ethnic cleansing. The crimes could not have been committed without the consent and approval of Belgrade.
  Some Serbs also rightly believe that what has happened in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, which was lost to the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was caused by the way in which Milosevic took the ultra-nationalist line
  66
  10 or 11 years ago. They believe that he is responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, the wars and all the innocent casualties about which we know.
  Mrs. Mahon: I recently visited Serbia twice and Kosovo once. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will confirm that we met opposition leaders—people who would not support Milosevic in a million years—and that every single one of them condemned the NATO aggression. Many Serbs admitted that crimes had been committed, but every single Serb and minority person—let us not forget that minorities have been ethnically cleansed, too—condemned NATO aggression. People did not agree with my hon. Friend that it was a good way forward.
  Mr. Winnick: I do not believe that it was NATO aggression. If those people admit that such crimes were committed—I am glad that they do—how do they think that that would have ended without the liberation of Kosovo, and how could that liberation have taken place without air strikes, unless ground troops were used, a move that would certainly have escalated the war?
  I understand Serbs at the receiving end of the air strikes taking one view, but the international community, of which we are very much a part, took another. The only way in which the mass murders—which the Serbs now accept as having taken place, although a few in this country refuse even now to accept it—could be stopped was by military intervention, and we decided on air strikes rather than all-out war.
  Mr. John Randall: The hon. Gentleman and I will probably have to differ about the merits of the air strikes. Does he agree that it is important for the Foreign Secretary to make a full statement soon about the situation in Kosovo and Serbia? Does he feel that it is right for sanctions to continue against all the people of Serbia, including those who are opposed to Milosevic, while Milosevic and his clique will probably be the last to be affected?
  Mr. Winnick: As I began by saying, in a point of order before the recess, I asked for a statement from the Foreign Secretary. We will have the opportunity to ask him questions tomorrow. With any luck, I may catch the Speaker's eye, as may the hon. Gentleman. I understand the view that Milosevic is not suffering and the ordinary Serbs are. How far sanctions can be relaxed without strengthening the regime must be the subject of on-going debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that we should not demonise the Serbs. I could not agree more. We have no quarrel with the Serbs. We will be delighted when Serbia is no longer under the rule of Milosevic and his clique. However, my hon. Friend is not necessarily the best person to have made that remark because, during the conflict, he quoted in the House some German intelligence report condemning all ethnic Albanians—not only those in the KLA—without qualification.
  If the remarks that my hon. Friend quoted had been made about blacks, Asians or Jews, what uproar there would have been in the House. What he said about ethnic

  67
  Albanians being criminals—condemning a whole people without qualification—means that he is not the best person to lecture us about not demonising the Serbs.
  Mr. Dalyell: I would not presume to lecture anybody on anything. On that occasion, I was quoting the exact words of the Bundeskriminalamt of the German police. It is they who used the words "ethnic Albanians". On reflection, I think that that was an unfortunate way of putting it, but the KLA, and a number of individuals, have been highly involved in the drugs trade, and what I said was an exact quotation from the German police.
  Mr. Winnick: So what does that mean? If there were a similar report from somewhere or other about blacks, Asians or Jews, or if some African or Asian country produced such a report about whites, would we take those on board and simply quote them? At least my hon. Friend says that, on reflection, he feels that he might have qualified his words. The remark that he made was disgraceful—even more so as the ethnic Albanians were being subjected to atrocities at the time. My hon. Friend considered it appropriate to stand up in a free Parliament in a democratic country and quote that report in order to condemn a whole people. He should consider not only reflecting on what he said but apologising for it.
  Mrs. Mahon: On the subject of drugs, NATO itself, through its parliamentary wing, said something that we shall take to our meeting in Amsterdam:
  "Kosovo was an important centre of drug…trafficking"
  linked to the KLA. It continued:
  "The war disrupted these flows. However, there are clear signs that mafias are reorganising, both linked to the organisation of the drug traffic in south-eastern Europe (more than to the physical traffic itself), and to the infiltration of weapons into the province through the Albanian border."
  That is making—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady must be brief in an intervention.
  Mrs. Mahon rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to make such a long intervention.
  Mr. Winnick: It is all the same sort of anti-ethnic Albanian propaganda, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I condemn it, as I condemn anti-Serbian propaganda. Such things could be said about the United States, Turkey and many other countries. To condemn a whole people because of drug trafficking and other criminal activities is disgraceful, and illustrates the point that I made when I intervened earlier.
  I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. What she said in reply to me was not very flattering but, be that as it may, we agree on 90 per cent. of domestic policies, and we shall probably agree again on Wednesday. None the less, she has allowed herself,
  68
  as has the body that describes itself as the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, to act as a mouthpiece for Milosevic to a large extent.
  Mr. Randall rose—
  Mr. Winnick: I had hoped to finish my speech soon, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him.
  We must bear in mind the necessity for helping people in Serbia, but I hope that we will also understand the background, and why the war that the international community undertook was entirely justified. I am proud of what we did, and in view of the horrors that were taking place in Kosovo, I would have been deeply ashamed if we had stood aside and said that what was happening was none of our business.
  6.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has, with his usual diligence and persistence, raised a timely and important issue, in which he has had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). In fairness, for the sake of balance on our Back Benches, I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is also present.
  I shall try to answer all the questions that have been asked; I cannot plead lack of time tonight. However, if I cannot answer them all, I undertake to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked and write to him or to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax.
  I assure both my hon. Friends that following the ending of the conflict, the whole international community—I emphasise the fact that this has happened in close partnership with the countries of the region—has moved forward quickly to address the need for reform and reconstruction in the Balkans. One of the most encouraging aspects of the events in Kosovo has been the affirmation by most countries in the region that they see their future as part of the democratic community of Europe. They are looking to a democratic, productive and prosperous future. Despite the fact that Milosevic is still there, he and all that he represents belong to the past—and that is where they should be consigned. Having worked together with our partners in the region so successfully to confront the forces of destruction—systematic murder and ethnic cleansing, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North—the international community is now rightly putting our collective energy into the process of reconstruction. The United Kingdom is playing its full part in that.
  It is because the subject of the debate is the reconstruction of Yugoslavia that I, rather than one of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, am responding to it. I shall say something about that process in relation to Yugoslavia; then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow requested, I shall also say a few words about it in relation to the region more generally. As he and others have said, there is a wider and more important context to the situation in Yugoslavia.
  In Kosovo the immediate task following the ending of the conflict was to provide immediate support, in particular to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who

  69
  flooded back to the province. Was it not a welcome sight when they spontaneously flooded back to their homeland? The difficult task of both addressing immediate needs and longer-term reconstruction has been entrusted by the international community to the United Nations mission in Kosovo.
  In all our discussions about reconstruction in Kosovo, we should bear in mind the fact that the people of the province and the international community are now addressing not only the impact of the conflict there this year, but the effects of many years of deliberate and systematic neglect of basic services by the Serbian authorities, particularly since 1992. I hope that my hon. Friends recognise that.
  Inevitably, the task of taking over responsibility for executive and legislative authority for a population of 2 million people, in the circumstances in which UNMIK was assigned that duty, has had its difficulties. However, we should be clear that, whatever the organisational difficulties have been, we can all be proud of the international commitment and solidarity expressed through the UNMIK operation.
  It has generally been recognised on both sides of the House and beyond that the United Kingdom has played a major role in the response to immediate humanitarian needs, as well as to preparation for longer-term reconstruction. We have committed £98 million for humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance since the beginning of the conflict in late March. We provided immediate and practical support to the establishment of the UNMIK organisation. I doubt whether it would have got off to such an effective start had it not been for that British support.
  We have taken particular care to assist with the re-establishment of the health system in Kosovo, including support for a primary health care programme designed to reach 800,000 people, and the overhaul and management of core services at the centrally important Pristina university hospital. I do not know whether my hon. Friends saw that when they visited the country, but I hope that they will agree that the work has been effective.
  We have also established an infrastructure engineering unit to try to ensure that essential repair work for water, sanitation and the power supply is carried out before the coming winter, which will soon be here. The unit is also involved in essential rehabilitation of public buildings. We are assisting with maintenance and repair at Pristina airport to enable it to remain open throughout the winter.
  Of course, the future of the province should and will be led by its own people. We have funded a wide range of micro-projects enabling local communities to implement their own priorities in the reconstruction of services and facilities. That has included repairs to schools and community centres, arrangements for waste disposal and the direct provision of tools and equipment. The assistance has been channelled in part through KFOR brigades, which have made an outstanding contribution to the restoration of security and the development of local communities.
  We have also helped to put in place some of the aspects of democratic society that were denied to the people of Kosovo by the Serbian authorities. For example, we have assisted with the development of independent media and the establishment of legal advice centres.
  70
  The European Union is also playing a major role in reconstruction, and we contribute significantly to that. It has so far pledged a total of 137 million euro in reconstruction aid in 1999, through the Obnova programme, in addition to 378 million euro of humanitarian aid. A reserve of up to 500 million euro for further reconstruction has been provided for in the EU budget.
  The next step for the international community in addressing the requirement for reconstruction is the meeting to discuss Kosovo's reconstruction requirements that will take place in Brussels on 17 November. That is a crucial meeting in relation to long-term reconstruction.
  Mr. Randall: When the Minister talks of reconstruction, does he regard Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia or as a separate entity, given the title of the debate?
  Mr. Foulkes: I said that I would deal first with reconstruction in Kosovo and then move on. I have much to say and we have lots of time. I have nowhere else to go, although I do not know about the hon. Gentleman.
  The assessment of need is being prepared jointly by the EU and the World Bank and that co-operation is vital. The meeting on 17 November will enable us to plan ahead in a co-ordinated way. We are also making arrangements to put in place our bilateral programme of support for reconstruction and development in Kosovo. Officials from my Department will be visiting Kosovo in early November for discussions on the possible content of a long-term programme of support. We shall assess the humanitarian assistance that we are presently giving, and maintaining it where necessary. Then we intend to manage a smooth transition from activities addressed to immediate needs to support for the process of transition to pluralist democracy and a prosperous market economy, as we are doing in other countries of the region where reformist policies are in place.
  No one has raised the issue of Montenegro, but I should mention that we are also watching closely developments there. We have a small programme of bilateral activities there at present, and we have committed £650,000 of bilateral, humanitarian relief to Montenegro. The EU has pledged 13 million euro of new economic support for Montenegro. Britain took the lead in getting agreement in the EU for exemption of Montenegro from the current oil embargo and flight ban on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  Mrs. Mahon: Is the money going into Montenegro and Macedonia a gift or a loan?
  Mr. Foulkes: All the money that I have mentioned is in the form of grants. My Department is principally involved in granting money to our partner countries. We also strongly welcome the participation of Montenegro as a guest of the chair in meetings of the stability pact. It has been enormously encouraging to see the active participation of colleagues from Montenegro in the meetings of the stability pact, and their evident wish to associate themselves with the community of democratic European nations.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that there would be "severe

  71
  consequences" if Serbia in any way tampers with Montenegrin autonomy. The west pretends to want to see former Yugoslavia held together, but not under the leadership of Milosevic. However, the west's every action, from economic sanctions to indictments for war crimes, entrenches Milosevic further. Are there any contingency plans being considered, even to the deploying of troops, to prevent Milosevic from entertaining any ideas of attacking Montenegro? I realise that that is a delicate matter.
  Mr. Foulkes: It may be delicate, but it is also an issue for which I do not have direct responsibility. That question might be more appropriately addressed to one of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I do not disagree with the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as quoted by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the Minister moves on to the issue of Serbia, can he tell us about the situation of the refugees who were displaced by the conflict into Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania? How many have been able to return to their homes and what assessment has been made of that situation, the need for reconstruction and the funds required?
  Mr. Foulkes: I will return to the question of refugees later, but if I do not touch specifically on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I shall write to him.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to try my hon. Friend's patience, but before he leaves the subject of Kosovo perhaps he can tell us whether it is true that the Irish Guards are the only people who do night patrol. If he cannot answer that question, perhaps he could find out and write to me.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is not trying my patience, because I have infinite patience and almost infinite time to deal with all these points. However, as he knows, I do not have direct responsibility for the Irish Guards, which is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. If he wishes to address that question to the Ministry, I am sure that he will get a sensible answer.
  The challenge of reconstruction is, of course, greatest in Serbia. The British Government, and the international community, are as strongly committed to the transition of Serbia and the prosperity of its people as we are to other countries of the region with which we are working so closely and productively. We have nothing against the people of Serbia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said, we have no vendetta against the people of Serbia, many of whom have suffered under the leadership of Milosevic as much as anyone. It is the misfortune of the people of Serbia to be governed by a corrupt and undemocratic regime led by an indicted war criminal.
  We are ready to give our support to the process of reform and reconstruction in Serbia as soon as there is a Government there who respect and implement the principles of democracy on which reform and reconstruction are based. As soon as Serbia is democratically governed and complies with its international obligations, it will immediately be able to
  72
  participate in the stability pact and to benefit from bilateral and multilateral support available from the international community. The help that the people of Serbia need is ready to be provided if those conditions are met, but that is in the hands of the people of Serbia.
  Mrs. Mahon: I raised earlier the double standard in the attitudes of the west, and the EU and the OSCE in particular, to Turkey, which has elected representatives in prison, an appalling human rights record and where up to 30,000 Kurds have been killed. What is my hon. Friend's response to the comparison of the attitudes to Turkey and Yugoslavia?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that it is helpful to make such comparisons. We could go around the world making comparisons, but we need to take each case on its merits. We need to make a judgment on the circumstances and all the information that we have. As my hon. Friend will know, I strongly opposed armed intervention in the Falklands, and that stance was not too popular at the time.
  Mr. Winnick: I supported intervention.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend made a different judgment in the case of the Falklands, and rightly.
  Several hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who is no longer in his place—raised the crucial issue of sanctions. The goal of the oil embargo, the flight bans and the visa regime is to promote democratic change in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, by as far as possible targeting Milosevic's regime.
  On sanctions, I emphasise that, although it is crucial to keep up pressure on Milosevic and his regime, our argument is not with the Serbian people. Our present judgment is that the sanctions in force will not cause a humanitarian crisis in Serbia, although we are monitoring the situation closely. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that we remain ready to provide targeted humanitarian assistance, should it be required.
  Forty thousand tonnes of oil have already been imported under the humanitarian exemptions provided in the terms of the western oil embargo. I say specifically to my hon. Friends that, if need be, further exemptions can be agreed within a week. Indeed, the oil embargo is incomplete. If Milosevic so chooses, he is free to purchase oil from Russia, Bulgaria and the Ukraine, so the opportunity to bring help to his people is in his own hands.
  Mr. David Heath: I am very interested in what the Minister is saying. Am I right in thinking that, as I heard a couple of weeks ago, it is the assessment of the United Nations Commission for Europe—a body in which I do not always have a great deal of confidence—that there is a need for a change in that sanctions regime, precisely to replace the generating capacity that was destroyed during the war and avoid difficulties of a humanitarian nature this winter?
  Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Balkans Task Force?
  Mr. Heath: No; the UN Commission for Europe.
  Mr. Foulkes: I believe that the same point was dealt with by that report. However, if the close monitoring that is

  73
  taking place shows that further exemptions are needed, they can be agreed rapidly—within a week. We shall take that into account. The reports that we receive—I am not immediately aware of the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions—certainly help us to make up our mind about that.
  On refugees in Serbia—a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—the precise figures are unknown. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has permission from the Serb authorities for a re-registration exercise to reassess the numbers. The current estimate is about 700,000. The UN office for co-ordinating humanitarian affairs, based in Belgrade, says that collective centres in Serbia are receiving energy supplies, including from non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross; and UNICEF, the Red Cross, the European Community Humanitarian Office and Focus—a Swiss, Russian and Czech agency—have support programmes focused on schools and hospitals. Natural gas imports into Serbia from Russia via Hungary are continuing. That assistance is available to help to meet the immediate humanitarian needs of people in Serbia.
  Audrey Wise: Would my hon. Friend care to quantify the help that he just mentioned?
  Mr. Foulkes: Not immediately, but I could reply in more detail to my hon. Friend in relation to that. I do not believe that she was in the Chamber when the question to which I am replying was asked, in an intervention. If I had been given greater notice, I would have tried to reply to that point in more detail, but I shall try to do so later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow expressed particular interest in the environmental impact of the Kosovo conflict, as he has done several times in the House. As he said, the joint United Nations Environment Programme-United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Balkans task force—under the chairmanship of Dr. Haavisto, an eminent Finn—was set up in May to investigate the impact of the conflict on the environment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and on human settlements. That task force looked in particular at the environmental consequences of air strikes for industrial sites; the impact of the conflict on the Danube; the impact on biodiversity; the consequences for human settlements and the environment; and the use of depleted uranium weapons.
  It is a testimony to our concern about the issue that that task force was set up and was given that remit. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that he was concerned that the conflict may have resulted in an environmental catastrophe. The BTF's key conclusions were that the Kosovo conflict had not caused an environmental catastrophe in the Balkans region, but that pollution at some sites was serious and did, indeed, pose a threat to human health.
  Environmental contamination as a result of the conflict was identified at four hot-spot sites. However, the BTF also said that part of the contamination identified at some sites was obviously due to poor environmental management pre-dating the Kosovo conflict; that, in particular, there was a long-term deficiency in the treatment and storage of hazardous waste; and that immediate attention to environmental issues was necessary, regardless of the cause. Concern about that pre-existing long-term deficiency had previously been expressed by some other states in the region.
  Mr. Dalyell: I quote Dr. Haavisto:
  "It is up to the international community to discuss and decide whether the rules of modern warfare are up to date when looking at all the risks to human health and to the environment".
  Do the Government in general accept Dr. Haavisto's request in that respect?
  Mr. Foulkes: Obviously, the environmental considerations must be taken into account, with a range of other things, but as I said, Dr. Haavisto's—and the task force's—principal conclusion was not that the conflict had caused an environmental catastrophe.
  Inevitably, especially where industrial sites are targeted in the course of conflicts, there is likely to be environmental impact. However, it is relevant to bear in mind the fact that, in all aspects of public administration and service delivery, Kosovo has suffered from extensive and deliberate neglect by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, especially since 1992. That point is made in the BTF report.
  There has also been particular concern about the possibility of pollution of the Danube, including contamination of drinking water and the ingestion of toxins by fish. The BTF concluded that there was no evidence of an ecological catastrophe for the Danube as a result of air strikes, although there were some serious hot spots where contamination by air strikes had occurred. That was against the background of long-term chronic pollution.
  Mr. Dalyell: I quote page 53 of the report by Professor Stephan and Dr. Strobel:
  "It is of urgent necessity to analyse sediments and bank filtrates in case they are to be used in the production of drinking water. As fishing is practised in the Danube and in the canals, the fish should regularly be checked for mercury and PCB content so that diseases (e. g. Minimata disease…) can be prevented."
  Is action being taken on that?
  Mr. Foulkes: We are certainly taking account of that; that is why Dr. Haavisto's task force was set up. However, I wish that my hon. Friend would also take account of the point that I was making when he was preparing to make that intervention—that many of the problems pre-date the conflict and are caused by poor environmental management before it.
  I shall also answer my hon. Friend's previous question, in relation to the blocking of the Danube as a result of the bombing of bridges during the conflict. On 11 October, the General Affairs Council of the European Union emphasised the EU's readiness to support the Danube Commission and the countries of the region in addressing that issue, given the importance of the Danube to regional economies. We know how important that river is. I have sailed down it myself; I know how crucial it is to regional economies. However, the Serbian authorities are refusing to clear the debris until the cost is paid by the NATO countries.
  Mr. Dalyell: Exactly.
  Mr. Foulkes: Let me finish. However, the true motives of the Serbian authorities are revealed by the fact that they have declined offers from Russia and from the city of Dortmund to help with bridge building and the clearance of the river. If they were genuinely concerned about the

  75
  immediate effects, including the effect of icing up, why have they not accepted the offers from Russia and from Dortmund to do that clearing up?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax raised the question of the Kosovo protection force. That force explicitly preserves 10 per cent. of its places for non-Albanian minorities. Not all of them have been taken up, but that allocation is fundamental to the concept of the force.
  The Kosovo protection force is not a military organisation. KFOR has reported that the KLA was successfully demilitarised. We should give some credit to positive steps of that kind.
  Mrs. Mahon: How does my hon. Friend explain the shootings and the continued ethnic cleansing? How does he explain the fact that the bishop and the priest to whom I referred earlier have pulled out? The Kosovo protection force is the KLA by another name.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend puts two and two together and makes five. She cannot attribute everything that she has described to the Kosovo protection force—unless she has some information to which we are not privy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised the matter of our obligations to Bulgaria and Romania. We are working closely with those countries. I visited Bulgaria recently and discussed our programme there, and I hope to visit Romania. We are producing strategies with both those countries, and copies are available in the Library. We have very good relationships with Bulgaria and Romania, and both are taking part in the stability pact meetings. It is important for all hon. Members to remember that, as I said earlier, those countries in the region supported the NATO operation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also asked about chemical factories. The task force looked into that matter, and concluded that, although there were no catastrophic effects as a result of the operation, there was evidence of a background of chronic problems owing to long-term environmental mismanagement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also raised the matter of the rebuilding of the motor industry. As I said earlier, we understand that need, but there can be no reconstruction activity until a democratic Government is in place. That democratic Government must comply with the international standards, including the ICTY in the Hague.
  Mr. Randall: Would the Minister consider the Government of Croatia to be democratic? Would sanctions be lifted if there were a Government in Serbia similar to the one in Croatia?
  Mr. Foulkes: It is important to stick to the topic in hand. Various hon. Members have tried to make a range of comparisons: following them up would have taken us all around the world. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that it is important to stick by our principles, and the principles that I have enunciated apply universally.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is easy to be optimistic about Pancevo, but the report on mercury that I quoted earlier states:
  "The bombings in Pancevo and the destruction of the PVC manufacturing plant also caused the release of mercury. Part of the mercury may have evaporated due to the heat, part of it may have
  76
  been transformed into mercury compounds through the simultaneous presence of heat and chlorine and through the combustion products of the rocket fuels, and may have migrated in the smoke cloud in the form of fumes. dust, or soot. Some of the mercury must also have been washed into the Pancevo canal by the water used for fire extinguishing. Mercury findings in the soil and the concentrations at lower levels confirm this.
  Mercury vapour and fog"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that: his intervention is far too long.
  Mr. Foulkes: With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, it seems to me that as soon as I answer systematically and point by point one of the matters that he has raised in his opening speech and in interventions, he raises something entirely new. Given that this Adjournment debate could go on until 10.30 pm, my hon. Friend could have spoken at much greater length in his initial presentation. I should then have had the opportunity to consider such matters carefully and to reply to them—just as I am trying to reply to the various points that have been raised. Again with respect, to intervene constantly with totally new points just because I have managed to answer an earlier question is not a proper way for my hon. Friend to conduct the debate.
  I now turn to another point, raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Walsall, North—the murder of the UN official. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that his information is absolutely correct. I join him, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, in deploring that murder. I strongly praise the work being done by the United Nations. I hope that we are agreed on that matter at least.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax raised the question of casualties incurred during the course of the NATO operation. I do not quarrel with what she said, but she should also bear in mind the fact that, in the year preceding the NATO operations, 2,000 Kosovans were killed, 400,000 were internally displaced and 90,000 were displaced outside Kosovo. In addition, a quarter of all EU asylum applications in 1998 were from Kosovo Albanians. Those figures come from the UNHCR; they testify to what was happening, and demonstrate why we had to take the action that we took.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax also asked about the report stating that Serbs had been attacked by Albanians. I can tell her that a column of Serbians was escorted by KFOR troops, and that a small group of Serbians was also tacked on behind. Somewhere, that smaller group took a wrong turn and ended up in a Kosovo Albanian village. They were set upon by the villagers, who thought that they were trying to return to Pec. The Serbs were eventually rescued by Italian troops—doing the job that they are there to do—and have now reached Montenegro. There were no casualties, and the main group under the KFOR escort also arrived safely.
  Mrs. Mahon: I am sure that we are all pleased about that outcome. In September, KFOR stated that nearly 400 Serbs and members of other minorities had been killed, and that 500 had been abducted and were still missing. Will my hon. Friend comment on those figures?
  Mr. Foulkes: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—that we deplore any

  77
  killing or torture of Serbs, or any attacks on them, just as we would deplore any killing, torture or attack suffered by Kosovans. Our attitude to such matters does not discriminate according to nationality.
  I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax and for Walsall, North, but I am sure that they will welcome the fact that there are now encouraging signs that the people of Serbia recognise the destructive nature of the current regime. For example, we welcome the meeting of Serbian mayors that took place on 7 October in Szeged in Hungary. That was a clear demonstration that democratic principles are alive in Serbia, despite the malevolent attitudes of the Milosevic government. Those principles need to be encouraged.
  The European Union's General Affairs Council, at its meeting on 11 October, made clear the position of the European Union concerning Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The council declared that, as soon as the Governments of Serbia and the FRY are under the political control of democratic forces and there is full co-operation with the international criminal tribunal of the former Yugoslavia, the EU and its member states will lift sanctions and launch an EU reconstruction programme. That is a positive incentive for all the people of Serbia.
  The meeting of those conditions would also enable the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to negotiate a stabilisation and association agreement with the EU, in line with the other western Balkan countries. The FRY would also be able to join the stability pact and negotiate the conditions necessary to join the Council of Europe. Britain is ready to play an active role, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in reconstruction and reform in Serbia and the FRY, as soon as political conditions in Serbia allow.
  In conclusion, I want to emphasise that our commitment, and that of the international community, to reconstruction is a commitment to the region as a whole. The European Union has announced its intention to negotiate stabilisation and association agreements to assist with the acceleration of economic growth in countries of the region. We want them to be democratic and prosperous. Negotiations are under way with some countries. The international community has also expressed its commitment to reform throughout the region through the creation of the stability pact, which was established by Heads of Government, including the Prime Minister, at Sarajevo on 30 July.
  The stability pact has moved on quickly. First meetings have been held of its three working tables on economic reconstruction, security, and democratisation and human rights. Each working table has agreed a programme of work to be carried out before its next meetings, early next year.
  The most encouraging aspect of the stability pact, and its essential strength, is that it is not a donor consortium but a partnership between the countries of the region and the international community. It is enormously encouraging to have seen the part that the countries of the region have played in stability pact discussions. Indeed, the next meetings of the working tables will be hosted by countries in the region—Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Hungary. The meetings of the stability pact have agreed and emphasised that participation is open to Serbia as soon as it meets the necessary conditions.
  The United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of the stability pact as a means of accelerating the path to pluralist democracy and flourishing market economies in
  78
  the region. We have, jointly with the United States, presented a compact for reform, investment, integrity and growth. The compact sets out the mix of conditions required in the countries of the region to promote investment and growth of the private sector as the basis for the creation of wealth and prosperity. We are now actively involved in developing a plan of action to take forward the compact and to assist the countries of the region in implementing it.
  We have also taken the lead of a task group established to consider the promotion of the principles of free and independent media throughout the region. Discussion is taking place on draft principles prepared by Britain.
  I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow secured this debate. It is, of course, his right to pursue this again and again, diligently and persistently. This is a democratic country—I wonder whether he would have the same kind of freedoms in Serbia.
  I went to Poland last week and visited the concentration camps around Lublin. Some people would now have us believe that no genocide took place there either. I saw the evidence of genocide. Similarly, we know of the evidence of genocide in Kosovo.
  It always surprises me that some of my hon. Friends believe the propaganda of the dictator Milosevic rather than believing me and my ministerial colleagues. Milosevic is the villain of the piece. He has systematically attacked the people of Kosovo and is responsible for the continuing suffering of his own people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development earlier in the debate. My right hon. Friend and I have worked for years—and will continue to do so—to help the poorest of the world's poor. We would not unnecessarily do anything to hurt the poor people of Serbia. That is why I hope that the points that I have made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will strike a resonance on both sides of the House.
  7.26 pm
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the sitting until a Message was received from the Lords relating to the Greater London Authority Bill, pursuant to Order [29 October.]
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  A Message was brought from the Lords, as follows:
  The Lords have agreed to the Greater London Authority Bill, with amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
  Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill to be considered tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 158].

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to a letter dated 12 October 1999 from Dr. S. L. McKee of Devisdale Road, Bowdon, regarding his decision to appoint the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. [95333]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office did so on Friday 22 October 1999.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 27, concerning his meeting with KLA officials on 18 May, who were the officials referred to in his answer. [95419]

  The Prime Minister
  At the meeting, which was held in Tirana, Albania, I was accompanied by my Foreign Affairs Private Secretary, a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official and an interpreter.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many bodies of victims of war crimes, by nationality, have been uncovered in Kosovo. [95545]

  The Prime Minister
  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which is responsible for investigating alleged war crimes in Kosovo, is collating the results of forensic work undertaken over the last four months. UK forensic teams have made a major contribution to this work. Within the next few weeks, ICTY should be able to confirm the number of bodies of victims which have been uncovered. Our estimate is that at least 10,000 civilians were killed between June 1998 and June 1999. Most of the victims have been Kosovar Albanians although the bodies of some Serbs have also been recovered.

  British Business Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 26, what criteria are used to assess the effectiveness of the work of the Ambassadors for British Business, initiative. [95785]

  The Prime Minister
  The Ambassadors for British Business Initiative is a voluntary scheme in which participating business leaders make time when overseas on company business to promote the UK's wider commercial interests. The main criterion used to assess the effectiveness of the Ambassadors for British Business initiative is feedback from the Heads of our overseas 2
  posts. This has shown that the Ambassadors for Business are achieving their objectives of promoting and raising the profile of British Business

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those areas(a) the EU Presidency, (b) the Commission and (c) the Government have expressed a willingness to discuss at the forthcoming Inter governmental Conference. [95543]

  The Prime Minister
  Neither the Presidency nor the Commission has yet formally stated its position on the IGC. The Presidency is currently preparing a report that it will present to the Helsinki European Council in December. The Dehaene Report, published on 18 October, was commissioned to feed ideas into the Commission before the next IGC. The Commission will now consider the report and submit its formal opinion in due course.

  The Government, along with the other member states outlined their position at the European Council in Cologne. This called for an IGC dealing primarily with the institutional issues not resolved at Amsterdam (Commission size, vote reweighting, possible extension of QMV). The Government will issue a White Paper before the IGC begins next year.

  Ministers
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total number of Government Ministers on 1 January for each year since 1979. [96190]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is given in the table for January each year.

  Date

  Number of ministers

  22 January 1979

  109

  21 January 1980

  106

  19 January 1981

  106

  18 January 1982

  107

  17 January 1983

  107

  16 January 1984

  102

  14 January 1985

  106

  20 January 1986

  106

  12 January 1987

  107

  11 January 1988

  105

  16 January 1989

  106

  15 January 1990

  106

  21 January 1991

  108

  20 January 1992

  108

  18 January 1993

  108

  11 January 1994

  107

  10 January 1995

  109

  10 January 1996

  109

  9 January 1997

  109

  13 January 1997

  109

  12 January 1998

  113

  11 January 1999

  115

  27 October 1999

  109

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from pensioners on the subject of the April 2000 pensions uprating since the publication of the RPI for the year to September 1999. [96191]
  3
  The Prime Minister
  Since 12 October, my Office have received approximately 800 letters about the uprating of pensions.

  European Charter of Rights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what statements he has made concerning the decisions made at the European Councils, at Cologne, and at Tampere relating to the establishment of a body to draw up the text of a draft European charter of human rights; and what action is now planned by Her Majesty's Government to implement that decision. [96500]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 28 June 1999,Official Report, column 20, following the decisions of the Cologne European Council.

  The then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and the Chairman of the European Communities Committee in the Other Place (Lord Tordoff) on 7 October enclosing the Presidency's proposals for the practical arrangements governing the Charter drafting body. These were finalised and agreed by Heads of Government at Tampere, and are annexed to the Tampere conclusions, copies of which were deposited in the Libraries on 19 October. The first meeting of the drafting body is scheduled for 17 December. I will be nominating a representative shortly.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the means by which hon. Members will be selected to serve on the drafting body of the working group to establish a European Charter of Rights. [96584]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to Madam Speaker and to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on 19 October inviting them to nominate two hon. Members and two alternates.

  Government Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the targets to be met by central Government(a) set and (b) announced by him since May 1997, indicating in each case (i) the target to be met and (ii) the date by which it is to be met. [95820]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The extra investment that the Government have made, particularly in our key priority areas of health and education, is conditional on achieving higher standards, improved productivity and the modernisation of all our public services. Public Service Agreements set out what departments will deliver by when in return for these additional resources.

  Central government itself does not have specific targets beyond those which are the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. The full list of the Government's manifesto commitments, together with a summary of progress to date on each of them, is contained in the Government's Annual Report (Cm 4401).

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Chinese President Jiang Zemin about the political future of Tibet during the State Visit this week. [94928]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I discussed Tibet with President Jiang Zemin at Downing Street on 21 October both during our bilateral talks, and at the lunch which followed. It is the Government's firm view that Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs in Tibet. The best way to achieve this is through dialogue between the Chinese and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama. We take every opportunity to encourage both sides to enter into such dialogue.

  In his discussion with the Chinese Foreign Minister on 20 October 1999, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary again urged the Chinese to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama on the future of Tibet. The Chinese replied that the door for dialogue was open provided the Dalai Lama discarded his proposals for independence and recognised one China, including Taiwan as a province.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications his office had with (i) other Government departments and (ii) police forces, pertaining to the treatment of demonstrators during the state visit by the President of China. [96580]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations were made by his office to(a) the Metropolitan Police, (b) the Royal Parks Police and (c) Cambridgeshire Police about the policing of the state visit of the President of China. [96491]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: None.

  Tampere Presidency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional co-operation, under paragraph 11 of the Tampere Presidency Conclusions, is intended with respect to(a) combating poverty, (b) preventing conflicts and (c) ensuring rights for women and children; what Treaty base will apply; what budget sums will be involved; and what budget line will be their source. [96576]

  The Prime Minister
  These issues are covered under paragraph 11 in Section AI of the Tampere Presidency Conclusions. The intention is that these issues should be pursued as part of the future work of the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration, whose mandate was extended by the Special European Council at Tampere.

  Appropriate Treaty bases and budgetary issues will be considered as implementation of the Action Plans progresses.

  It is unlikely that implementation could be undertaken within existing resources and the UK will give careful consideration to the financial implications of any specific measures which emerge.

  Secretary for Appointments
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when the name of his new Secretary for Appointments will be announced; what process was used to recruit and select the new secretary; who is the head of the department to which the secretary is responsible; and what is his job specification. [966581

  The Prime Minister
  The name of my new Secretary for Appointments was announced on 11 October. He is William Chapman, a career civil servant on secondment from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The selection process, including an interdepartmental trawl, was based on normal Civil Service appointment practices. My Principal Private Secretary has line management responsibility for this post. The Secretary for Appointments advises me on a wide range of Crown Appointments and on a number of appointments which I make in my own right; he also offers advice on related policy matters and undertakes duties in relation to the honours system. The Appointments Secretary also acts as Ecclesiastical Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, with overall responsibility for advising on the appointments to certain cathedral canonries and parishes.

  European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what opinion research the Government have commissioned on attitudes to(a) Economic and Monetary Union and (b) the European Union, indicating the polling organisations used in each case. [96844]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government commissioned a survey on attitudes to Europe, which included questions on EMU, in November 1997. The contract was won by GGC/NOP following a tender process. A copy of the results was placed in the Libraries of the House in April 1998.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the pending Government contracts with French firms. [96843]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under section 7(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information whose disclosure would prejudice commercial or contractural activities.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Regional Chambers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to hold referendums on the introduction of elected regional government in England. [95978]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have made clear that, in time, we will allow the people to decide whether they want directly elected regional government in England, but we have not yet set a timetable for holding referendums.
  6
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the set-up costs to date of the regional chambers; and from what sources they have been met. [95977]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The set-up costs of the voluntary regional chambers are a matter for their members. The Government have provided some support in-kind. In the East Midlands, a member of the Government Office staff was seconded to assist with start up arrangements and in the South East the Government Office has provided office space to the chamber.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many regional chambers have been recognised as such under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. [95979]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have designated regional chambers under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 in all eight English regions outside London (where separate arrangements will apply).

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, by English region (i) the number of full-time equivalent staff employed and (ii) the annual budget for the current year and next year, for each(a) Government office, (b) regional development agency, (c) regional chamber, as designated under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and (d) local government-based regional body which is not a Government office, regional development agency or designated regional chamber. [96006]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: (a) Full-time equivalent staff in each Government Office, as at 1 October 1999, along with the running costs budgets (in £000s) for the current financial year, are in the table. The budgets have not yet been agreed for next year. The Government Offices' Central Unit's budget is included as some funds are held centrally.

  Government office

  Staff

  Running costs for 1999–2000

  GO-NE

  227

  8,219.57

  GO-NW

  348

  12,753.60

  GO-YH

  230

  8,632.55

  GO-WM

  219

  9,110.85

  GO-EM

  203

  6,855.04

  GO-E

  156

  6,662.32

  GO-SE

  281

  8,425.80

  GO-SW

  198

  7,611.84

  GO-L

  336

  13,665.43

  Sub total

  2,198

  81,937.00

  GO-CU

  25

  3,756.58

  Total

  2,223

  85,693.58

  (b) Full-time equivalent staff in the Regional Development Agencies, as at 1 April 1999 (the most recent figures available) and administration budgets for this year and next (in £000s) are as follows:

  Regional Development Agency

  Staff

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  One North East

  203

  9,771

  9,493

  North West

  1821

  12,131

  11,933

  Yorkshire Forward

  174.5

  8,036

  7,852

  7

  Regional Development Agency

  Staff

  1999–2000–

  2000–2001

  Advantage West Midlands

  118.5

  7,678

  7,509

  East Midlands

  107

  7,155

  6,988

  East of England

  38

  4,803

  4,649

  South East

  60

  5,225

  5,051

  South West

  143

  7,488

  7,322

  Total

  1,026

  62,287

  60,797

  1 Total staff, not full-time equivalents. No separate figure for part-time staff available.

  (c) The budgets and staffing of the voluntary regional chambers are a matter for their members. Details are not held centrally.

  (d) I have placed in the Library details provided by the English Regional Associations of the resources deployed by the constituent authorities of the regional planning bodies. The budgets and staffing of local government-based regional bodies are a matter for the members of such bodies.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are currently employed by One North East; and what have been its administration costs since its establishment. [96733]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The number of staff currently employed by One North East is 238 which in the main reflects the number employed by the partner organisations from which it was formed. For 1999–2000, the net indicative allocation for administration costs is £9,711,000 which will be fully utilised.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Urban White Paper will be published at the same time as the Rural White Paper. [95981]

  Mr. Prescott
  There are important links to be drawn between the Urban and Rural White Papers, and work on the two White papers is proceeding in tandem. No decision has yet been taken on the timing of publication.

  New Houses (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses he estimates will need to be built in Oxfordshire by 2016. [96561]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Requirements for future house building in Oxfordshire are currently under review as part of the preparation of Regional Planning Guidance for the South East. This guidance will set out housing requirements by county, including Oxfordshire, for the years 1996 to 2016. An independent Panel examined draft proposals prepared by local authorities at a Public Examination over the summer. The report setting out the conclusions of this panel has recently been received by the Secretary of State who will examine its recommendations very closely. It is anticipated that a draft 8
  version of regional planning guidance following on from this exercise will be published early in the new year, and a period of consultation on the proposals will allow interested parties to respond before full guidance is issued by the Secretary of State later in the year.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how often the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development met in 1999. [96556]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My understanding is that the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development will have met six times in plenary session during 1999.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to publish new indicators on sustainable development. [96558]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We plan to publish within the next couple of months a report giving details and analysis of around 150 indicators of sustainable development, which underpin the Strategy "A better quality of life", published in May 1999.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how often the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development met in 1999. [96557]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My understanding is that the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development will have met six times during 1999.

  Brown-field Sites
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local authorities relating to the use of brown-field sites for housebuilding in areas where there is a lack of such sites; and if his target of two thirds use of brown-field sites for new housebuilding is measured by county. [96043]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: Our draft revision of Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing provides guidance on how to accommodate housing needs in all types of areas. It is for authorities to develop their strategies in the light of that guidance. The final version of PPG3 should be published very shortly.

  The Government's national target is that 60 per cent. of new housing, including conversions, should be developed on previously-developed land. Local planning authorities are required to set their own recycling targets, consistent with national and regional targets.

  Travellers
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if powers are currently available to local authorities to enable them to
  9
  prevent repeated incursions on a particular piece of land by the same group of travellers without having to go back to the courts on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [96711]

  Mr. Mullin
  Section 77(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 makes it a criminal offence for a person who has been directed by a local authority to leave land where he is camped without permission, and to return to the same land with a vehicle within three months of the date of the direction. Persons committing an offence under section 77 are liable to a maximum fine of £1.000.

  In proceedings for an offence under this section, it is a defence for the accused to show that his re-entry to the land with a vehicle was due to illness, mechanical breakdown, or other emergency.

  We have no plans to remove the requirement in the 1994 Act for local authorities to obtain a court order before eviction can take place.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94984]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its PSA, and the measures of success it will use in the Output and Performance Analysis (OPA) published in March this year. A full list of the targets and target dates for Agencies and Executive NDPBs can be found annually in the Next Steps and Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies report.

  High-level targets not covered by the PSA include:

  Target

  Target date

  Reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide by 80 per cent. against 1980 baselines

  2010

  Reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 30 per cent. against 1988 baselines

  1999

  Achieving air quality objectives in the UK National Air Quality Strategy

  2005

  Reduce road traffic casualties by a third of the average for 1981–85

  2000

  Improve energy efficiency on the Government estate by 20 per cent.

  31 March 2000

  These high-level targets are supported at operational level by numerous targets to ensure delivery by individual units.

  Rural Rail Services
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the provision of rural rail services; and if he will make a statement. [96601]
  10
  Mr. Hill
  Where services are heavily dependent on subsidy, as in rural areas, Passenger Service Requirements reflect closely the level of services operated by British Rail at the time of franchising. We have made available an additional £100 million over the next three years for a new Rail Passenger Partnership scheme aimed specifically at providing support for locally sponsored services that are not commercially viable. This is being administered by the Franchising Director.

  Disability Grants
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what grants are available to disabled people to enable them to fit aids in their homes; what is the maximum total value to an individual of those grants; if they vary in value depending on the type of house; and if he will make a statement. [96695]

  Mr. Mullin
  Disabled facilities grants, which are administered by local housing authorities, are available to disabled people to help them carry out essential adaptations to their homes. Mandatory grants, which are subject to a test of resources, are available up to a maximum of £20,000 per application, but authorities have powers to give additional grant above that level. The value of each grant depends on the cost of the works required and on the resources that the applicant is assessed to have, and is not affected by the type of house occupied by the applicant. Local housing authorities also have powers to give home repair assistance, which is not means-tested, for minor works up to a maximum of £2,000

  Wildlife
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation relating to wildlife; and if he will make a statement. [96698]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government are committed to introducing legislation to improve the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We will take action as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Planning Guidance
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the comprehensive list of current planning guidance issued by his Department announced in the Modernising Planning Progress report. [96929]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today published a list of current planning policy guidance on the Department's website at http://www.databases.detr.gov.uk/planning/npp/. This list, which is the first of its kind, will be a useful tool for local authorities, planners, developers, academics and the general public.

  Besides listing the guidance contained in Departmental Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Minerals Policy Guidance Notes and Regional Planning Guidance Notes, the list will also include key statements to Parliament, a list of research reports and best practice

  11
  advice published by the Department. We shall update the list as and when new guidance is issued or existing guidance is modified. In the meantime, we are working to make as many of the documents as possible directly accessible by hypertext link from the list.

  This initiative is a practical demonstration of the government's policy to increase substantially the volume of business transacted by electronic means.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date he will publish Design in the Planning System. [96598]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Good Practice Guide on Design in the Planning System will be an important contribution to our commitment to achieving urban renaissance. It must therefore be right. We therefore intend to publish it once we are satisfied that it is capable of meeting our requirements.

  Housing Subsidy (West Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on West Oxfordshire District Council's revenue and capital spending of his changes to the negative housing subsidy regime. [96599]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department will be consulting later this Autumn on the detail of the proposals for changes in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) subsidy regime. Consideration of the outcome of that exercise will be required before any decisions are taken. It is too early to say what the impact of any changes will be. The implications for any authority will depend upon both the results of the consultation exercise and conditions pertaining nearer the time that any changes are made.

  Local Government
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what plans he has for changes to the structure of local government in England. [96689]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans at present to reform the structure of local government in England. Our programme of reform for local government is about how councils work and how they can be more in touch with the people whom they serve. This will also give the stability that local government needs in order to deliver an efficient and effective service.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Restraining Orders
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what requirement there is for all parties to be(a) informed and (b) represented before a restraining order can be agreed to by the courts; and if he will make a statement. [96699]

  Jane Kennedy
  Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a court sentencing or otherwise dealing with a12
  person convicted of an offence under section 2 or 4 of the Act may make a restraining order under section 5 of the Act to protect the victim of the offence (or any other person mentioned in the order) from further harassment. The defendant would be present at the time of sentence and would be entitled to be represented. The parties in a criminal trial are the prosecution and the defendant. There is no specific requirement for the court to inform the victim or any other person mentioned in the order, or for those persons to be represented at court, before the order is made. In the civil courts, an application for an injunction, the equivalent of a restraining order, would be served on the defendant before the hearing. There is no specific requirement for the defendant to be represented.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all performance targets set for the Lord Chancellor's Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94982]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its PSA, and the measures of success it will use in the Output and Performance Analyses (OPA) published in March this year. The Lord Chancellor's Department Departmental Reports 1998–99 and 1999–2000 include targets and achievement for the Public Records Office, Her Majesty's Land Registry, and the Northern Ireland Court Service. The targets and target dates for the Court Service Agency and the Public Trust Office can be found annually in the Next Steps Report, and for the Legal Aid Board in the annual Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies Report.

DEFENCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94853]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  UK BVRAAM Competition
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected date on which the Equipment Approval Committee will make its final recommendation for the UK BVRAAM competition. [95347]
  13
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to reach a decision on the outcome of the competition in the new year.

  Fleet Management
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimates he has made of the savings in each of the next five years through the RAF private finance initiative for the non-combat vehicle fleet management project; [95755]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the economies of scale which could result from a tri-services private finance initiative for non-combat vehicle fleet management; and if he will make a statement. [95795]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  A five year PFI contract for the RAF non-combat vehicle fleet was placed in 1996. It is expected to deliver total savings of almost £6 million in Net Present Value terms against conventional procurement methods. Five further non-combat vehicle PFI projects, covering national tri-Service requirements on a regional basis, are under way. It is not possible at this stage to quantify the savings which are expected from the five tri-Service contracts and the re-let of the RAF contract.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tayside North of 19 February 1998,Official Report, columns 842–43, on departmental employees, if he will provide figures for research contracts by region for the most recent financial year. [95366]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The information requested is not available in precisely the form requested. The number and total value of extant research contracts in Financial Year 1998–99 in the following locations is as listed:

  Location

  Number of contracts

  Value of contracts (£)

  (a) London

  82

  11,695,303

  (b) the rest of the South East of England

  250

  274,714,231

  (c) England (including (a) and (b)

  908

  393,879,546

  (d) Scotland

  21

  1,692,493

  (e) Wales

  1

  26,019

  (f) Northern Ireland

  0

  —

  The information cannot be provided by the Regions requested as such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's police are next due for inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. [96542]

  Mr. Spellar
  The next inspection of the MOD Police by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is due in the year 2001.

  Health and Safety (Young Persons) Regulations 1997
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to ensure that his Department complies with S.I. 1997 No. 135, the Health and Safety (Young Persons) Regulations 1997. [96464]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  S.I. 1997 No. 135, the Health and Safety (Young Persons) Regulations 1997 have been implemented as MOD policy. The instruction was incorporated into the MOD Health and Safety Handbook, Joint Service Publication 375 Volume 2 Chapter 10 in April 1997. A copy of the Joint Service Publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Homosexuals
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the possible cost to his Department of retrospective claims for compensation following the ECHR ruling in the cases of Mr. Prean, Mr. Beckett, Miss Smith and Mr. Grady regarding discrimination in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [96889]

  Mr. Spellar
  In light of the ECHR's judgment on 27 September 1999, the Secretary of State for Defence has authorised that settlement negotiations be entered into with those individuals discharged as a result of their homosexuality who have submitted Employment Tribunal applications.

  As these negotiations are currently underway, I am withholding disclosure of my Department's financial provision for settling these claims under Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Effective Management and Operations of the Public Service) as this information could compromise the negotiations and delay settlement.

  Army Establishment
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the net inflow/outflow figures for the Army for each month since January 1998 to date. [96121]

  Mr. Spellar
  A breakdown of UK Trained Army Personnel inflow and outflow, in the period January 1998 to September/August 1999 (the latest date for which information is presently available), is detailed in the table:

  Month

  Outflow1

  inflow2

  Net flow

  1998

  January

  -1,265

  974

  -291

  February

  -966

  804

  -162

  March

  -899

  1,000

  101

  April

  -932

  867

  -65

  May

  -947

  673

  -274

  June

  -921

  841

  -80

  July

  -936

  892

  -44

  August

  -961

  1,042

  81

  September

  -1,133

  901

  -232

  October

  -985

  872

  -113

  November

  -804

  901

  97

  December

  -795

  593

  -202

  Sub Total

  -11,544

  10,360

  -1,184

  15

  Month

  Outflow1

  Inflow2

  Net flow

  1999

  January

  -1,124

  999

  -125

  February

  -833

  798

  -35

  March

  -909

  749

  -160

  April

  1,053

  970

  -83

  May

  -908

  1,010

  102

  June

  -932

  854

  -78

  July

  -801

  794

  -7

  August

  -822

  969

  147

  September

  -962

  1,024

  62

  Sub Total

  -8344

  8,167

  -177

  1 Outflow of UK Trained Army Personnel, includes natural wastage and voluntary wastage.

  2 Inflow to trained strength from basic training of Regular Army Personnel.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Army recruitment and retention. [96065]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government inherited a shortfall on Army manning and are committed to achieving full manning by around 2005. We recognise fully that improved recruiting and retention will be key to realising this goal.

  In 1998–99, the Army recruited some 610 officers and 15,609 soldiers, which represents 98 per cent. of the overall recruiting target for the year. It was the best recruiting year for the Army since the beginning of the decade and there are encouraging signs that the momentum is being maintained this year. A broad range of national and regional recruiting initiatives are in hand to encourage young people to view the Army as a career of first choice.

  The rate at which we lose our people has been too high for too many years, and it is one of this Government's highest priorities to rectify the situation. There has been some improvement in retention in the Army in the last two years, but achieving further improvements remains a challenge. The Army has in hand a series of initiatives as part of its Human Resources Strategy. This includes a six month strategic review being undertaken by external consultants to examine the effectiveness of present Army retention policies, which includes field research and making recommendations for improvements, the results of which will inform the Army's personnel management policies. Other measures to improve retention, which have been welcomed by Army personnel, include an improved operational welfare package, life long learning, and the efforts of the Service Families Task Force.

  Depleted Uranium (Iraq)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the amount of uranium dust released in Iraq during the Gulf War from depleted uranium rounds; and what action he proposed to take to manage the risk to public health. [96667]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is assessed that over 860,000 depleted uranium-based ammunition rounds, of varying calibre, were used by Coalition Forces during the Gulf conflict.
  16
  Evaluation of the environmental effects of depleted uranium is ongoing.

  As part of this work, we would, of course, consider any reliable medical or scientific data which may emerge from any source of risk to public health posed by depleted uranium.

  Army Retention Study
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list and summarize the specific areas of research being undertaken as part of the Army's Retention Study. [96837]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army Retention Study, which is being undertaken under contract by the Hay Management Group, will draw on and initiate structured quantitative and qualitative market research into retention in the Army. In addition to analysis of existing research and retention initiatives, a programme of field research will be conducted to establish a cross section of views from all ranks, and their families, to determine why people leave the Service and to identify trends. Further consultation will take place with Unit Retention Officers, Policy Staffs, and individuals who have recently joined and left the Army, among others. The Study will consider the extent to which current retention policies and initiatives are effective, and identify areas where they can be improved.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the remit of the Army's Retention Study currently being undertaken by the Hay Management Group. [96834]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 705.

  Service Families Task Force
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the (i) particular responsibilities, (ii) manner of operation and (iii) decision-making processes of the Ministerial Group, Families Forum and Working Group that make up the Service Families Task Force. [96836]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Families Forum enables the three Service families associations to raise issues of concern to me and, in turn, allows me to inform them of the progress the Task Force is making. The Ministerial Group identifies the desired outcome to these issues and directs the Working Group of officials to progress them.

  Forensic Experts
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many forensic teams are investigating(a) war graves and (b) sites of war crimes; and which countries they represent. [96097]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  Thirteen states have provided investigative teams including forensic experts to assist the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Kosovo, although forensic investigations have now been scaled down with the onset of winter. They are: the UK, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. The UK was the first

  17
  to send such a team. ICTY also has its own team of investigators including forensic experts working in Bosnia.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what organisation is responsible for reporting on numbers of bodies found in graves in Kosovo and on evidence of war crimes committed; when it will report and to whom. [96098]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no one organisation responsible for reporting on atrocities in Kosovo. However, the UN Commission for Human Rights has asked the UN High Commissioner to report on atrocities. She has produced two reports in May and September of this year.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bodies were exhumed from the Trepca mine in Kosovo; and what forensic evidence was found that could prove claims that the Trepca mine had been a mass grave. [96096]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has conducted extensive investigations at Trepca mine. No bodies have been found there to date. There is no forensic evidence to date to confirm that it was a mass grave site.

  Ascension Island
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts he has made to attract civilian airlines to use Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island; and if he will make a statement. [96035]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Civil aircraft may use Wideawake Airfield only with the agreement of both the UK and US authorities.

  In December 1998, the UK passed to the United States authorities for consideration, a draft treaty to allow certain types of civil flights into Ascension.

  During the visit of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the United States on 4-5 October 1999, the United States Government agreed in principle that the airfield should be opened to certain types of civil flights on a limited basis.

  We are encouraging the United States authorities to complete their internal discussions and to secure a mandate for formal negotiations to begin. British Embassy officials in Washington will soon meet State Department officials to take this issue forward.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Archaeology (Funding)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy 18
  towards funding of archaeology; what (a) national and (b) EC grants are available; and if he will make a statement. [95299]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Funding for archaeological projects is provided through English Heritage's (EH) archaeology budget (£9.7 million for 1999–2000), of which £4.975 million is provided in grants to outside bodies; archaeology will also feature in other EH funded projects. Developers' contribution to archaeological costs is estimated at £30 million per annum. Although the Local Government Finance Settlement is the best one for seven years, the provision of conservation services in local authorities is kept under review, and, where necessary, EH will continue to fund a number of archaeological posts (costing £150,000 in 1999–2000). Financial assistance has been available from the EU's Raphael fund, which is due to be replaced by the Culture 2000 Framework Programme, under which archaeological projects will be eligible; projects may also qualify for funding under a range of other EU programmes.

  HMG is also funding a two-year project of pilot schemes in six areas of England for the voluntary recording of all archaeological finds, which started in September 1997. The Heritage Lottery Fund is funding a further six pilot schemes from early 1999, extending coverage to more than half the country. An Annual Report and website were launched on 24 March.

  Television News
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will instruct the ITC to obtain from ITV the latest figures showing(a) the change in the numbers watching news on Channel 3 since the abolition of News at Ten and (b) the change in the viewing numbers for the 10 to 10.30 p.m. weekday slot on Channel 3 since the abolition of News at Ten. [95751]

  Janet Anderson
  The Independent Television Commission is monitoring the performance of ITV following changes to its news provision. ITV began their new evening schedule on 8 March, replacing the bulletin at 5.40-6.00 and News at Ten with a half hour news bulletin from 6.30-7.00 and an update from 11.00-11.15. For the four weeks beginning 14 September, the latest figures available to the ITC, the average audiences who were watching news on Channel 3 and the figures for the equivalent weeks in 1999 are as follows:

  Million

  1998

  5.40-6.00

  4.1

  10.00-10.30

  5.6

  Total

  9.7

  1999

  6.30-7.00

  5.5

  11.00-11.15

  3.5

  Total

  9.0

  During this period in 1998, 5.6 million were watching Channel 3 in the 10.00 to 10.30 pm slot and during the same period in 1999, since the rescheduling of News at Ten, this has changed to 6.8 million.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what was the change in the total number of jobs in tourism-related industries in the year to December 1998 in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; [95435]

  (2) what was the change in the total number of jobs in tourism-related industries in the year to December 1998 in (a) London and (b) the north-west of England. [95926]

  Janet Anderson
  The changes in the number of self-employment and employee jobs in the tourism related industries in the year to December 1998 in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) London and (f) north-west England are shown in the table.

  Region

  December 1997

  December 1998

  Change over the year (%)

  England

  1,510,000

  1,481,000

  -2

  Scotland

  170,000

  171,000

  +0.06

  Wales

  79,000

  82,000

  +4

  Northern Ireland

  43,000

  44,000

  +2

  London

  276,000

  275,000

  -0.4

  North West

  186,000

  183,000

  -2

  Source:

  GB: Employee jobs from Annual Employment Survey and Short Term Employment Survey and self employment jobs from Labour Force Survey (ONS)

  NI: Employee jobs from Northern Ireland Quarterly Employment Survey and self employment jobs from the NI Labour Force Survey (Northern Ireland Office)

  Due to the level of detail required, the self-employment figures are for the winter period of December to February, and therefore do not directly match the reference period for employee jobs (of December).

  Analogue Radio Frequencies
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with(a) commercial radio broadcasters, (b) the BBC and (c) consumer groups regarding the future of analogue radio frequencies. [95126]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: With the collaboration of the DTI's Radiocommunications Agency, my officials are considering the current use of analogue radio frequencies and the scope for new services. Representatives of the commercial radio broadcasters, the Radio Authority, the BBC and the Community Media Association have been invited to participate. One of the key requirements of the licensing process is for applicants to demonstrate consumer need within the licence area and consumer interests will be an important part of our policy consideration. We shall ensure that consumer needs are properly addressed in this review.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and 20
  non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case (a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94978]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its PSA, and the measures of success it will use in the Output and Performance Analyses (OPA) published in March this year. Performance targets, where appropriate, have also been set for the Department's NDPBs and its agency through the production of annual funding agreements. These agreements have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Information on targets and their delivery can also be found in the annual reports and accounts of the agency and non-departmental public bodies. The high level targets which appear in funding agreements, the PSA and the OPA are supported at operational level by numerous targets to ensure delivery by individual units. Listing these operational targets would be inappropriate and disproportionate in terms of resources.

  Broadcasting Standards
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy on standards in radio broadcasting. [96605]

  Janet Anderson
  Responsibility for the content of radio services rests with the BBC and the independent broadcasters. The BBC operates within the terms of its Charter and Agreement and undertakes to provide services which are of high general standards in all respects. Independent radio services are licensed and regulated by the Radio Authority under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. The Authority is under a general duty to facilitate the provision of licensed services which (taken as a whole) are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests.

  The Broadcasting Standards Commission is responsible under the Broadcasting Act 1996 for producing codes of practice relating to standards and fairness in programmes, considering and adjudicating on complaints and monitoring, researching and reporting on standards and fairness in broadcasting. The BBC and Radio Authority are required, when drawing up or revising their own codes relating to principles and practice, to reflect the general effect of the Broadcasting Standards Commission's codes.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by her Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94848]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  China
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made by the World Bank in implementing the China western poverty reduction scheme. [95291]

  Clare Short
  An Inspection Panel has just returned from China after conducting an investigation into whether the World Bank violated policies and procedures with regard to the design and appraisal of the Western Poverty Reduction Project. It will now prepare a detailed report for submission to World Bank management. It is anticipated that the report, and the management response to it, will be presented to the Executive Board of the World Bank in February 2000. No disbursement of funding on the Qinghai component of the project will take place until this has happened.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many requests there have been to her Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94005]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 739, by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

  Health Projects
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received on the reduction in the percentage of Government contributions to sexual and reproductive health projects under the new Civil Society Challenge Fund les. [96515]

  Clare Short
  We have received a number of representations about the funding arrangements for reproductive health activities under the new Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF).

  In the spirit of a Challenge Fund, it is important that all our partners demonstrate their commitment and the quality of their projects by raising funds within their own support based or from other donors. However, in recognition of the initial problems likely to be faced by organisations which had access to 100 per cent. funding from the JFS, I have agreed a transitional arrangement under which reproductive health activities will be eligible for 85 per cent. funding in year one of the new Fund, 70 per cent. in year two, and 50 per cent. in year three.

  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the non-Governmental organisations which are receiving 22
  100 per cent. funding for population and reproductive health projects in 1999–2000 through the joint funding scheme. [96514]

  Clare Short
  Eleven NGOs are in receipt of 100 per cent. funding for population, reproductive and sexual health projects from the Joint Funding Scheme in the current financial year:

  Alternative for India Development

  AMREF (Africa Medical and Research Foundation)

  CARE International (UK)

  ICR (International Care and Relief)

  International Family Health

  Marie Stopes International

  The Naz Foundation

  Plan International

  Population Concern

  Population Services International

  Urban Aid

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the level of UK aid is to the Democratic Republic of Congo in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement. [96708]

  Clare Short
  We hope that the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, which came into effect on 1 September, will bring an end to a war that has caused untold suffering and damage to the region. We continue to urge all parties to implement the agreement in full, but the onus of implementation lies with the parties themselves.

  We and our EU partners have made clear our readiness to help with rebuilding the country, providing there is tangible progress towards respect for human rights, democracy, economic reform and the rule of law. Britain was the first bilateral donor to pledge support to a World Bank managed Trust Fund intended to focus on immediate reconstruction and rehabilitation following the fall of President Mobutu. The conflict has diverted attention away from the key task of establishing the essential economic and governance reforms necessary for utilisation of the Trust Fund. It is vital that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo use the opportunity of the Lusaka Agreement to focus on these issues.

  In the meantime, the UK is responding to demonstrable humanitarian needs where access and security allow. So far this financial year, we have committed over £1.1 million to help both the most vulnerable groups within the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as the refugee populations in the surrounding countries.

  Bermuda
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the level of UK aid to Bermuda is in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement. [96707]

  Clare Short
  There are no plans for bilateral development assistance expenditure by my Department to Bermuda in the current financial year or thereafter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer White Paper
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 315, if The Times industrial correspondent was briefed prior to the general press briefing at 12 noon on 22 July 1999. [94302]

  Dr. Howells
  Neither I nor my colleagues spoke to The Times industrial correspondent prior to the general press briefing on 22 July.

  Philippines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if offsetting arrangements were associated with UK defence sales to the Philippines in the mid-1990s. [94802]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Offset arrangements have been associated with UK defence exports to the Philippines. Such arrangements are a matter between the contractor(s) and the Philippine Government.

  European State Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions United Kingdom representatives have held with Commission officials over whether to categorise French Government assistance to the Société Marseillaise de Cr édit as state aid; and if he will make a statement. [95297]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Commission has exclusive competence to determine whether an aid is compatible with the Treaty. The Commission is currently investigating the aid granted to Société Marseillaise de Crédit. If, at the end of its investigation, the Commission reaches a negative decision and finds that the aid is not compatible with the Treaty, it may order the French authorities to recover the aid paid with interest. UK representatives have not held any discussions with Commission officials regarding this case.

  Brussels Convention
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is regarding the proposed revision of the Brussels Convention regarding cross-border consumer contract law; and if he will make a statement. [95923]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is consulting business, consumer and other organisations about the approach the Government should take towards the draft proposal put forward by the European Commission to convert the Convention into a Community Regulation. The DTI hosted a conference for this purpose on 15 October. We are extremely keen to see e-commerce flourish in the EU and our aims are to give consumers confidence and to minimise costs to business.

  Alcohol (Advertising)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is regarding the advertising of alcoholic drinks; and if he will make a statement. [95925]
  24
  Dr. Howells
  Alcohol advertising is subject to general legislation and other rules relating, for example, to accuracy, truthfulness and decency. In addition, there are specific rules relating to alcohol in the Codes of Practice of the principal bodies controlling advertising in the UK: the Independent Television Commission; the Radio Authority; and the Advertising Standards Authority. These rules are designed to ensure that alcohol advertising is socially responsible. Advertisements should not appeal to young people, should not show alcohol in association with dangerous activities such as driving, sports or operating machinery, and should not give the impression that alcohol improves performance.

  In addition, television advertising is also subject to a European Union Directive. Article 15 of the Television Without Frontiers Directive requires that television advertising for alcoholic drinks must not be aimed specifically at minors or depict minors consuming them. The regulators have reflected this in their Codes of Practice by specifically prohibiting advertisers from directing promotions for drinks containing alcohol at people under eighteen years of age.

  I understand that compliance with the Codes in this area is very high. Relatively few complaints are received about alcohol advertising and we have no reason to believe the system is not working well across the media. My colleagues in the Department of Health are examining the role of advertising in the context of the development of the new alcohol misuse strategy for England.

  Scientific Researchers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the results of the Office of Science and Technology studies into the careers, conditions and salaries of young scientific researchers. [95796]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Office of Science and Technology has not commissioned such studies. It supports the Research Careers Initiative, chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield, which expects to publish a second report in the new year, surveying progress in improving the career management and development of research staff on fixed-term contracts in universities.

  The first report, from October 1998, is available on the CVCP website at: www.cvcp.ac.uk.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the level of compliance by employers with the new Working Time Regulations. [95696]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The level of compliance with the Working Time Regulations is difficult to assess at this early stage. When the autumn Labour Force Survey is available (early in 2000) it will provide information for some assessment of

  25
  the Regulations to be made. The enforcing authorities are also collecting data, which may be indicative of compliance.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to amend the Working Time Regulations in respect of(a) record-keeping by those who opt out of the 48-hour week and (b) extending the scope of the unmeasured working time exemption; and if he will make a statement. [96700]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Draft regulations to amend the Working Time Regulations, in respect of the requirement to keep records for workers who have opted out of the working time limit and extending the scope of the unmeasured working time exemption, were laid before Parliament on 19 October. They will be debated in both Houses before being made.

  The extension of the 'unmeasured working time' derogation provides greater flexibility for workers who can determine their own hours of work, but have an element of their working time predetermined. The second amendment replaces the requirement to keep records for those who opt-out of the working time limit, with a single requirement to keep a list of those who have signed an opt-out.

  Electrical Installations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of installing residual current devices on the incidence of fires in domestic dwellings with an electrical cause. [95265]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The DTI has made no formal assessment of the impact of installing residual current devices (RCDs) on the incidence of fires in domestic dwellings with an electrical cause.

  However, the Department has undertaken research into the role and added value of RCDs in the home, including an examination of their potential for preventing fires. The report was published in October 1997 and the contractor was ERA Technology Ltd. A copy of the report "Residual Current Devices—added value for home safety" is available in the Library.

  Defence Trade
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the amount(a) in total and (b) by country of the five nations with the highest amount of such trade, of UK (i) imports and (ii) exports of defence goods and services for the past two years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [95932]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Information on exports of military equipment during 1997 was included in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 25 March 1999. Information for 1998 will be included in the Government's next Annual Report which is currently being prepared.

  Figures for exports of goods prior to 1997, imports of goods and trade in services could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Millennium Trade Round
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are Her Majesty's Government's priorities at the Millennium Round of the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [95729]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The Government's priorities are unchanged from those outlined in the reply given by my predecessor on 21 January 1999, Official Report, columns 548-49.

  Trade Schemes Regulations
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which EU legislation required the introduction of the Trading Schemes (Exclusion) (Amendment) Regulations 1997/1887. [96204]

  Dr. Howells
  There is no such EU legislation.

  Business Links
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Business Links. [96203]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service will develop a network of local Business Link franchises. Key stakeholders involved in existing Business Link local partnerships will be invited to submit proposals to deliver high quality coherent services under the new franchise arrangements. The number of local Business Link areas will be reduced from 81 to 45.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria will be used in determining Business Link boundaries. [96324]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 30 June, a public consultation on the Small Business Service was launched. The Small Business Service will be given responsibility for taking forward the Business Link network.

  In a letter to RDA Chairs in June, RDAs were asked to consult local partners and make recommendations on the boundaries for local delivery of SBS services. The letter also set out the criteria for determining these boundaries. The underlying principle for determining SBS boundaries was the desire to have no more than 40-50. This would maximise administrative savings and provide a more effective local network for planning, funding, managing and driving up quality, while still ensuring that businesses would have good access locally to business support services.

  Specifically, RDAs were asked to ensure that boundaries:
  fit with local travel-to-work and travel-to-study patterns and with the pattern of business and commercial activities;
  be co-terminous with the Learning and Skills Council areas and other key local economic or social units and partnerships—especially with local authorities, the sub-regional partnerships set up locally to tackle economic and social issues, and be within RDA/GO boundaries; and
  be large enough to assure economies of scale and cost effectiveness—a resident population of 0.5 million is considered to be the minimum—although it is expected to be much greater in conurbations.
  27
  Ministers subsequently made it clear to RDAs that they wished LSC/SBS boundaries not to cut across LEA boundaries.

  Ministers considered RDA recommendations in detail, alongside the criteria set in the letter to RDA Chairs and with advice from the relevant Government Offices. They also considered a number of direct representations from interested parties. The decisions were announced to the House on 28 July 1999, Official Report, columns 936–38.

  Robert Maxwell
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will be in a position to publish the results of the inquiry into Robert Maxwell. [96254]

  Dr. Howells
  The independent inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc (there is no inquiry into the late Robert Maxwell) are still carrying out their work. Consequently they have yet to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Dismissal of Workers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce measures in his proposed employment relations legislation to prevent the dismissal of employees involved in a lawful strike. [96173]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We intend to bring section 16 and Schedule 5 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 into force by Easter next year. These provisions will extend the right of protection for those dismissed for taking lawfully organised industrial action to complain to a tribunal of unfair dismissal. They will make it automatically unfair to dismiss workers for the first eight weeks of the action and give employees a right to claim unfair dismissal, if dismissed after the eight week period, where the employer has failed to follow all reasonable procedural steps to try to resolve the dispute. These provisions are designed to stop precipitate dismissals and to place an onus on both employers and unions to settle disputes by negotiation.

  Nuclear Fusion
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received on progress towards nuclear fusion at the USA National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in California. [96435]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department's contribution on nuclear fusion is managed and undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).

  UKAEA has received no reports on progress towards nuclear fusion at the USA National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, California, other than those presented at international fusion conferences and meetings, and reports in the scientific press.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contributions his Department is making to nuclear fusion projects in the USA and Europe; and where they are taking place. [96434]
  28
  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department's contribution on nuclear fusion is managed and undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). UK contribution for fusion projects in Europe (including UK) is split into two parts:the UKAEA expenditure of £14.6 million per year, including their contribution of 8 Million Euro per year as host to the Joint European Torus (JET), an EU Joint Undertaking based at Culham, Oxfordshire;
  the UK's contribution to the European Union R&D; Framework Programme supporting the European fusion collaboration.

  No contribution is made by my Department to fusion projects in the USA.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which countries currently qualify for ECGD over. [96323]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is in the public domain, published in the Autumn 1999 issue of 'ECGD News'. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in each of the last five years, how much the Treasury has had to make available to ECGD to cover losses incurred by the ECGD. [96562]

  Mr. Caborn
  Over the last five years, cash-flow on ECGD's trading operations has been positive:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Cash-flow

  1994–95

  -8.1

  1995–96

  245.9

  1996–97

  444.9

  1997–98

  442.6

  1998–99

  353.5

  As a result, over this period, ECGD has not been a charge on the Exchequer and has contributed £1.5 billion to it.

  Radio Frequencies
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much revenue Her Majesty's Government have raised in selling radio wave frequencies since May 1997. [96402]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 and 1998 provide for licences to be issued to establish or use stations for wireless telegraphy and to install or use wireless telegraphy apparatus. Fee income from such licences, other than for television reception, totalled £92.571m over the two financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Letter Stamps (Europe)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage increase in the cost
  29
  of a letter stamp for Europe in (a)1998 and (b)1999; what were his reasons for authorising the increases; and if he will make a statement. [96486]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The cost of a stamp for a letter up to 20g to European destinations rose by an average of 4.8 per cent. on 6 April 1998 and by a further 13.33 per cent. on 25 October 1999. It is still one of the cheapest rates in Europe.

  The increase was prompted by increasing handling costs and is in line with the agreement, set out in the European Postal Services Directive, that prices should be geared to costs. The increases were introduced by the Post Office following consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council (POUNC).

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards issuing licences for third generation mobile spectrum under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 and 1998. [96905]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am delighted to announce that the Information Memorandum for the auction of licences for Third Generation mobile spectrum is being published today.

  The Memorandum sets out the detailed arrangements for the auction. Applications to take part in the auction are scheduled to be due on 12 January 2000. The auction itself is expected to start in March 2000. The Government expect that this will be the first auction for Third Generation licences in Europe, giving UK consumers early access to this exciting new technology, and keeping the UK at the forefront of international developments in mobile communications.

  I am pleased that Vodafone's and BT Cellnet's Telecommunications Act Licences were modified by consent on 22 October to provide for the negotiation of roaming agreements with any new entrants. This will help to encourage market entry and competition, so benefiting consumers.

  A copy of the Information Memorandum is being placed in the Library of the House and on the auction website at www.spectrumauctions.gov.uk.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total value of inward investment into(a) the UK and (b) the area covered by the Government Office for the North East in each year since 1995. [96732]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table shows the total value of the stock of inward investment into the UK for the years 1995 to 1997, the latest year for which information is available. Figures are not available for foreign investment by region.
  30

  Total stock of UK inward

  £ million

  1995

  128,885

  1996

  134,654

  1997

  156,969

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Electronic Communication Costs
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the comparative costs to SME's of 2 megabite electronic communications between central London and(a) outer London and (b) areas around London. [96657]

  Ms Hewitt
  Several companies compete in the provision of high capacity telecommunications links in the central London area.

  The price which SMEs will pay for high capacity links will vary according to their length and the choice of supplier.

  The Government are committed to extending competition in high bandwidth communications as the best means of increasing choice to business and residential consumers.

  Combined Heat and Power Stations
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consents to build combined heat and power stations since(a) May 1997 and (b) June 1998 have been received; and how many have been refused consent. [96890]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This Government have always recognised the environmental and other benefits of combined heat and power. Since May 1997, 17 proposals for combined heat and power schemes have been considered by this Government and all have received clearance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93967]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 429-30.

  Treaty of Rome
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those occasions when the Treaty of Rome has been(a) renegotiated and (b) amended. [95500]
  31
  Mr. Vaz
  Renegotiation is necessary before any treaty amendment can be made. The Treaty of Rome has been amended on the following occasions:

  Merger Treaty 1967

  Treaty amending Certain Budgetary Provisions 1971

  Treaty amending Certain Financial Provisions 1977

  Greenland Treaty 1985

  Single European Act 1986

  Treaty on European Union 1992

  Treaty of Amsterdam 1997

  The Treaty has also been amended as a result of the accession of new member states. This happened in 1973, 1981, 1986 and 1995.

  "Becoming Europeans" Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) nature and (b) cost of Government support to the Becoming Europeans Conference at Castel Gandolfo; and if he will place the papers presented by representatives of the Government there, in the Library. [95406]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office contributed £10,000 to support the Becoming Europeans Conference held in Castel Gandolfo near Rome, 14-17 October 1999, to cover transport costs, conference organisation and documentation. The British Council provided organisational support. There was also commercial sponsorship. The conference took the form of informal discussions rather than set piece speeches; the aim was an exchange of ideas. There are no records of individual contributions. A copy of the conference report will be placed in the Library as soon as it is published.

  Echelon System
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on civil liberties of the Echelon system; [96547]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Echelon system. [96548]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is long-standing practice not to respond to speculation on alleged intelligence operations.

  Chinese State Visit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact representatives from his Department had with police responsible for policing the visit by the Chinese President; on how many occasions; when; if the treatment of protesters was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [96502]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 28 October 1999,Official Report, column 993.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of 32
  assets sold by his Department and their value, item by item, in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99 and an estimate of the value of asset sales planned for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [96298]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the late Derek Fatchett to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), on 16 February 1999, Official Report, column 741, in which sales of FCO property from 1 April 1997 to date are listed. The remainder of the information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member with further information in due course.

  Montenegro
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the policy of Her Majesty's Government are towards Montenegrin aspirations for more independence from Serbia. [96495]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hope that an acceptable compromise can be reached between Montenegro and Serbia which addresses Montenegro's legitimate aspirations. Clearly it is more likely that negotiations will succeed when President Milosevic's regime has been replaced by democratic government in Serbia.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are making contingency plans for intervention in Montenegro if steps towards independence are violently opposed by Serbia. [96494]

  Mr. Vaz
  We conduct contingency planning on a worldwide basis. It is not our policy to discuss individual contingency plans.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94980]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its PSA, and the measures of success it will use in the Output and Performance Analysis (OPA) published in March this year. The Department's PSA targets also refer to the British Council and the BBC World Service. The Department has adopted the Service First initiative and provides regular performance reports on the Modernising Government Action Plan, published in July 1999. The Department publishes information on its progress towards meeting its objectives in its annual Departmental Report. Reflecting our commitment to an increasing use of new technologies, the report can be found on our award-winning Internet site.
  33
  These high-level targets are supported at operational level by numerous targets to ensure delivery by individual units. Listing these targets would be disproportionate in terms of resources.

  Bermuda
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom gives the Island of Bermuda to help them with air sea rescue, drugs enforcement and shipping control; and if he will make a statement. [96706]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK stands ready to provide technical advice and assistance to Bermuda when necessary. The British Maritime and Coastguard Agency provides air/sea rescue training to Bermuda. Bermuda has access to a British Drugs Liaison Officer (DLO) based in New York and is included in regional drug operations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency also provides advice and training where required to the Bermudian administration to assist it in fulfilling its obligations under relevant international maritime conventions.

  Duma Elections
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to provide monitors from the United Kingdom of the Russian Federation's Duma elections on 19 December. [96331]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are currently making plans to send a delegation of 35 short-term observers and three long-term observers to monitor the Duma elections. This delegation makes up roughly 10 per cent. of the monitoring mission organised by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Ukraine Elections
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will monitor the elections in the Ukraine on 31 October from the United Kingdom. [96330]

  Mr. Vaz
  At the invitation of the Ukrainian Government, an official election monitoring mission is being carried out by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We have funded the Head and Deputy Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Mission. In addition, we have funded the participation of two long-term and 20 short-term monitors for the first round of voting on 31 October. The United Kingdom will fund the continued participation of 11 monitors in the event of a second round of voting. Around 10 members of the British Embassy in Kiev, as well as visiting staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are also accredited as official election monitors and will coordinate their activities with the OSCE/ODIHR Mission. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) will participate in monitoring as a member of the delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that companies involved in the production of genetically modified foods do not disadvantage farmers in the world's poorest countries; and if he will make a statement. [96604]

  Mr. Hain
  We wish to see the benefits available from genetic modification spread equitably, in ways that support sustainable development, help to eliminate poverty, and do not pose unacceptable risks to health or the environment. We are working to develop appropriate international frameworks: in particular to agree a Biosafety Protocol regulating movements of living modified organisms; and to promote an internationally agreed Code of Responsible Behaviour in the development, testing and release of GMOs. The Department for International Development has published a briefing document setting out how it reflects these aims in the support it provides for sustainable agriculture in developing countries.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were recruited to full-time membership of the RUC for the calendar years 1996, 1997 and 1998; what was the perceived religious/community origin of the intake in each year; and what percentage of the intake each year had previously served as members of(a) the RUC Reserve and (b) HM armed forces. [94658]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The following table shows the number of recruits to the RUC for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, their perceived religious/community origin and the percentage previously members of the RUC Reserve. It has not been possible within the timescales to show the number who previously had served in HM Forces but this information will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Year

  Perceived Protestant

  Perceived Roman Catholic

  Not known

  Total

  Percentage formally RUCR

  1996

  172

  36

  18

  226

  45

  1997

  242

  28

  17

  287

  51

  1998

  140

  22

  17

  179

  39

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the staffing levels of the RUC in September (i) in total and (ii) broken down by(a) gender, (b) perceived religious/community origin and (c) numbers and percentages of full-time, reserve full-time and reserve part-time staff; and what were the changes in composition over the past five years. [94656]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The tables show the staffing levels of the RUC in September 1999 and 1994 broken down by perceived religious/community origin and gender.
  35

  RUC strength 1999 (September)—perceived religious composition

  Staff

  Perceived Protestant

  Perceived Roman Catholic

  Not known

  Total

  Percentage perceived Protestant

  Percentage perceived Roman Catholic

  Regulars

  7,525

  716

  284

  8,525

  88.27

  8.40

  Full-time Reserve

  2,442

  194

  160

  2,796

  87.34

  6.94

  Part-time Reserve

  1,121

  57

  15

  1,193

  93.96

  4.78

  Total

  11,088

  967

  459

  12,514

  88.60

  7.73

  RUC strength 1999 (September)—by gender

  Staff

  Male

  Female

  Percentage female

  Regulars

  7,533

  992

  11.64

  Full-time Reserve

  2,544

  252

  9.01

  Part-time Reserve

  775

  418

  35.04

  Total

  10,852

  1,662

  13.28

  RUC strength 1994 (end of year)—perceived religious composition

  Staff

  Perceived Protestant

  Perceived Roman Catholic

  Not known

  Total

  Percentage perceived Protestant

  Percentage perceived Roman Catholic

  Regulars

  7,578

  660

  256

  8,494

  89.21

  7.77

  Full-time Reserve

  2,823

  206

  168

  3,197

  88.30

  6.44

  Part-time Reserve

  1,403

  67

  20

  1,490

  94.16

  4.50

  Total

  11,804

  933

  444

  13,181

  89.50

  7.08

  RUC strength 1994 (end of year)—by gender

  Staff

  Male

  Female

  Percentage female

  Regulars

  7,640

  854

  10.05

  Full-time Reserve

  3,054

  143

  4.47

  Part-time Reserve

  995

  495

  33.22

  Total

  11,689

  1,492

  11.32

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in each rank in order the numbers and perceived religious/community origin of RUC officers. [94659]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The following table shows the number of officers in the RUC by rank and perceived religious/community origin:

  Rank

  Perceived Protestant

  Perceived Roman Catholic

  Not known

  Total

  Senior Officers

  8

  0

  2

  10

  Chief Superintendent

  33

  6

  0

  39

  Superintendent

  102

  21

  2

  125

  Chief Inspector

  154

  15

  4

  173

  Inspector

  430

  53

  15

  498

  Sergeant

  1,262

  113

  24

  1,399

  Constable

  5,526

  507

  238

  6,271

  Total

  7,515

  715

  285

  8,515

  Full-time reserve

  2,414

  191

  157

  2,762

  Part-time reserve

  1,115

  57

  15

  1,187

  Threats (Antrim)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports he has received about threats made to a woman and her husband that forced them to leave the Antrim area on 23 May; what conclusions have been reached so far as to the perpetrators of these threats; what is the present stage of the police investigation. [94490]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: I am advised that there is insufficient detail in this question for the police to accurately check their records. Perhaps my hon. Friend can provide me with more precise information.

  Stone Throwing Attacks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the stone-throwing attack on an East Antrim councillor on 18 May; what injuries were caused in the course of this attack; what conclusions have been reached so far as to the perpetrators of the attack; what other attacks took place in that area at that time; and what is the present stage of the police investigation. [94486]
  37
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: I am advised that there is insufficient detail in this question for the police to accurately check their records. Perhaps my hon. Friend can provide me with more precise information.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in order of their publication dates in the last calendar year those public bodies that are required to lay their annual report and accounts before the House and indicate those reports that are available through the Vote Office. [94655]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments for the 1998 calendar year is as follows:

  Public body

  publication date

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  2 April 1998

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints

  28 April 1998

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  6 July 1998

  Northern Ireland Health & Social Services Estates Agency

  20 July 1998

  Social Security Agency

  21 July 1998

  Industrial Research & Technology Unit

  23 July 1998

  Compensation Agency

  27 July 1998

  Child Support Agency

  29 July 1998

  Training & Employment Agency

  29 July 1998

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  4 August 1998

  Equal Opportunities Commission (Northern Ireland)

  15 October 1998

  Commission for Racial Equality (Northern Ireland)

  22 October 1998

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  27 October 1998

  Fair Employment Commission (Northern Ireland)

  5 November 1998

  Education and Library Boards

  18 November 1998

  Arts Council (Lottery activities)

  20 November 1998

  Sports Council (Lottery activities)

  24 November 1998

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  30 November 1998

  The Vote Office stocks all parliamentary papers and can also obtain other publications for Members of Parliament.

  RUC (Equal Opportunities Unit)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when was the last inspection of the RUC Equal Opportunities Unit by HM Inspector of Constabulary; what were its findings; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [94660]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The Equal Opportunities Unit was last inspected by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary as part of the 1998–99 inspection of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Sections 3.73 to 3.81 of the Report refer. A copy was placed in the Library on 23 July 1999.

  RUC (Portadown)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the role of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints in relation to the investigation by the 38
  Royal Ulster Constabulary into whether officers present when Robert Hamill and Gregory Girvan were assaulted in Portadown town centre on 27 April 1997 will be subject to disciplinary charges. [95359]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The role of the ICPC is as laid down in Part II of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. In the particular cases of the assaults on Robert Hamill and Gregory Girvan, the ICPC is currently supervising the police investigation of disciplinary matters arising from a complaint relating to the conduct of police in Portadown on 27 April 1997. When the disciplinary investigation report is submitted the Commission will issue a statement as to whether or not the investigation was conducted to its satisfaction. Following this, the Chief Constable will inform the Commission of his opinion in relation to the preferring of charges. At that juncture, the Commission will review all the evidential documentation and decide whether or not the bringing of disciplinary charges is warranted.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will identify(a) by rank and (b) by perceived religious/community origin, the officers employed within Portadown sub-division of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [95361]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The RUC have advised that officers of the following ranks served in Portadown Sub-Division at 1 July 1999:

  Rank

  Number

  Superintendent and above

  12

  Chief Inspector

  7

  Inspector

  21

  Sergeant

  55

  Constable

  263

  Total

  358

  The perceived religious/community origin is 319 perceived Protestant, 28 perceived Roman Catholic and 11 undetermined.

  Macpherson Report
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), on 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 468, what has been the outcome of the examination of the recommendations in the Lawrence report and what measures have been adopted to promote racial, religious, sex and disability equality. [95350]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: As I said in an earlier reply, the terms of reference of the Review of Criminal Justice and the Patten Report cover areas highlighted by the report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Criminal Justice Review team is due to report shortly and the Government are currently consulting on the recommendations of the independent Commission on Policing as required by the Good Friday Agreement. The Government will be making a statement

  39
  on the outcome of consultation on the Patten report, "A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland", after that consultation is complete.

  The Government remain committed to the principles of equality of treatment, respect for human rights and different cultures as fundamental elements of policing in Northern Ireland. Since April the Government have announced a number of significant measures. For example, the new Equality Commission for Northern Ireland was established on 1 October and the appointment of Mrs. O'Loan as Police Ombudsman Designate was announced on 11 October.

  The report of the working group considering the treatment of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system was published in July. The group endorsed the recommendations made by a similar working group in England and Wales. In particular they recommended, and I agreed, that the provisions in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which relate to such witnesses, should be extended to Northern Ireland by means of Order in Council. This has now been done. The group is continuing to meet to oversee implementation of its recommendations.

  Following the Report the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC has taken responsibility for co-ordinating activities and action plans are being introduced. A Positive Action Team has been set up to progress ethnic minority recruitment. All probationers complete a Police Community Relations module dealing with equality and race relations legislation, human rights and harassment. Officers receive local training on how to respond effectively and sensitively to racial incidents. Family Liaison Officers have been established force-wide.

  Local Community Affairs officers monitor racially motivated incidents as defined in the Lawrence Report. Community Affairs Branch in partnership with the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities supported by the Commission for Racial Equality have set up a Community and Police Liaison Committee with ethnic minority organisations. Contact has been established with the Chinese Welfare Association and a crime desk set up at the Indian Community Centre.

  RUC (Guidelines)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance is issued to Royal Ulster Constabulary officers on the circumstances in which the assistance of Army units should be sought in dealing with public order problems; and whether a copy of such guidance will be placed in the Library. [95364]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Guidance is reviewed and issued annually in a Force Policy document. This is a confidential operational policing manual and it would therefore be inappropriate to place a copy in the Library.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families have left their homes due to paramilitary intimidation in Northern 40
  Ireland (a) since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and (b) during 1999; and if he will make a statement. [95716]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The figures listed in the table are for people (owner-occupiers and tenants from both the private and social housing sectors) who have approached the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and have been awarded A1 status for reasons of sectarianism, terrorist intimidation or threat of intimidation. These cases would arise from a variety of sources, for example paramilitary feuds and alleged anti-social behaviour.

  Number

  April to December 1998

  253

  January to 2 September 1999

  300

  Total

  553

  "Forced Upon Us"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Northern Ireland Arts Council decided to withdraw funding from the Dubbeljoint/Just Us production of their play, "Forced Upon Us"; what reasons were given for this decision; on what date the theatre company was informed; if he will list the correspondence received by the Arts Council from the RUC, the Police Authority, and any other public authority in connection with this play; and if he will make a statement on freedom of expression and political vetting in the Arts. [95368]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: I am advised by the Chief Executive of the Arts Council that the Artistic Director of Dubbeljoint Productions was informed in a letter of 28 June 1999 that Arts Council revenue funding for the production of "Forced Upon Us" was conditional upon receipt of a completed script which the Council could assess artistically. Two unfinished scripts which were received by the Arts Council on 24 June and 15 July 1999 fell well below the threshold of artistic acceptability in the opinion of the Council and its external assessors. The Council informed Dubbeljoint Productions and Just Us Community Theatre on 22 July 1999 that their script of "Forced Upon Us" fell well below the artistic standard which the Council expected from its clients and that no Council funding could be directed towards it production.

  I am advised that no correspondence was received by the Arts Council from the RUC, the Police Authority or any other public authority in connection with "Forced Upon Us". The Arts Council of Northern Ireland operates at arm's length from Government and has complete independence in exercising its artistic judgment within available resources.

  From the information available to me, I am satisfied that the Arts Council's decision to withhold funding from Dubbeljoint Productions for its production of "Forced Upon Us" was taken solely on artistic grounds and was not motivated by any political considerations. The Arts

  41
  Council and Dubbeljoint Productions issued a joint statement on 1 October 1999 indicating that the matter had been resolved to their mutual satisfaction.

  Drug Tariff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure by the NHS on items in part IXB of the Drug Tariff in each year from 1988–89 to 1998–99, with such breakdown of the figures for each year to types of item as is available. [96080]

  The net ingredient cost of incontinence appliances dispensed in the community

  Net ingredient cost £

  Incontinence appliances

  1992

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Incontinence sheaths

  171,020.03

  198,141.00

  235,247.52

  299,713.02

  326,148.71

  322,222.80

  336,658.59

  Leg bags

  220,197.53

  235,275.11

  290,905.11

  345,460.78

  395,251.19

  407,507.72

  427,867.64

  Night drainage bags

  56,004.16

  62,213.18

  66,788.43

  87,090.29

  4,529.83

  103,191.27

  111,458.88

  Suspensory systems

  7.10

  —

  1,890.94

  1,528.57

  1,347.06

  1,724.15

  1,607.24

  Tubing and accessories

  —

  —

  2,833.32

  4,988.12

  4,567.92

  5,921.02

  12,144.10

  Total

  447,411

  495,629

  597,665

  738,779

  821,853

  840.567

  889,736

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Appeals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances claimants who submit an appeal against the loss of benefit may have their Income Support reduced because they have submitted such an appeal; and if he will make a statement. [94797]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no circumstances in which submitting an appeal leads directly to a reduction in Income Support.

  However, where someone who is claiming benefit on grounds of incapacity for work fails the "all work test" and appeals this decision, then Income Support can be paid at a reduced rate until a final decision on the appeal is made. The reduction is equal to 20 per cent. of the appropriate personal allowance for a single person of their age. The reduction is made good in full if the appeal succeeds. Full benefit can be paid if the person concerned makes themselves available for work and claims Jobseeker's Allowance instead.

  Income Support
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he proposes to encourage the take-up of Income Support unclaimed by those already in receipt of Incapacity Benefit but entitled to additional benefit. [95464]

  Mr. Bayley
  We want all of those entitled but not receiving their benefits to claim. Our current focus is on the most vulnerable group—those pensioners who live on incomes below the Minimum Income Guarantee. Research shows that this group is particularly resistant to claiming their entitlement and our priority is to overcome barriers and establish the most effective way of encouraging them to claim.

  The new ONE service, which is currently being piloted, will improve the take-up of Income Support in appropriate cases by those claiming Incapacity Benefit. One of the
  42
  Mr. George Howarth
  The information available is shown in the table. No information is available prior to 1992.

  Total expenditure by the NHS on incontinence appliances is not available. The table shows the net ingredient cost of items that were dispensed in the community in Northern Ireland.

  The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of an appliance and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  major advantages of this new system is that, for the first time, there will be an holistic approach to the benefit requirements of working-age people. ONE will ensure that claimants receive appropriate advice at the first point of contact with the benefit system.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are claiming Incapacity Benefit who have(a) an individual income and (b) a household income which is in excess of £400 a week before taking into account any benefits due to their disability. [95530]

  Mr. Bayley
  Data for 1997–98 suggest that there are 140,000 individuals in receipt of Incapacity Benefit with a household income over £400 a week, not including Incapacity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance or any other benefit awarded for incapacity or disability. The number with an individual income over £400 a week cannot be estimated reliably from the available data. Data also suggest that there are around 300,000 Incapacity Benefit households with a total income of more than £400 a week.

  Notes:

  1. Weekly household income in the unequivalised income, net of tax and other deductions of the household that the benefit recipient lives in less any benefits awarded on the grounds of incapacity or disability.

  2. Weekly individual income is the income of the individual in receipt of Incapacity Benefit, less benefits awarded on the grounds of incapacity or disability.

  3. All amounts are in April 1999 prices.

  4. Figures are estimates taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set that is based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland. 1997–98 is the latest year for which information is available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the basis of his Department's calculation that restoring the basic state pension link with earnings would cost £8 billion by 2010. [96105]
  43
  Mr. Rooker
  The gross cost of increasing the basic State pension in line with earnings is calculated by the Government Actuary's Department to be £7.6 billion in 2010–11. An explanation of the method for calculating gross costs of the basic State pension is given in Appendix D (paragraphs 14.21 to 14.35), of the Government Actuary's Department publication "National Insurance Fund: Long Term Financial Estimates", (Cm 4406: July 1999), which is available in the Library. For the purposes of this costing, it is assumed that annual real earnings growth is 1.5 per cent. above price inflation.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider funding a one-off payment to pensioners of £50 in addition to the basic state pension on the occasion of the millennium. [96748]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have already increased the Winter Fuel Payment to £100 this year to ensure that today's pensioners do not have to worry about turning their heating up when it is cold because of the cost of their winter fuel bills.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 722, concerning SERPS if he will update the figures with net cost (a) using the pensions model and (b) using the assumptions made in the answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 16 December 1998, Official Report, column 611. [96677]

  Mr. Rooker
  Precise estimates of net costs using the pensions model are not available. For a delay in changes to inherited SERPS until 2010, income-related benefit savings are estimated to be in the range 0-5 per cent. of gross costs between 2000 and 2010, and 5-10 per cent. of gross costs between 2010 and 2020. A delay in changes until 2005 leads to estimated income-related benefit savings of the order of 0-5 per cent. of gross costs between 2000 and 2010, and between 5-15 per cent. of gross costs between 2010 and 2020.

  Income-related benefit offsets based on the Family Resources Survey are not applicable as the latest model applies to the current year only.

  Note:

  Income-related benefit offsets are estimated using PENSIM, a dynamic simulation model that projects pensioners' incomes into the next century. PENSIM estimates are based on a number of economic and behavioral assumptions and show the broad order of magnitude of future changes—as such offset ratios should be viewed as indicative rather than definitive.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated cost would be of(a) uprating the minimum income guarantee for pensioners in line with earnings, (b) uprating the minimum income guarantee in line with prices for pensioners under 85 years, and in line with earnings for those over 85 years, in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2010–11, (iii) 2020–21 and (iv) 2030–31. [95535]

  Mr. Rooker
  No projections have been made of long-term expenditure on the Minimum Income Guarantee. The projected expenditure for 2000–01, as published in the Social security Departmental Report (Cm 4214) in March 1999, is based on an assumed uprating for all cases in line with average earnings, at an estimated cost of £155 million.
  44
  PENSIM, the Department's dynamic microsimulation model of pensioners' incomes, does project pensioners' income distribution under different policy scenarios up to 2025. However, it is not considered sufficiently accurate to be used as a forecasting model of absolute amounts of expenditure on the income-related benefits. Instead it is best used as a comparative model to assess the broad impact of different policy options on the distribution of pensioner's incomes over time.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is taking to raise public awareness about the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [96684]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are particularly concerned about pensioners entitled to but not claiming the guarantee and we will make an announcement shortly on our plans to increase awareness and to tackle barriers to claiming.

  Therapeutic Work
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the employed classification as that of people suffering from a severe disability who undertake limited work on medical advice, with the permission of the Benefits Agency. [96263]

  Mr. Bayley
  No such representations have been received.

  Social Security regulations limit the circumstances in which people can work while maintaining entitlement to incapacity benefits but otherwise the status of that work is not a relevant consideration for benefit purposes.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the application of the minimum wage in respect of work used as therapy for people with severe disability. [96248]

  Mr. Bayley
  Entitlement to incapacity benefits is based on the fundamental principle that they are for people who are incapable of work because of sickness or disability. It is recognised that in some cases a limited amount of work can benefit a person's medical condition and may increase their prospects of a return to the labour market. A longstanding provision, known as the therapeutic work rule, allows benefit recipients to do some paid work on the advice of a doctor without it affecting their underlying entitlement. The work is subject to a weekly earnings limit. An hours limit of 16 hours a week also applies unless the work is done under medical supervision, as part of a hospital treatment programme, or in a sheltered workshop.

  The application of the national minimum wage to this work is not a relevant consideration for benefit purposes. However, last April the earnings limit was increased from £48 to £58 to ensure that the hours limit was consistent with 16 hours work paid at the national minimum wage rate of £3.60 an hour (16 x £3.60 = £57.60).

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate of the all-items RPI to September 1999 underlay his projections of social security
  45
  expenditure for 2000–01; and by how much expenditure would be reduced if benefits were uprated by the actual inflation rate to September 1999. [96299]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: The inflation assumptions underlying the Department's expenditure forecasts were set out on Page 89 of the Social Security Departmental Report (Cm 4214). The Report also makes clear that the forecast depended on a number of other assumptions. These include economic assumptions such as the rate of unemployment and the growth in earnings which underpins forecast spending on the Minimum Income Guarantee. It also takes account of Government policies already announced, such as above inflation rises in Child Benefit. The effect of a 1 per cent. variation for all benefits is around 830 million. This assumes that both the RPI and the Rossi index vary by the same amount.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy (European Commission Questionnaire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will deposit in the Library(a) a copy of the questionnaire distributed at the June 1998 Lisbon seminar at Expo 98 by the Director General of DG XIV, as indicated in OJ C182(/51) of 28 June, and (b) the Commission's scrutiny report on the same; and when the consultation procedure is to finish. [92856]

  Mr. Morley
  I am arranging for a copy of the European Commission questionnaire on the Common Fisheries Policy after 2002 to be placed in the Library, together with a copy of the Commission's analysis of replies to the questionnaire. The Commission's extensive programme of consultations with fishing and other interests ended in June this year.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he will give to organic farmers who have already made the conversion from conventional to organic farming; what assessment he has made of the take-up of financial aid among organic farmers; what he is doing to ensure organic farmers know what aid is available to them; what assessment he has made of the length of time it takes for financial aid to be given to organic farmers after application under the Organic Aid Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [96267]

  Mr. Morley
  Prior to the introduction of the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS), the Government considered carefully the question of whether those already farming organically should receive aid. We decided to target available resources on the conversion period when yields drop and premia for organic produce are not available. I have no plans to extend aid beyond the five year period provided by the OFS.

  I expect the review of the OFS to consider the take-up of organic aid by farmers since April 1999 and to make recommendations for the future design of the conversion aid schemes.
  46
  Advice to prospective organic farmers on how to obtain free advisory visits is provided by a dedicated Helpline telephone number and advice on conversion aid payments is available from MAFF Regional Service Centres. The scheme literature sent to each prospective applicant points out that organic farmers can still benefit from a range of aid measures which are available to farmers generally.

  The timing of payments to farmers under the Organic Aid Scheme formed part of the 1998 review of support for the organic sector. The review recommended moving from payments made in arrears to payments made annually in advance, at the end of the first quarter. We implemented the recommendation and have retained the same pattern of payments in the OFS.

  We want to see organic farming succeed. We inherited a situation in which total payment for organic conversion averaged about £1 million annually. Over the last six months we have allocated about £16 million to more than 750 fanners. In the debate on agriculture on 28 October 1999, Official Report, column 1131, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced that further money would be made available. This will allow another 250 or so farmers to benefit from the OFS. And it will allow us to pay aid to all the farmers already in the OFS much sooner than would otherwise have been possible.

TREASURY

  Offshore Betting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the situation regarding offshore betting following the judgment of Mr. Justice Lightman in July; and if he will make a statement. [94812]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are concerned about the potential growth of offshore betting and are currently considering how best to ensure that bookmakers in the United Kingdom pay their fair share of taxes and are protected from unfair competition. Customs and Excise have appealed Mr. Justice Lightman's decision and I have asked them whether early changes to the law are required to maintain its effectiveness.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [94858]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are committed to ensuring their policies are fair and inclusive, and focus on public service users, not providers. This aim is contained in guidance (published in 1998) which helps Departments consider the impact of their policies on gender, ethnicity and disability. In addition to considering impact the guidance encourages consultation with women's groups and others where appropriate and action to deal with any differential impact if this appears appropriate. The Treasury applies the principles contained in the guidance when developing its policies. For example a full gender analysis of the Budget's impact was undertaken last year and will be again this year.

  National Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the options paper on access to registration records which was submitted to him by the Director of the Office of National Statistics. [94914]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The essence of the Registrar General's advice was included in the consultation document "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service" published on 8 September, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the grades of posts which have been transferred from the Contributions Agency to the Treasury in the year prior to the passing of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999; how many members of staff will be transferred in the coming year; and what is the nature of the posts of the staff who have been or are to be transferred. [95509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All the staff of the Contributions Agency were transferred to the Inland Revenue on 1 April 1999, their grades being as follows:

  CA grade

  IR grade

  Civil service grade

  Al

  E2

  AA

  A2

  E1

  AO

  B1

  E1

  AO

  B2

  D

  EO

  B3

  D

  EO

  B3

  D

  EO

  C2

  C2

  HEO

  C3

  C1

  HEO

  DI

  B

  UG7

  D2

  B

  UG7

  D3

  B

  UG6

  SCS

  SCS

  SCS

  All posts concerned were related to the collection of NICs and the recording and supply of NICs information.

  Civil Procurement
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Review of Civil Procurement in Central Government; and if she will make a statement. [95452]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Work is progressing to ensure that the Office of Government Commerce will be operational by 1 April 2000. A Chief Executive will be appointed in November and I hope to be able to announce shortly the composition of the Supervisory Board and the transfer of its constituent agencies.

  Trade Missions
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many trade missions he has led since taking office; and to which countries. [94973]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: None. Trade missions are usually carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to include (i) central Government grants paid to and (ii) the budgets of(a) local authorities in England, (b) the Scottish Parliament and Executive, (c) the National Assembly for Wales and (d) the Northern Ireland Assembly in resource accounting procedures for the 1999–2000 and subsequent financial years. [96459]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: Central government grants paid to local authorities will be recorded in the resource accounts of the relevant Government departments making these grants. Expenditure covered by the budgets of local authorities in England falls outside the resource accounting boundary, and therefore will not be included in resource accounts.

  Grants to the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive, and, if devolution takes place, the Northern Ireland Assembly will represent the allocation of funds to those bodies, and will be shown in the resource accounts of respectively the Wales Office, Scotland Office, and Northern Ireland Office.

  Expenditure by the National Assembly for Wales will appear in its resource accounts.

  Accounting policies for expenditure by the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly are a matter for those bodies. I understand, however, that legislation currently before the Scottish Parliament envisages control by the Scottish Parliament of resources, and hence resource accounting.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amendments, additions and deletions will be made to the Resource Accounting Manual, as published in August 1999, that will apply to the 1999–2000 financial year. [96460]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: The Resource Accounting Manual is updated as necessary to take into account the impact on resource accounting of new accounting standards issued by the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) and other accounting developments including, for example, refinements arising from the implementation of resource accounting by departments.

  The amendments to the version of the Manual published in August 1999, to apply to the 1999–2000 resource accounts, will take into account the amendment to Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 5 "Reporting the Substance of Transactions—Private Finance Initiative and Similar Contracts", and FRS 15 "Tangible Fixed Assets"—both issued by the ASB.

  These and future amendments, following consultation with the Financial Reporting Advisory Board, will be included in periodic updates to the Manual, which I understand the House of Commons Library has arranged to receive.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt energy use for all types of industrial electrolysis from the Climate Change Levy. [96709]
  49
  Mr. Timms
  As indicated in the consultation document published by Customs and Excise on Budget day, coal and gas used in chemical reactions will not be subject to the levy. In the light of the representations received on the treatment of electrolysis, my hon. Friend the then Economic Secretary announced on 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 390, that we proposed to extend this exemption to electricity used in certain processes.

  Following that announcement we have received further representations, all of which are receiving careful consideration.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if liabilities incurred by Departments of State as a result of(a) private finance initiatives and (b) public private partnerships will be accounted for under the principles outlined in Chapter 4 of the Resource Accounting Manual published in August. [96848]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Any liabilities incurred as a result of such transactions will be accounted for in line with the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Resource Accounting Manual. This states that for all complex transactions, the overriding principles of Financial Reporting Standards (FRS) 5 "Reporting the Substance of Transactions" should be followed.

  In particular, an amendment to the version of the Manual published in August 1999, which has been agreed with the Financial Reporting Advisory Board, will make clear that Private Finance Initiative (PH) transactions should be accounted for in accordance with the Treasury Taskforce's Technical Note No. 1 (revised) "How to account for PFI transactions".

  The Technical Note sets out additional practical guidance on how the Accounting Standards Board's Application Note (AN) "Amendment to FRS 5—;Private Finance Initiative and Similar Contracts" is to be followed in the public sector and should be read in conjunction with the AN.

  In addition, Chapter 4 of the Manual sets out the disclosure requirements in respect of commitments under contracts for which departments have not made provision in their resource accounts.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) his Department's and (b) the Royal College of Medicine's recommended minimum population which should be served by an accident and emergency unit in England. [92572]

  Ms Stuart
  The configuration of local accident and emergency services should be determined in accordance with local needs. Neither the Department of Health nor the Royal Colleges set minimum population requirements.
  50
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will give a substantive reply to the Question tabled by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden for answer on 26 July. [96851]

  Ms Stuart
  I replied to the right hon. Member today.

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter sent by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East to him on 14 June about representations on the Health Bill[Lords] and Pro-Life legislation. [96484]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am sorry the hon. Member has not received a reply to his letter. The correspondence appears to have been misplaced. I have now received a copy of the original papers and will ensure that a reply is sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will publish the NHS guidance on continence services; [96073]

  (2) what measures he intends to take to ensure that local health authorities and primary care groups implement the forthcoming guidance on continence services; [96075]

  (3) what is the earliest practical date from which local health authorities and social services will have to incorporate the NHS guidance on continence services into their budgets; [96074]

  (4) what meetings he and his officials have had with GP representatives to ensure that GPs are proactive in identifying patients who need continence care. [96076]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have recently received the report from the working group which was set up to advise the Department on guidance for continence services. We are now considering the report. The working group included a general practitioner representative. We hope to publish the guidance in the near future.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is provided by NHS Direct to callers who call with inquiries about continence; and what is the source of that information. [96077]

  Ms Stuart
  The way in which NHS Direct deals with calls about continence will depend very much on the nature of the caller's symptoms and needs. Calls from members of the public generally fall into two broad categories. If the continence problem is a new symptom for the caller, the nurse adviser would assess the call using the relevant protocol and would refer the caller to the most appropriate health professional, for example the general practitioner. Otherwise, if the call was a general inquiry about continence, the caller would be referred to the most relevant source for further information.

  Acupuncture
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what courses exist for training in acupuncture; how these are funded; what financial support students can claim while studying; what plans he has to review the arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [96850]
  51
  Ms Stuart
  The identification and accreditation of suitable training courses for any complementary therapy is primarily the responsibility of the professional body or bodies which regulate it. An increasing number of higher education courses in complementary and alternative medicine are being offered in publicly-funded institutions and are meeting the requirements set by the Education Student Support Regulations 1999 for automatic designation for student support. While the Department for Education and Employment does not routinely collect details of such courses, any which are either wholly run by a private institution or are jointly provided by a privately and publicly funded institution must apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for special designation.

  Any student on a designated course receives the same package of financial student support as any student in higher education. Tuition fees are means-tested and, depending on individual circumstances, a student may pay all, part, or none of the cost himself. Student loans are available. And supplementary grants may be made in particular circumstances, for example to disabled students or those with dependants. Students on non-designated courses do not qualify for student support.

  Optical Services
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the value of the vouchers given to pensioners for the purchase of spectacles; and if he will make a statement. [96600]

  Mr. Hutton
  Children and adults of all ages on low incomes are eligible for optical vouchers which vary in value depending upon the power of the prescription. From last April we increased the voucher values from between 2.5 per cent. and 18 per cent. to target help towards patients with the highest refractory errors. As a result the highest value voucher increased from £125 to £147.50. We will shortly be announcing the increase to take effect from April 2000.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list her Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93689]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The spending on official publications by the Cabinet Office and its Executive Agencies between 1 May 1997 and 31 July 1999, which includes identifiable costs incurred by the Department in publishing, production and purchase of copies for official use, is listed in a table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. This excludes publications produced solely for internal purposes. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher, the publishing, printing and design costs are normally met by the publisher, as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list all performance targets set for her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies 52
  since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case (a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94989]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Cabinet Office has no performance targets other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2001 (Cm 4181).

  The targets for each of my Department's agencies are shown in the table.

  Details of performance targets for COI can be found in COI's annual reports. The last report was published in July 1999 by the Stationery Office (ISBN: 0-10-273199-3).

  None of the non-departmental public bodies are executive and are therefore included within the rest of my Department's targets.

  1997–98

  Target

  Target date

  Security Facilities Executive—Targets announced 15 July 1997 (Official Report WA 100-101)

  To achieve 100% cost recovery in accruals terms excluding 0.5% restructuring costs

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To achieve a Vote surplus of £0.2 million, excluding restructuring costs

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To achieve sales of £20 million

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To achieve a reduction in the unit cost of outputs of no less than 4% in real terms

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To achieve a customer satisfaction rating of 92%

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To reassess the timetable and produce a revised action plan for attaining Investors in People accreditation in 1999

  By 31 March 1998

  To maintain accreditation to quality standard ISO 9000, and extend it to cover Common Services

  By 31 March 1998

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate—Target announced 23 July 1997 (Official Report WA 582)

  To identify savings from proposals to be agreed with departments for the co-ordination of property activities on the Civil Estate which in net present terms should be at least 10 times the agency's related running costs

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To deliver on time at least 85% of the Central Advice Unit's annual work plan

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To recover 100% of the costs of providing intelligent client services and to increase the percentage of all the agency's running costs recovered

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To dispose of 110 freeholds and leaseholds within an annual net provision of £95 million

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To achieve 75% overall customer satisfaction for the agency's services.

  Year to 31 March 1998

  The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency—Targets announced 30 July 1997 (Official Report WA 315)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To deliver CCTA services within voted provision

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To establish a baseline for operation within the CCTA customer charter

  31 March 1998

  To secure savings which will result in a 5% reduction in the cost of supporting services in 1998–98

  31 March 1998

  To achieve 85% of customers assessing satisfaction with CCTA's services at levels 1 and 2 of a 5 point scale

  Year to 31 March 1998

  Civil Service College—Targets announced 30 July 1997 (Official Report WA 315)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To earn £1.5 million from consultancy

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To attract 900 students from the private sector

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To attract 1,515 students from the Senior Civil Service

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To earn 88% of students' course evaluations in the highest 2 of 6 categories

  Year to 31 March 1998

  53

  1997–98

  Target

  Target date

  Central Office of Information—Targets announced 30 July 1997 (Official Report WA 315)

  To achieve a surplus of £1 million in modified historical cost terms after recovering all costs including interest on borrowings

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To achieve a 2% increase in efficiency as measured by unit cost reduction

  Year to 31 March 1998

  To achieve an average score of 8.25 out of 10 for COI customer satisfaction index

  Year to 31 March 1998

  1998–99

  Target

  Target date

  The Buying Agency—Targets announced 28 April 1998 (Official Report WA 109-100)

  To generate a return on capital employed of 8%

  Year to 31 December 1998

  To increase total sales by 2% on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 December 1998

  To reduce the cost per pound of total savings by 2.5% on 1997 outturn

  Year to 31 December 1998

  To maintain the cost per pound of total sales at 1997 outturn

  Year to 31 December 1998

  To resolve 95% of customers' complaints received in the year within one month, except where explicitly agreed otherwise by the customer

  Year to 31 December 1998

  To deliver 95% of direct orders by the due date

  Year to 31 December 1998

  To secure re-accreditation under ISO 9001

  31 December 1998

  To reduce the Agency's electricity consumption per member of staff at its headquarters by 3%

  Year to 31 December 1998

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate—Targets announced 7 May 1998 (Official Report WA 445)

  To identify savings from proposals to be agreed with departments for the co-ordination of property activities on the Civil Estate which in net present terms should be at least 11 times the agency's related running costs

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To deliver on time at least 90% of the Central Advice Unit's annual work plan

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To recover 100% of the costs of providing intelligent client services and to increase the percentage of all the agency's running costs recovered to 10%

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To dispose of 75 freeholds and leaseholds and to maintain expenditure within voted provision

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To achieve 2.5% improvement in overall customer satisfaction for the agency's services

  Year to 31 March 1999

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency—16 June 1998 (Official Report WA 152)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To maintain sales turnover at 1997–98 outturn

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To maintain expenditure and receipts within voted provision

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To improve the gross contribution as a percentage of sales revenue by 2%

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To increase income per point of labour cost to £2.00

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To review the existing customer satisfaction survey and establish a benchmark for future performance

  31 March 1999

  To achieve an annual average of 26 miles per gallon for the GCS and IDS fleets

  Year to 31 March 1999

  The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency—Targets announced 21 July 1998 (Official Report WA 444)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To deliver CCTA services within voted provision

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To achieve 75% of customers surveyed confirming that CCTA has operated within the terms of its Charter

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To secure a 5% reduction in the cost of support services

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To secure customer satisfaction at levels 1 and

  Year to 31 March 1999

  54

  1998–99

  Target

  Target date

  2 (out of 5) on 85% of assignments and services delivered

  Civil Service College—21 July 1998 (Official Report WA 444)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To achieve £900,000 of consultancy income

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To attract 1,500 students from the Senior Civil Service

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To attract 900 students from the private sector

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To earn 88% of student course evaluations in the highest 2 categories (on a 6 point scale)

  Year to 31 March 1999

  Central Office of Administration—Targets announced 21 July 1998 (Official Report WA 444)

  To achieve a financial surplus of £1 million on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To achieve efficiency improvements of a unit cost reduction of 2%

  Year to 31 March 1999

  To achieve a customer satisfaction index of 8.25 (out of 10)

  Year to 31 March 1999

  1999–2000 Targets set for the Cabinet Office Agencies for 1999–2000 are covered by (but not listed in) the Department's PSA targets

  Target

  Target date

  The Buying Agency—Targets announced 28 July 1999 (Official Report WA 322)

  To generate a return on capital employed of 8% (excluding the costs of restructuring)

  Year to 31 December 1999

  To reduce the cost per pound of savings by 2.5% on 19998 outturn

  Year to 31 December 1999

  To raise customer satisfaction by 5% over the year

  Year to 31 December 1999

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency—Targets announced 12 May 1999 (Official Report WA 174)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To achieve sales turnover of £11 million

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To maintain expenditure and receipts within voted provision

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To maintain gross contribution as a percentage of sales at 1998–99 outturn

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To increase income per point of labour cost to £ 2.04

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To improve customer satisfaction by 2%

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To convert to alternative environmentally friendly fuels 50% of the cars purchased and capable of conversion

  Year to 31 March 2000

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate— Targets announced 15 July 1999 (Official Report WA 285)

  To identify savings from proposals to be agreed with departments for the co-ordination of property activities on the Civil Estate which in net present value terms should be at least 12 times the agency's related running costs

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To deliver on time at least 93% of the Central Advice Unit's annual work plan

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To recover 100% of the costs of providing intelligent client services and to increase the percentage of all the agency's running costs recovered to 12%

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To achieve an improvement in overall customer satisfaction for the agency's services

  Year to 31 March 2000

  Civil Service College—Targets announced 15 July 1999 (Official Report WA 286)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To generate an income on consultancy of £1.1 million

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To attract 1,900 students from the Senior Civil Service

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To attract 900 students from the private sector

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To achieve 89% of course evaluations by students in the highest two categories (on a 6 point scale)

  Year to 31 March 2000

  55

  1999–2000 Targets set for the Cabinet Office Agencies for 1999–2000 are covered by (but not listed in) the Department's PSA targets

  Target

  Target date

  Central Office of Information—Targets announced 15 July 1999 (Official Report WA 286)

  To achieve a financial surplus of £0.1 million on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To achieve efficiency improvements of a unit cost reduction of 2%

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To achieve a customer satisfaction index of 8.25 (out of 10)

  Year to 31 March 2000

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency—Target announced 20-7-99 (Official Report WA 490)

  To break even on an accruals basis

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To deliver CCTA services within voted provision

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To achieve 75% of customers surveyed confirming that CCTA has operated within the terms of its Charter

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To secure savings that will reduce the cost of support services by 5%

  Year to 31 March 2000

  To achieve 93% of customer satisfaction evaluations in the top 2 boxes of a 5 box scale

  Year to 31 March 2000

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Efficiency
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent measures he has taken to improve efficiency in police forces. [95005]

  Mr. Straw
  Studies by both Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission have shown that there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency of police forces thus releasing more officers for key operational duties.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review set the police an annual target of two per cent. efficiency gains which must be reinvested in frontline policing. The new duty of Best Value will be placed upon Police Authorities from 1 April 2000, and will require them to deliver efficient and high quality services and demonstrate year on year improvements.

  Police Establishment
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to increase the total number of police officers in England and Wales. [95006]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding plans to increase police numbers. [95008]

  Mr. Straw
  I made a full statement of the position on police numbers to the Home Affairs Committee and to this House on 26 October 1999,Official Report, columns 821–34.

  Under legislation passed by the previous government, the powers of the Home Secretary to set overall police numbers were removed. The Government have allocated money for a Crime Fighting Fund which among other things will provide the funding for 5,000 more recruits over and above the number forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years, commencing in April
  56
  2000. £35 million of new money will be available to support this next year, and there will be further funding in the two following years. All of this is additional to the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement for policing.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Police Federation to discuss police numbers. [95018]

  Mr. Straw
  I have regular formal and informal meetings with all three Police Staff Associations to discuss a range of issues, including police numbers.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers retired from forces in England and Wales in the three years to 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [95019]

  Mr. Straw
  The numbers of police officers who have retired over the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  4,478

  1997–98

  4,807

  1998–99

  4,204

  These figures show the total of ordinary and medical retirements in each year and have been obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. They do not include losses to the service through death nor do they include the figures for those officers who resigned or were dismissed in each of the above years. For these latter details I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 October 1999, Official Report, column 625.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were recruited to police forces in England and Wales in the last three years. [95009]

  Mr. Straw
  Including transfers between forces, 18,384 police officers were recruited by forces in England and Wales between 1996–97 and 1998–99.

  Licensing Hours
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make changes to the pub licensing regime. [95007]

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make changes to the pub licensing regime. [95023]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We hope to publish a White Paper early in the New Year setting out our proposals for modernising the liquor and public entertainment licensing laws, and to bring forward a Bill when Parliamentary time permits.

  Confiscation of Criminals' Assets
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to re-examine the rules under which the assets of convicted criminals are confiscated; and what steps he is planning to take to ensure that full disclosure of assets takes place. [95010]
  57
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  While the courts already have extensive powers to require disclosure of assets following a conviction, and to order confiscation, the Government are preparing a package of measures to strengthen further the investigation, tracing and confiscation of criminal proceeds. The proposals will take account of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation, whose report was published in November and is available in the Library, and of a recently initiated study by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit, which will be completed early next year.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department gives to neighbourhood watch schemes. [95011]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home Office officials work closely with the Neighbourhood Watch movement, which we support enthusiastically. We have funded national initiatives such as publicity campaigns and training packs which have played a considerable part in the continued growth of the movement over the years.

  Drug Misuse
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the education and youth services about combating drug abuse. [95012]

  Mr. Boateng
  I take the opportunity in local visits to speak with teachers, youth workers and others engaged in delivering the Government's anti drugs strategy. My Department is fully engaged with the Department for Education and Employment about the role of education and youth services in combating drug abuse.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage greater use of anti-social behaviour orders. [95013]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I wrote to all Chief Executives of local authorities and Chief Officers of police on 13 October to remind them of the uses to which anti-social behaviour orders might be put. My officials are also working closely with the Local Government Association to develop good practice on the use of these orders which we will circulate widely.

  I am encouraged that more authorities are considering the use of anti-social behaviour orders—anecdotal evidence suggests that the simple threat of an order can lead to significant improvements in behaviour.

  Cremation
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the regulations governing the cremation of body parts. [95014]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provided the body itself has been cremated and the necessary documentation is available, there appears to be no reason why the cremation of body parts removed in the course of a post mortem should not take place. Where the body was buried, separate 58
  cremation of the organs is not possible, but I am prepared to propose an amendment to the Cremation Regulations to facilitate their disposal in accordance with the family's wishes.

  Police (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of Staffordshire to discuss police numbers. [95015]

  Mr. Straw
  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), met the Chief Constable of Staffordshire in September to discuss a range of policing issues, including resources.

  Under legislation passed by the previous government, the number of police officers in each force is determined by chief constables on the basis of the resources made available to them.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the backlog of asylum applications. [95016]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are developing new procedures to speed up the consideration of cases in the current backlog. In addition we are recruiting around 250 new staff to deal purely with asylum applications, and training more of our existing staff in asylum skills. The Immigration and Asylum Bill sets out our proposals to deliver a more effective asylum system. This will protect those in genuine need of protection while dealing swiftly and firmly with unfounded applications. The Bill will deliver key elements of our strategy to reform the asylum system, including new support arrangements for asylum seekers.

  Young Offenders
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to speed up the process for bringing young offenders to trial. [95017]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to reduce criminal justice delays have now been successfully piloted and start operating across England and Wales today. We are also starting pilots for statutory time limits in selected youth courts.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent measures he has taken to deal with persistent young offenders. [95025]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are working with the youth justice services to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. This should cut offending on bail and enable quicker action to tackle offending behaviour. The Youth Justice Board has recently issued new practical guidance, and is helping local areas to produce joint improvement plans to ensure that the target will be achieved.

  Scottish Legislation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has held with the First Secretary, Scottish Parliament, and the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning the proposed
  59
  amendments to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 as contained in the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [95020].

  Mr. Straw
  My officials and those of the Scottish Executive have been in regular contact over this and other matters throughout the passage of the Bill. The amendment brings Scottish social services legislation in line with provisions applying elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  HM Prison Preston
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he proposes to take on the recently published report on HM Prison Preston. [95021]

  Mr. Boateng
  In accordance with the protocol for handling inspection reports, the Prison Service will produce an action plan within 30 working days of publication of the report, addressing all the recommendations made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.

  Telephone Harassment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from chief constables on the working of the law in relation to telephone harassment in the light of information which has been supplied to him. [95022]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Prison Officers Association about morale at Wormwood Scrubs prison. [95024]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited Wormwood Scrubs on 6 September and met representatives of staff associations, including the Prison Officers Association. This meeting covered a range of issues including concerns about the effect of the current investigations on their members. I visited Wormwood Scrubs on 13 October and met members of staff associations including the Prison Officers Association in private, when they were given the opportunity to raise any matters which affected their members.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money the Government are investing in CCTV systems in the current financial year. [95026]

  Mr. Straw
  Under the first round of the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV initiative, crime reduction partnerships in England and Wales have been invited to prepare final proposals on 376 bids for new and extended CCTV schemes mainly directed at tackling vehicle crime and crime problems in housing are as at a potential capital 60
  cost of £68 million, a proportion of which will be expended in the current financial year. Final decisions will be announced later in the year.

  Mandatory Drug Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on relations between the police and ethnic minorities of his proposals for mandatory drug testing. [95027]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police service needs to secure the trust and confidence of all sections of the community and to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination against any racial group. The police service is committed to a programme of action in response to the recommendations of the report of the Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence published in February, to ensure that this aim is achieved.

  We would expect these principles to be reflected in any arrangements to be introduced for drug testing of arrestees.

  Electoral Reform
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is considering to reform election procedure. [95028]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published the final report of the Working Party on Electoral Procedures on 19 October. He has welcomed the report and will be seeking the earliest practical opportunity for a Bill to carry forward the body of its recommendations.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions took place on the issue of commercial use of the electoral register between the Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures and(a) direct marketing organisations, (b) credit agency organisations, (c) other business organisations, (d) consumer organisations and (e) the Data Protection Registrar; if any of those organisations or individuals were invited to present their views in person to the Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures; and if he will consult further with these organisations before final decisions are taken on those aspects of the proposed Bill on reforming electoral procedures which would affect the use of the electoral register for commercial purposes. [96846]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the lifetime of the Working Party, members of its Secretariat held meetings as follows: with representatives of direct marketing organisations on two occasions; representatives of credit agency organisations on four occasions; and representatives of other business associations on three occasions. The Data Protection Registrar, by virtue of her statutory advisory role, was invited to make a personal presentation at one meeting of the Working Party. Further consultation is taking place on the Working Party's recommendations for restrictions on the sale of the electoral register for non-electoral purposes.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his Department's intention to publish the submissions made by businesses and individuals in response to the consultation document on
  61
  electoral procedures, with the exception of those who have asked for their submissions to remain private. [96847]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. But any businesses or individuals can, of course, publish their own submissions if they wish to do so.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce trials of early voting at elections other than the Greater London Authority elections. [96685]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which published its final report on 19 October, recommended that early voting should be among the electoral innovations included in pilot schemes.

  The Government have welcomed the Working Party's recommendations. We intend to legislate to give effect to them as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [95029]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There has been widespread support for the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau. The Government have considered very carefully the many representations that we have received arguing for charges to be waived for checks carried out by the Bureau in the case of volunteers who work with children. The concerns which have been expressed have increased our determination that the cost of certificates from the Bureau should be kept as low as possible. The cost of certificates has been previously estimated at between £5 and £10 depending on type of certificate.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with freedom of information legislation. [95001]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Consultation document on Freedom of Information, published on 24 May 1999, invited comments on the draft legislation. We received a total of 2,248 submissions, all but 400 of which were part of an organised petition about scientific experimentation on animals. Copies of the submission have been placed in the Library.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 22 October the changes we propose to make to the draft Bill following the consultation period. We will now seek to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill as soon as the legislative timetable allows.

  Crime Reduction Partnerships
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with the formation of crime reduction partnerships. [95004]
  62
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The crime and disorder reduction partnerships brought into being by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have published their strategies. They are currently implementing them. This is a vital part of the attack upon crime, based on local priorities and needs.

  Suspended Sentences
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the consequent reduction in prison numbers if suspended sentences of imprisonment were more widely available to the judiciary. [95475]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Estimates of the likely effect on the prison population vary between a few hundred and a few thousand depending upon the exact nature of the new arrangements introduced, whether the sentences they replaced were custodial or non-custodial, the length of any such custodial sentences and the rate of activation of the new suspended sentences. The current restriction, which limits suspension of a custodial sentence to cases where exceptional circumstances exist, was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Criminal Statistics for England and Wales 1997 show that the number of offenders sentenced for indictable offences to a fully suspended sentence fell from 25,800 in 1987 to 2,700 in 1993.

  Remembrance Sunday
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to invite German, Italian and Japanese veterans to join the Remembrance Sunday parade in Whitehall. [96029]

  Mr. Straw
  There are no plans to widen the attendance at the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday to include German, Japanese and Italian veterans.

  The Royal British Legion, which organises the march past the Cenotaph which follows the official ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, has however made proposals which will allow greater participation in future years by non ex-Service groups and individuals. I have welcomed the proposals for expansion of the march past put forward by the Royal British Legion, and my officials are discussing the details with them.

  National Attack Warning System
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) local authorities, (b) civil protection organisations and (c) others about the content of messages to be delivered by the National Attack Warning System. [96538]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The National Attack Warning System is designed to be used in war. It is inappropriate at this stage to discuss with local authorities or other civil protection organisations the precise content of the messages to be carried.

  Discussions about the system are continuing with the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Paddington Train Crash
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if interim recommendations relevant to civil
  63
  protection matters will be published about the Paddington crash in advance of the full report being published. [96541]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has commissioned inquiries into the crash. I shall be looking very carefully at any lessons for the wider civil protection response which may be identified in those inquiries.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in the investigation by the Metropolitan Police into the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. [95457]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The continuing investigation into WPC Fletcher's murder is an operational matter for the Metropolitan Police. They have made clear, however, that they intend to pursue this investigation vigorously and expect full co-operation from the Libyan authorities.

  Cyber Crime
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of 1 July from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, what action he has taken to promote international co-operation in the field of cyber crime detection and pursuit. [94975]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have been playing an active role in promoting international co-operation in this new and important area of criminality. The conference of G8 Justice and Interior Ministers held in Washington in December 1997, in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary participated, agreed a set of principles and an action plan to combat high-tech crime. The principles in the Washington communiqué, a copy of which is in the Library, were subsequently endorsed by the European Union's Justice and Home Affairs Council under my right hon. Friend's chairmanship during the United Kingdom's European Union Presidency.

  G8 experts, including a Home Office led delegation from the United Kingdom, have since established a network of law enforcement contacts available around the clock to provide urgent assistance to authorities in partner countries investigating computer and internet crimes. The network is now expanding with United Kingdom encouragement, and a number of non-G8 countries including additional European Union Member States have joined.

  Further progress was made at the meeting of G8 Justice and Interior Ministers in Moscow on 18-20 October. I was present on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Moscow communiqué, of which I am placing a copy in the Library, includes agreement on new principles for providing law enforcement authorities with transborder access to stored data needed for criminal investigations. The Ministerial conference has instructed G8 experts to develop options within one year for co-operation in tracing computer communications taking place for illegal purposes, both while they occur and afterwards, as part of a continuing wide-ranging programme of work.
  64
  The United Kingdom is also participating in work in the Council of Europe to draft a Cybercrime Convention. Information about this was given by the Minister of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), on 21 October 1999, Official Report, column 621.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94983]

  Mr. Straw
  A large number of performance targets are set within the Home Office and its executive agencies and associated non-departmental public bodies, and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a wide range of information on performance targets is contained in the various Home Office and agencies' business plans. Copies of available publications have been placed in the Library and, in some instances, on the internet at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/index.htm.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to allow someone charged under the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts to advance a defence based upon overriding public interest; and if he will make a statement. [96071]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government believe that the Official Secrets Act 1989 provides a sound basis for protecting sensitive official information. We have no current plans to replace or amend it.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charges of racial discrimination have been made by staff of the Commission for Racial Equality against the Commission itself in each of the last five years. [96701]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of complaints made by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) staff to the Employment Tribunal alleging racial discrimination for each of the last five years is as follows:

  1995–0

  1996–5

  1997–4

  1998–8

  1999–3

  Of these 20 cases, three are ongoing, five were settled and the Tribunal dismissed 12. No finding of racial discrimination has ever been made against the CRE by the Tribunal.

  Chinese State Visit
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis following
  65
  the visit of the President of China to London; what further discussions he plans; and if he will make a statement. [96697]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meets regularly with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to discuss policing issues in London, and there are regular contacts with the Metropolitan Police at both Ministerial and official level. There were no specific discussions of the issues specified at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's meetings prior to the Chinese State Visit nor at other meetings between Ministers and officials and the Metropolitan Police. At a regular meeting between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Commissioner on 27 October 1999, the Commissioner told my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Metropolitan Police were conducting an internal review into the policing of the visit of the President of China.

  Channel Islands
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what legislative powers he has advised the authorities in Guernsey that they cannot alter Section 201 of their income tax law; and if he will make a statement on the powers of HM Government in relation to taxes levied in the Channel Islands. [96849]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are regular discussions between United Kingdom officials and the authorities in the Crown Dependencies on matters of mutual interest. I understand that the Guernsey authorities do not now propose to amend Section 201 of the Income Tax (Guernsey) Law 1975. All primary legislation passed by the Channel Island legislatures requires the Assent of the Queen in Council.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many of the 4,500 extra teachers provided for under the Class Size Initiative had been recruited as at 30 September; of those recruited, how many came from existing jobs in(a) infant classes and (b) junior classes; and how many were newly-qualified teachers; [96833]

  (2) how many teachers were in post in infant classes as at 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999. [96832]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have provided funding for 4,500 extra teachers from September 1999 to implement our infant class size pledge. Of this number, 3,000 are additional to the 1,500 we funded from September 1998. LEAs have informed us that they have employed the extra teachers for which they received funding. Full statistical returns of the number of teachers in post are collected each January. We do not hold information on where individual teachers are recruited from, but we are providing Local Education Authorities with the resources to take on additional teachers to enable them to reduce infant classes to 30 or below.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has circulated to schools about compliance with the Parental Leave Regulations. [96410]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has not circulated any advice to schools. The regulations have not yet been laid before Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will issue guidance on parental leave.

  Mental Health (Children)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the evidence published by the Mental Health Foundation about the emotional development of the nation's children. [95217]

  Jacqui Smith
  We welcome the Mental Health Foundation's Report "Bright Futures". An official from my Department had observer status on the steering group which guided Bright Future's preparation and will tomorrow attend a seminar the Mental Health Foundation is holding to review its impact.

  My officials are working with their Department of Health counterparts to ensure that policy on child and adolescent mental health services takes account of educational considerations. We shall further consider Bright Futures in the context of the forthcoming review of the guidance we issue to schools and local education authorities on the education of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of asylum seekers are currently not receiving an education because local education authorities have not offered them a school place. [96195]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children of asylum seekers are entitled to education in the same way as other children, irrespective of their immigration status or right to residence in a particular location. It is the legal duty of the Local Education Authorities to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age in their area appropriate to age, abilities and aptitudes and any special educational needs they may have. Local Education Authorities receive funding from this Department for the education of children of asylum seekers in the same way as they do for other children.

  Teacher Retirements
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have retired as a result of ill-health in the three years to 31 March. [96430]
  67
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of teachers who have retired as a result of ill health from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector, England, in financial years 1996–97 to 1998–99 are as follows:

  Number

  1996–97

  4,980

  1997–98

  3,290

  1998–991

  2,220

  1 1998–99 data are provisional

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his policy is on the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement. [96463]

  Jacqui Smith
  Promoting inclusion within mainstream schools, where parents want it and appropriate support can be provided, is a cornerstone of the Government's special educational needs strategy. The education of children with special needs is a key challenge for the nation, and critical to the creation of a fully inclusive society. There are strong educational, as well as social and moral, grounds for educating pupils with special needs or disabilities with their peers.

  Where parents want a mainstream setting for their child our policy is to try to provide it. We are providing, this year, £8 million through the Standards Fund and £20 million through the Schools Access Initiative to promote inclusion. Equally, when parents want a specialist setting for their child it is important that their wishes are respected. Our approach has been practical, not dogmatic. We are advocating inclusion by choice and have underlined that there remains a continuing and vital role for special schools. The key objective must be to safeguard the interests of all children and to ensure that they achieve to their full potential.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority(a) the number of pupils with moderate learning difficulties and (b) the proportion who were taught in special schools in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [96498]

  Jacqui Smith
  Central statistics giving details of the number of pupils by type of special educational need are not collected.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the research by Professor Alan Dyson of Newcastle-upon-Tyne University on the benefits to children with moderate learning difficulties of attending mainstream schools. [96507]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report highlighted the wide variations which exist in the access to, and the quality of, provision for pupils with special educational needs. Working together to better meet special educational needs is a key message within the SEN programme of action. Spearheading action under this theme is the expansion of the SEN regional co-ordination projects to cover the whole of England by April 2000. The projects are encouraging local authorities to work with each other, the 68
  voluntary and private sectors and other partners to better plan and meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs and to standardise provision.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional support he plans to give to(a) mainstream schools and (b) special schools for children with special educational needs. [96478]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our Programme of Action on Special Educational Needs, published in November 1998, is an integral part of our strategy for improving all schools. Measures in it will develop the existing statutory framework and procedures, building on experience and best practice. They aim to shift the emphasis from procedures to practical support. It is a measure of the priority we are giving to children with SEN that we have virtually doubled—to £35 million—the targeted support for SEN under the Standards Fund in 1999–2000. We have also increased five-fold the capital support under the Schools Access Initiative, from the £4 million we inherited in 1997–98, to £20 million in 1999–2000. We are planning further big increases to the SEN Standards Fund and the Schools Access Initiative for the following two years. This specific funding for SEN is in addition to the very substantial increases in the overall resources available to schools.

  School Funding (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average funding allocation per child attending(a) junior and (b) secondary schools in each of the last 20 years, in real terms, in Leeds Local Education Authority. [96189]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the primary and secondary education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) per pupil in real terms, for Leeds Education Authority, for each of the last ten years, at 1990–2000 prices. The information is not available for the years prior to the introduction of SSAs, which occurred in 1990–91.

  Unit SSA allocations in real terms (£'s per pupil)

  Change on previous year (Percentage)

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1990–91

  1,916

  2,793

  -

  -

  1991–92

  2,069

  3,078

  8.0

  10.2

  1992–93

  2,113

  3,168

  2.1

  2.9

  1993–94

  2,095

  3,118

  -0.9

  -1.6

  1994–95

  2,091

  2,998

  -0.2

  -3.8

  1995–96

  2,027

  2,765

  -3.0

  -7.8

  1996–97

  2,052

  2,805

  1.2

  1.5

  1997–98

  2,093

  2,817

  2.0

  0.4

  1998–99

  2,156

  2,876

  3.0

  2.1

  1999–2000

  2,227

  2,922

  3.3

  1.6

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress his Department is making in ensuring that schools recognise dyslexia and respond with appropriate teaching methods. [95311]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the Education Act 1966, schools and local education authorities (LEAs) have a duty to identify and make suitable provision for all children with
  69
  special educational needs, including children with dyslexia. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs gives guidance to schools and LEAs on how to meet this duty. Paragraphs 3.60 to 3.63 provide guidance on specific learning difficulties and have particular reference to dyslexia.

  To assist schools in recognising dyslexia we have produced simple guidance which provides hints to primary school teachers to help them identify children who may be dyslexic. In addition the Department has recently provided a grant to help the British Dyslexia Association produce a schools resource pack entitled "Achieving dyslexia friendly schools".

  A recent seminar bringing together the main government departments and agencies, and external partners for an exchange of views on the key educational issues in the areas of dyslexia, was well received. Ways in which individual expertise and resources can be pooled were identified, and a consensus reached over a shared agenda for tackling issues in the areas of early identification, teacher training, and the use of ICT. An informal working group has been set up to take matters forward.

  Changes to Initial Teacher Training introduced in September 1998 require all trainees to demonstrate that they are able to identify pupils who have special educational needs including specific learning difficulties and know where to get help in order to give positive and targeted support.

  Anaphylaxis
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what action his Department has taken and what plans he has to ensure children from atopic families avoid early sensitisation to nut products and that parents and carers are aware of the risk of sensitisation; [96530]

  (2) what information his Department issues concerning anaphylaxis and contact between young children and nut products; [96440]

  (3) what recent representations he has received from groups concerned about anaphylaxis and the difficulties faced by sufferers in everyday life; [96438]

  (4) what representations he has received from leisure providers concerning the use of their facilities, and participation in activities, by sufferers from anaphylaxis. [96654]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not received any recent representations from anaphylaxis groups or from leisure providers. We have issued guidance for schools on "Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs" which contains advice on anaphylaxis. Advice is also available on the joint DfEE and Department of Health Wired for Health website. We will be consulting shortly on draft regulations on new nutritional standards for school lunches. The new standards will allow caterers flexibility to respond to the requirements of children who have allergies to particular foods. I will send a copy of the draft regulations to the hon. Member when they are published. The question about early sensitisation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94987]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its PSA, and the measures of success it will use in the Output and Performance Analysis (OPA) published in March this year. A full list of the targets and target dates for Agencies and Executive NDPBs can be found annually in the Next Steps Report and Executive and Non-Departmental Public Bodies Report on the Stationery Office website. In addition, my Department has published a Strategic Framework to 2002: Learning and Working Together for the Future, setting out our aim, objectives, targets and supporting policies for that period; and has published the Government's National Learning Targets to 2002 in the leaflet "National Learning Targets for England for 2002—now including the new Learning Participation Target" and in its publication "National Learning Targets—action plan".

  These high-level targets are supported at operational level by numerous targets to ensure delivery by individual units. Listing these operational targets would be inappropriate and disproportionate in terms of resources. However, the DfEE annual Departmental Report and Annual Report of the Employment Service also include performance related information.

  Student Complaints
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education to publish its draft proposals for student complaints systems in higher education. [96590]

  Mr. Wicks
  I understand that the Quality Assurance Agency intends to issue its draft Code of Practice on Student Complaints and Appeals to higher education institutions and other interested parties for consultation during the week commencing 1 November.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the development of national programmes to deliver information and advice on education and training for adults. [96409]

  Mr. Wicks
  As set out in the White Paper, "Learning to Succeed" (Cm 4392), we want adults to have the help they need to make informed choices about learning and work. That help will be available through Learning Direct, the national learning helpline; through Lifelong Learning Partnerships, who are developing a free information and advice service for adults at local level; and, for unemployed people, through the comprehensive advice and support service associated with the Employment Service's New Deal programmes for young people, the unemployed and people with disabilities.
  71
  Since it was launched last year, Learning Direct has helped more than 860,000 callers. Following consultation earlier in the year, my Department is now agreeing plans with Lifelong Learning Partnerships for the development of information and advice services that are tailored to local needs. To date, more than 348,000 young people aged 18-24 and 144,000 adults aged 25 and over have received specialised advice and support through the New Deal.

  AS Levels
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of(a) the policy of university admission authorities towards AS levels and (b) if they will make offers based on AS levels. [95867]

  Mr. Wicks
  It is for universities to decide on their admissions policies. Early indications are that they are considering using AS qualifications rather than GCSEs as predictors of likely A level performance. Universities such as Cambridge have also indicated that they are considering using the new Advanced Extension Award as an alternative to its STEP exam. Universities will normally make final offers on the basis of final A level and GNVQ scores, but may also include AS qualification and AE achievement as evidence of breadth and depth.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students attending higher education institutions have received financial help from access funds in each of the last 10 academic years. [96186]

  Mr. Wicks
  The following table shows the number of successful applications in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98. Comparable figures for 1998–99 will not be available until the New Year. The figures for earlier years are not immediately available, but I shall write to my hon. Friend with them shortly.
  72
  These figures are based on returns from higher education institutions to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Some institutions have not returned information for the relevant years. The returns show only approved applications, and some students have applied successfully more than once.

  Year

  Number of successful applications

  1997–98

  49,236

  1996–97

  52,256

  1995–96

  55,453

  The Government have more than tripled spending on HE Access Funds, to £75 million, since 1997.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funding available for access funds for each further education college in England in the(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 academic years. [96188]

  Mr. Wicks
  Total access funds provision for further education colleges has been £6.0 million in 1996–97, £6.0 million in 1997–98, £10.3 million in 1998–99 and £37.4 million in 1999–2000. Grants to individual colleges are published in an annual Further Education Council Circular. The references for the Circulars for the years in question are:

  96/22 for 1996–97

  97/32 for 1997–98

  98/29 for 1998–99

  99/27 for 1999–2000

  Copies of the circulars have been placed in the Library.

  Play Schemes (Exclusions)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were excluded from(a) local council and (b) other leisure and play schemes on the grounds of medical conditions which are not classed as disabilities. [96528]

  Ms Hodge
  The information required is not collected centrally.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Baroness Massey of Darwen
Doreen Elizabeth Massey, having been created Baroness Massey of Darwen, of Darwen in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Baroness Castle of Blackburn, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Smith of Leigh
Peter Richard Charles Smith, Esquire, having been created Baron Smith of Leigh, of Wigan in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Donoughue and the Lord Evans of Parkside, and made the solemn Affirmation.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the Land Registry and the Combined Courts Centre and will also deliver the annual Pilgrim Fathers Lecture in Plymouth on Friday, 5th November, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

AS/A-level Examination Reforms
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether sufficient information will be available to schools in time to introduce the new AS/A-level system in September 2000.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): Yes, my Lords. My department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority have sent schools and colleges a wide range of advice and guidance on implementing the reforms arising from the Government's consultation on our manifesto commitment to,
"support broader A-levels and upgraded vocational qualifications, underpinned by rigorous standards and key skills".
The awarding bodies have now published the new AS/A-level specifications in draft form. The final versions will be available in January.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does she accept that the fact that
558
schools will not receive the new syllabuses until January will leave very little time for staff to prepare to teach pupils eight or nine months later, given that the new teaching will be coupled with a requirement for a complete reorganisation of the sixth form in order to have both the staffing and the necessary skills to teach four or five AS-levels in the first year sixth?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is not a fair criticism of the QCA. It sent out a detailed guidance document on the new qualifications in April and a detailed curriculum guidance suitable for a wide range of schools and colleges in September. Synopses of all the AS and A-level specifications were sent out in mid-October. The draft synopses are similar to the final version; and indeed schools were always told that the final versions would be available in January.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is understandable that the noble Baroness will not accept a criticism from my noble friend Lady Young, as I suspect she will not accept a criticism from me. However, will she accept that there is genuine anxiety on the part of staff on three counts: first, that they will not receive information until well into the new year; secondly, that they do not have the staffing to gear up for the new subject syllabus in the new year; and thirdly, that they do not have the resources to do so because there is an unprecedented top-slicing of money by the Department for Education which is eating into the core funding of our schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am always happy to accept criticisms, even from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when they are valid, but I am afraid that none of these is. To take the three points she mentioned, as I indicated, schools have already received an enormous amount of information about the changes, and the changes have been welcomed. This Government have finally done what had been necessary for a long time; namely, broaden the sixth form curriculum. That has been welcomed not only by schools and FE colleges, but also by employers and the universities. The noble Baroness mentioned staffing. The Government are investing £17 million in development programmes to support staff in developing the new curricula. She also asked about resources. The Further Education Funding Council has put £75 million into—
Baroness Blatch: But, my Lords, that is FE—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, further education and sixth form colleges have more than half the total number of full-time students aged between 16 and 19. If the noble Baroness will wait a moment, I shall move on to talk about schools. FE is receiving a further £75 million, and the schools will have an enormous increase of over 5 per cent in their budget through the local education authority settlement for the year 2000–2001.
Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while we must do all we can to expedite arrangements

559
for AS and A-level examinations in September next year, it is high time we developed a single nationally administered qualification system covering both academic and vocational qualifications?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a big issue. We are taking steps to create a more rational and coherent system, including in these particular reforms aligning the GNVQ system much more closely to the A-level/AS-level system.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us would prefer to scrap A-levels completely and introduce the baccalaureate?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I am aware that there are those who would like to see a radical reform of the curriculum for 16 to 19 year-olds. The Government judged that the right way to proceed was to build on the good qualities of A-levels by defending the academic rigour that is central to them, but at the same time in the hope that, given the new opportunities, far more young people will study a rather wider range of subjects than the very narrow and rather restricted curriculum that they studied previously.

Streetworks: Operations Control
2.55 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce legislation to give local authorities control over the digging up of streets so as to minimise the difficulties caused to both residents and traffic management.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, streetworks operations are governed by the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991. The Government seek to achieve a balance between the need for the utilities to install and access equipment from time to time and minimising the disruption caused. On 13th October, my department published a consultation document on incentives to minimise disruption and improve streetworks co-ordination in England. It proposed that utilities should be charged for occupying sites for longer than necessary.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat disappointing reply. Is he aware that the chaos caused by utility companies digging up our streets and pavements with uncoordinated plans and uncoordinated management is well known and well documented and that it has become a public disgrace? Is he further aware that local authorities clearly do not have satisfactory statutory powers of control over the many utility companies—there are some 26 of them—that they
560
could have if the Minister implemented powers given to him under the 1991 Act? When, as has happened in one case, a London street has been dug up 30 times in one year, does that not call for firm action rather than dithering delay with yet more consultation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the noble Earl's concern. Indeed, many others have expressed concern about the degree of disruption. But there are conflicting priorities here. The utilities must have access to their own facilities. The important thing is that we improve co-ordination. There is already a fairly substantial code of practice on co-ordination. However, it is also true, as the noble Earl indicates, that the final sections of the 1991 Act have yet to be triggered. We had hoped, as had the previous administration, that there would have been agreement on proceeding. There has not been that agreement. The consultation document to which I referred offers two options on charging utilities. We hope for feedback on that consultation by January, after which those powers will either be triggered, or powers will be introduced in new legislation.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that when the utilities cause problems on our streets, half the problem is that they do not know where their pipes or cables are? Does my noble friend agree that about 10 years ago there was a plan for all the utilities to be required to map exactly where their pipes and cables were, and that that plan was cancelled by the previous government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the 1991 Act includes the possibility of such powers but, as with the charging elements, they were never triggered by the previous administration. We, like the previous government, have tried to seek agreement on them. However, if those clauses were enacted, I am not entirely sure that they would achieve rapidly what my noble friend requires. They would require the utilities merely to keep a record of newly placed or located facilities. There are a large number of historic facilities under our highways which, I regret to say, are not effectively mapped. A full inventory could be built up over time by the use of those powers, and that is one of the approaches that we are examining. But that would not instantly give us a total picture of the network.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, what is the Minister's attitude towards GIs and the ability to plan services on one integrated computer system, as other countries are doing? It is surely an approach that we, with our high population densities, ought to be able to take.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the present code of practice requires co-ordinated notification which should be capable of translation into an electronic-based system of planning. At the moment we are short of that. One of the matters that we are looking at in the

561
consultation is how to move more rapidly in that direction. However, it requires powers over and above those already in the 1991 Act.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how many trees have been damaged by the digging of so many holes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I can comment on the precise number of trees affected. Clearly, there is a problem here in that the only powers of local authorities relate to reaching agreement on timing and insisting on that only on the basis of traffic disruption. There are some powers related to noise, but local authorities have no general powers to deal with environmental considerations. Once we have the basic system right perhaps that should also be considered.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while many people are annoyed about their roads being dug up, they are even more annoyed to see hobs being left for days, weeks, months and even longer without anyone working on them? What can he do to ensure that once a road is dug up some action follows?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, either of the proposals that we have put in consultation paper would charge utilities and others who dig up the roads on a per day or overstay basis. Clearly, either would be a disincentive to remaining there for longer than needed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm or not that the additional powers that it is common ground are needed should be devolved to the local authorities? Does he agree that, although one accepts that the priority lies with the public utilities—always in the case of an emergency—the situation is now wholly out of control and residents should be given some notice, consideration and a chance to cope with it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, while there are national provisions related to notice and consultation, the powers to which I refer and the charging procedures under the consultation would accrue to local authorities. Local authorities would have the ability to apply those powers or not in particular cases.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Street Works Bill which was a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole? Is he also aware that my honourable friend originally hoped that that Bill, which would have gone a long way to solving the problem, would receive government support which, following a sudden change of mind, was withdrawn? Can the Minister say why that support was withdrawn?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, support in principle for the Fraser Bill was not withdrawn. However, we believed
562
that to enact the Bill in its then form, which effectively adopted only one of the options, would pre-empt the consultation in which we are now engaged.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, the Minister indicated that charges would be levied if a contractor occupied a site for longer than necessary. Who will decide the necessary length of time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if we take that option the agreement would be, as now, between the local authority and the utility, cable company or whatever as to the length of time the hole would be in the road. There would be a prior agreement. If that time was exceeded penalty charges would accrue.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when road repairs break down shortly after they have been undertaken who is responsible for ensuring that the work is redone to a proper standard, particularly in rural areas where this situation seems to occur on a number of roads?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord refers to the repair of the road rather than the utility facility, which is clearly covered by the utility's responsibility to its customers. As to the road, it is required to return the road to an adequate standard. From time to time in order to avoid traffic disruption the utility must do a makeshift job and then return. Clearly, it is desirable that that second digging up of the road should be avoided wherever possible, but it is even more important that the road is returned to an adequate standard.

Nuclear Warheads
3.4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they or others are taking to secure a reduction in the total number of nuclear warheads, estimated at present to be 40,000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government continue to press for early progress towards further reductions in nuclear weapons. We hope for early ratification by Russia of START II and a successful outcome to discussions between the United States and Russia on a possible START III treaty. The Government announced significant reductions in Britain's own nuclear deterrent in last year's Strategic Defence Review.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, bearing in mind that a few hundred of these awful weapons would be more than sufficient to devastate the planet, it is profoundly shocking that this huge stockpile should have been with us for so long and there is little prospect of diminishing it? Does she believe that it is time that a new initiative comes out of

563
the White House—there has not been one for a long time—to reduce this stockpile which is of no possible use to anyone but is a source of immense hazard?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is shocking that there are so many of these weapons. Noble Lords will be aware that Her Majesty's Government have been clear in their commitment to nuclear disarmament. In last year's Strategic Defence Review we reduced our capability significantly. We have also committed ourselves, and led the world in terms of transparency, to ensuring that this matter is addressed with vigour. We continue to ask all our partners to join us in this endeavour.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is to be congratulated on raising this important subject? Does she also agree that the matter should not be left as it is now but that public knowledge of the danger in which we live should be increased to the point where the danger can be seriously reduced before a disaster does the alarming for us? Is it not better to take firm action now and for all countries to do the same so that the disaster that most of us fear may happen does not take place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are already taking firm action. We have a clear internationally agreed way forward towards nuclear disarmament. The next steps are further major reductions in the arsenals of the two major nuclear powers, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty. We continue to press for early progress in all these areas despite the difficulties that are well known to your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can my noble friend give precise figures for other countries within NATO? For example, can she say what the position is in France and Germany at the present time?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures but I can write to the noble Lord in relation to them. We have round figures but not precise ones.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the greatest problems is that there is a large stockpile of these weapons in the former Soviet Union, not just in Russia but also the Ukraine and elsewhere, in deteriorating condition, with lousy security implications? Does the noble Baroness also accept that the United States has done much more to assist in the disposal of that stockpile than the United Kingdom or our West European allies? Will the Government consider whether we and our European Union allies should be doing more?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that the United States has done a lot to assist Russia, but
564
I do not accept that Her Majesty's Government have not played an equal part. We have been vigorous in this area. We have supported all our allies, particularly our American friends, in this endeavour and shall continue to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, regarding the possession of nuclear weapons, what is the view of the noble Baroness of the recent judgment of Greenock sheriff court?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have not yet had the judgment given by the sheriff court; and we await an opportunity to read it in detail. But we are confident that there is no conflict between the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion and the Government's policy of minimum deterrence. When we have had an opportunity to study the formal findings of the sheriff court, we shall be able to take a more informed view.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, given that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is scheduled for review in the fairly near future, does the Minister agree that many of the non-nuclear powers are troubled at the absence of much sign from the nuclear powers that they want to make a move in that direction? Would it not be a major contribution to confidence-building if NATO were to make a declaration of no first use?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I under-stand the noble and learned Lord's sentiment and his anxiety. It is a difficult issue. However, we have made it clear, nationally and in NATO, that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are now extremely remote.
Nevertheless, NATO continues to reserve the right of limited first use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence to persuade an aggressor to desist if no other means are available. It is clear that there is no prospect of consensus among the allies on a move to a policy of no first use.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should bring home to our friends in the United States the tremendous damage done to the cause of arms control by the recent decision on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Does my noble friend agree that in his forthright leadership, the President of the United States speaks more convincingly for the people of the United States? Does she agree that if we are to make progress on this front, it is essential to bring home to our friends in America that it is while they have ascendancy that they have a vested interest for their own future in building up convincing international policies and agreements?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made clear to the Americans our grave disappointment with the US Senate vote. But, as the noble Lord says, that vote does not mean the end of the treaty. We have welcomed the US Administration's

565
expression of continuing support for the treaty. We shall continue to work with them and other key countries to bring the treaty into force as soon as possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while discussing American attitudes, will the Minister accept that although the Senate's refusal to counsel assent at this stage to the ratification of the total test ban treaty may be understandable, it is difficult to understand the total inactivity of the President of the United States with regard to the stockpile during his term of office?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. We are extremely disappointed that the Americans have taken the view that they have. It would have been preferable if they could have led by example to encourage others to join us in what is a very important endeavour. We have an indication that the American Administration are seeking to address the issue.

Business of the House: Food Standards Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday next so far as to allow the Food Standards Bill to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Grenfell.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Greater London Authority Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third lime.
Clause 6 [Failure to attend meetings]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 39, after ("If") insert (", without the consent of the Assembly,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The amendments relate to the period of absence without consent. Amendment No. 1 refers to assembly members. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 refer to the mayor. The amendments seek to reduce the period from the six months provided in the Bill to three months.
I make no apologies for returning to this matter again even at this late stage. It is not a matter of great principle. It does not affect the structure of the Bill. But we believe it to be extremely important in terms of practical common sense. I say that with 25 years' experience in local government. As regards assembly members, we are dealing with a situation which will arise sooner or later.
The provision in the Bill which requires assembly members to be deemed to have resigned if they have been absent from meetings for six months is based on local government practice and legislation. We have debated the issue. Why is the assembly different? Why should it be treated differently?
The Government have told us throughout the passage of the Bill that the assembly is not local government. For that reason alone, the provisions for local government need not apply. There are important differences between the Greater London assembly and any local authority. First, the assembly will have only 25 members. That is exactly half the number of the smallest London borough council. Unlike all local authorities, there will be no back-bench assembly members. All 25 assembly members will have individually and collectively important duties and roles to play. Most, if not all, will also be members of the various functional bodies being established. Unlike most, possibly all, councillors, assembly members are expected to be full time. Even more importantly, unlike the vast majority—arguably all—local authority councillors, full-time assembly members are to be paid a full-time salary. We do not yet know what that is to be.
Various objections have been put forward by the Government during the passage of the Bill. Assembly members may be unavoidably absent perhaps through long-term illness. The Minister will recall my pointing out the practice in local government of giving consent for someone to be absent for a longer period if there is good reason—such as long-term illness. The amendment provides for that, to make doubly sure. We are dealing with full-time, paid assembly members who are absent for a period of time without good reason and without the consent that the assembly would normally give.
It is a very different position from that which applies in local government. A single assembly member may be more greatly missed because of the smaller number of members and the greater responsibilities involved than those of a back-bench councillor or a committee chair on a local authority who, if long-term illness prevents him carrying out his duties, can be more easily replaced temporarily by a colleague.
We believe that six months' absence in a four-year term from any meeting—I do not refer just to the full meeting of the assembly, but also its sub-committees, and so on—is much too long. In debate on the issue, the Government have given no good argument why the period should be six months rather than three months. We are dealing with an assembly which will work every day. Full-time members will attend the

567
assembly building every day. They will be paid full-time salaries. We are not dealing with councillors who turn up once a week or fortnight for a meeting.
We think that the appropriate period is three months. If an assembly member is absent without good reason and without prior consent for a longer period than three months, a serious situation will occur. Under such circumstances, that assembly member is unable to carry out his duties and, if necessary, should be removed from office.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 make the same provisions with regard to the mayor who, under the Bill as it stands, is required to attend six consecutive monthly meetings of the assembly. I accept and hope that such circumstances are less likely to arise. If the mayor ignores the assembly for a period as long as six months, or even three months, there are greater difficulties than are provided for in the Bill.
The whole purpose of legislating here is to deal with situations which we hope will not arise, but which may arise. It is better to envisage situations which may arise and provide accordingly at this stage than after the event when there will be all kinds of difficulties.
A mayor needs to have, and I hope will have, a good and positive working relationship with the assembly. The mayor will wish to attend assembly meetings and the assembly will wish the mayor to attend. There may be circumstances in which that is not possible and we make provision for the assembly to consent to absence for a longer period if there is a good reason. That is the custom and practice in local government.
In objecting to the measure on Report, the Minister said that the assembly could possibly collaborate with the mayor to ensure that the mayor never had to attend assembly meetings. I suppose that, theoretically, that is possible, but I suggest that if we ever reach the stage where the assembly wishes to collude with the mayor so as to ensure that the mayor never attends assembly meetings, there is something deeply wrong with the whole process. We all conjecture on unlikely happenings, but on this occasion the Minister strayed into fantasy. Such a situation will not arise.
If a mayor decides that he or she does not wish to attend assembly meetings, a period of six months in a four-year term of office is a long time to provide. We are talking about a mayor who has considerable powers, albeit limited by the Bill, and a high personal profile. The whole purpose of the assembly is to be able to question the mayor and to hold the mayor to account. If the mayor is able to "escape" meetings for a period as long as six months, the mayor is thumbing his nose at the assembly and the assembly is being prevented from carrying out the job that the Government propose it should. There will be a full-time assembly and a full-time mayor of the largest authority in the country and we believe that a three-month period is quite long enough.
There may well be a circumstance in which the mayor is unable to attend meetings for longer than three months. Perhaps for good reasons he will have missed two meetings and then suddenly find that he will have to miss the third. It is reasonable that we should provide, as we do in local government, for the assembly to recognise and understand the mayor's good reason for being unable to attend the third monthly meeting and to give consent. That is the reason for Amendment No. 4.
These are not matters of great principle, but they are matters of practical common sense. With all my experience of local government—others present have as much and possibly more—I know that we are dealing with situations which sooner or later will arise. I do not know why the Government have been unable to consider the matter more carefully. I can assume only that they have been too distracted by the 880-odd amendments which they have presented to your Lordships.
For the practical good running of the Greater London Authority, I beg the Government to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, at the Committee stage, we on the Conservative Benches tabled amendments which were identical to two of the amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 2 and 5—proposed by noble Lords on the Liberal Front Bench today. I recall that after we had made our presentation, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, agreed with our amendments in principle but felt that there might be occasions when more than three absences would be allowable. I replied then that we would consider the matter and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that we now support all four amendments.
It would be improper for me to speak any more; I said what I had to say about the amendments in Committee. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, indicates his agreement. I wish to say only that if the Government are not minded to accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 today—I strongly believe that they should because this is not a matter of principle but of sensible good governance—I hope that at the least they will accept Amendments Nos. 1 and 4. It would be unusual and unacceptable for either assembly members or the mayor to be absent for so many meetings without a legitimate reason. As I pointed out in Committee, it would mean that the mayor need attend only eight meetings of the assembly during his term of office. I certainly support the amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, accused me of fantasising. It is a little early in the day for that. The circumstance covered in the amendments is extremely unlikely, but nevertheless it is one we should deal with. We have covered this ground at least twice. The situation is not precisely that which occurs in local government, but it uses the same timetable. We are talking about automatic disqualification.

569
As regards assembly members, we propose using the same timescale as that laid down in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. In that respect, we see no reason why the GLA should be different from the rest of local government. The position of the mayor is different from the situation in local government. We would not expect the mayor consciously to seek to avoid attending statutory meetings of the assembly. However, we need to ensure that if he or she does so, there is a point at which automatic disqualification cuts in.
As regards the amendment relating to the mayor, it would provide for the assembly to be able to override a three-month absence. However, we are providing for automatic disqualification after six months. I do not believe that reducing the number from six to three consecutive meetings is sensible or workable. In earlier debates, we suggested that due to ill health or a serious accident it may be necessary for the mayor to miss three or more consecutive meetings. In those circumstances, the mayor should not be automatically disqualified.
However, it is our view that should the mayor fail to attend six meetings disqualification should be automatic. The meetings are an essential part of holding the mayor to account. It would be wrong, even with the consent of the assembly, for the mayor to be able to avoid cross-examination for a period exceeding six months. That would be the implication of the noble Lord's amendment if it were applied at the three-month period.
It is conceivable, although unlikely, that in a GLA where the mayor and a majority of the assembly had similar political sympathies they might conspire to frustrate the need for accountability. That is a complete fantasy and I hope it never occurs. I am sure that all political parties will try to ensure that it does not. However, it is a possibility and we believe that automatic disqualification ought to be triggered at some point. We believe that it should be six months for both the mayor and assembly members. Six months is the period which applies in local government. We are not convinced of the reasons for changing that and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sorry that we have made no progress. I deliberately spent some time explaining why the assembly and its members are unlike any other local authority in the land. The assembly is smaller; it has a higher profile; its members are expected to be full-time; and they are paid to be full-time. That is different from any local authority councillors in the land.
I moved the amendment on the grounds of practical common sense and long experience in local government. We are committed to making the authority work. I am sad that the Government will not recognise this practical common sense, but I feel that the time has come to test the opinion of the House.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Attlee, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Avebury, L.

Lyell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Bellwin, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Morris, L.

Cadman, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Caithness, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Calverley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Rawlings, B.

Cox, B.

Razzall, L.

Cuckney, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V.

Redesdale, L.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank. L.

Russell, E.

Dundee, E.

Sandberg, L.

Exmouth, V.

Sandford, L.

Ezra, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Swansea, L.

Gray, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thurso, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.[Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hogg, B.

Waddington, L.

Hood, V.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Hooper, B.

Wigoder, L.

Hooson, L.

Wilcox, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ilchester, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ahmed, L.

Chorley, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Christopher, L.

Alli, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Amos, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bach, L.

Crawley, B.

Barnett, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Blease, L.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Dixon, L.

Bragg, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brett, L

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Brookman, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Burlison, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Filkin, L

571

Gilbert, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Marsh, L.

Glanusk, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Goudie, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Grabiner, L.

Monkswell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Grenfell, L.

Northfield, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Norton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Peston, L.

Harrison, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hayman, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Puttnam,L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rix, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Sawyer, L.

Chancellor)

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Serota, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord

Shore of Stepney, L.

Privy Seal)

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Slim, V.

Judd, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Kintore, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Laming, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lipsey,L.

Thornton, B.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Uddin, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Varley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Warner, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wharton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

[Teller]

Wilkins, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.39 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

VACANCY CREATED BY MEMBER RESIGNING PARTY WHIP
(" . Any London member elected as a member of a registered political party who resigns his party Whip shall be deemed to have created a vacancy.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I proposed a similar amendment to this one, with one exception, which I shall mention in a moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her colleagues proposed an identical amendment to this one, and I am glad to see that their names join ours on what we consider to be a most important matter.
In response to an entirely unsatisfactory reply from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested that on this very important constitutional matter there should be a discussion between the parties. I concurred with that and said so
572
when I withdrew my amendment at that stage. However, nothing happened. No meeting or discussion was offered or took place. The noble Baroness and her colleagues tabled the identical amendment at Report. Because of my absence on holiday and at my party's conference, I was too late to add my name to that amendment. But noble Lords may remember that I spoke in support of it in the renewed debate.
Once again, the Government, in the person of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, gave what we regarded as an unsatisfactory reply, repeating, we believe, irrelevant arguments about a situation that cannot happen under the current and the Report stage version of the amendment. The essential difference between my original amendment and the one which we discussed on Report and are discussing today is this: I originally proposed that a vacancy should be deemed to have occurred not only if a so-called London member resigned his party Whip but also if he were to be deprived of the Whip for disciplinary reasons. I dropped that second ground because noble Lords were worried that that would put far too much power in the hands of the party machines and would be too centralising. On reflection, I confess that I agree with them and believe that that would be so.
However, the noble Baroness used that as a reason to oppose the amendment, saying:
"What would happen is that a dissident member would refuse to toe the party line, or resign the Whip, and yet maintain his position".—[Official Report, 12/10/99; col. 255.]
Indeed, such a member might do that, and I agree that there would be nothing that anyone could do about it in the absence of any other sanction. But to cover that situation is no reason to decline to legislate. The Minister may regard it as entirely hypothetical and unlikely that a London member should fall out with his party and then do the honourable thing of resigning the Whip—not just sitting there, but resigning the Whip. The fact that a dishonourable assembly member, elected on his party's list, might seek to avoid losing his place by the dishonest device that the Minister suggested is no reason to fail to provide a remedy in the case of a London member who acts in an honourable manner.
The other and, I regret to say, totally specious argument which Ministers have raised against this amendment is to draw an analogy with the case of, say, a Member of Parliament or a local councillor elected on a first-past-the-post basis. The fiction is that the successful candidate has been elected solely as an individual rather than because of his party affiliation. In reality, that is what I have described it as—a fiction. These days, a candidate puts his party affiliation on the printed ballot paper. I am willing to bet that if you were to stop the first hundred people you met in any high street, not even a handful of them would be able to tell you the name of their MP. However, they would know for which party they had voted.
In reality and not in a fictional world, Members of Parliament and councillors are elected because they have been nominated by their party and not usually

573
just because of who they are personally. However, let us pretend for the sake of argument that in the case of Members of Parliament and councillors, it is a personal vote and not one for a party. That does not apply in the case of a London member, who has been elected on the basis of his position on his party's list. He has been elected not because of who he is but because the voters had given enough votes to his party. Only 11 London members will be elected as London members. They have been introduced into the system to ensure that the final composition of the assembly includes a proportion of the representatives of various parties without giving total dominance to just one party. With so few London members representing their party, the defection of just one member can destroy totally that balance. Indeed, let us suppose that the "Moon is Made of Blue Cheese Party" succeeds in securing just one member under this system. If that member defects to the "UFO Supporters Party' then the party that elected him will be completely disenfranchised.
The whole function of the elaborate structure of 14 constituency members and 11 London members is designed to try to maintain some kind of balance. If a nominated London member dies, he is replaced by another person from his party's list. He is not replaced by the by-election process. That is why any gap in the slate of party nominees, however it is caused, needs to be filled by another member of that party.
The argument was also advanced that this provision has not been included in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. To that I can only reply: more is the pity. Two wrongs do not make a right. In due course I hope that the electoral systems for those two bodies will be adjusted to follow the lead that I invite your Lordships to approve for the capital city of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this amendment which, as she says, is supported by both the Opposition Front Benches. We proposed this amendment at the last stage.
The situation whereby a member from the list resigns the Whip is one which could possibly happen. One hopes not, but it is certainly a possibility. The legitimacy of party list members in part lies in the internal mechanisms of their respective parties which put them on to the lists in the first place and which, depending on the party, may be more or less democratic. Secondly, it lies in the election of—let us face it—the representatives of the party rather than individuals. This electoral system marries proportionality with a constituency base for 14 of the members. We on these Benches are happy that there is a proportional system, although it is certainly not our system of choice. On a preferential basis, it is perhaps the second or third of our preferences. But we do support it.
However, as I am sure your Lordships would wish, we must ensure that the proportionality is strictly applied. As the noble Baroness said, the assembly is
574
small. A change of party by one of the 11 will have a disproportionately large effect. At the last stage, the Government's response was to say that that approach is impractical. I do not understand that response. I do not see what is not practical about what we propose.
Secondly, the Government's argument was that individual members represent the whole electorate from the moment that they are elected. To take on the mantle of representation is not the same as staying once one has given up the Whip for one's party. I believe that those are two separate issues.
The third argument, which I believe has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, is that such an approach is "dangerously centralising". I wish it were easier to show irony on the pages of Hansard. For the Government to suggest that this approach is dangerously centralising in the context of a highly centralised structure for the whole of London's government is, to my mind, an inappropriate response. As I said, we support the amendment that has been tabled and, indeed, we have added our names to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I also support the amendment, although I do so with a heavy heart. One has to support it because it is a logical extension of the voting system in the Bill, and the system in the Scottish Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that he wished that we had thought of this provision when the legislation setting up the Scottish Parliament went through the House. In fact, as we watch the activities of the Scottish Parliament, we can see some of the unfairness that has been created within parties and within constituencies due to the system.
I do not love the system any more than I did when the Scottish Parliament was launched. However, we are creating it again in this Bill. The Liberal Democrats, who like the system, naturally want to extend it by adding this amendment, saying that it is the party that matters and not individuals and that if an individual changes party he or she has to go. That is the logic of the system. It is an unfortunate but completely logical corollary to the system. I feel bound to support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been round this circle several times. I am utterly unconvinced by any of the arguments that have been put for this case. At least on the previous amendment the noble Lord had half an argument. I do not honestly believe that the parties opposite have an argument at all on this one. I am extremely surprised at the Liberal Democrats pursuing the matter.
I believe that under a proportional system there are still individual members. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, makes my case for me by saying that under the present system one is hardly ever elected except by party label. We have recognised that under first-past-the-post systems, as pertains in the House of Commons or in any council, if one changes one's party—as happens—there is no requirement on one to stand for by-election. We have recognised that in

575
relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is based on STV, and in relation to the European Parliament. That is also recognised in relation to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. There is no requirement under any of those different voting systems for someone who has been elected on a party ticket and who changes party once in office to submit himself to a by-election, although that might be argued to be the most honourable course. It may also be argued that such a situation should be institutionalised. I do not accept that. Why should we do so in this case and not in any others?
One also has to consider the practical point. A dissident member of a registered party who stood to lose his or her seat in changing party might simply not resign the party but act in support of one of the opposition parties. At earlier stages of the Bill the movers of these amendments did not support a situation whereby somebody expelled from a party loses their seat. Therefore, a dishonest member could continue to act under a Labour Party label but actually vote with the Conservative group on every issue. The sanction would apply to an honest member and not to a dishonest member. That does not seem to me a principled way of approaching the matter.
In every other electoral entity and under every other electoral system that we have adopted, for better or worse, in the House, there is no such principle as is proposed in the amendment. I see no reason for there to be such a principle in relation to the London assembly. I had hoped that we had disposed of this argument at an earlier stage and I hope that it is not pursued further today.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this is Third Reading and I believe that the mover of the amendment—I apologise to the noble Baroness. I hope she will forgive me.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall most certainly accept the genteel and charming apology of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. However, I am extraordinarily disappointed with what the Minister said. Of course, I agree with my noble friend who pointed out that we do not particularly like the system. That is the only part on which we differ from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, although we have both come to the same conclusion that, at the end of the day, if only 11 members are definitely and deliberately elected on a London list in order to create a balance, and if that balance changes, something needs to be done about it.
The argument the Minister gave about someone saying nothing but voting another way repeats what the noble Baroness said last time. We do not feel that that is an appropriate answer. I am disappointed that we have a system in which we want a top-up and a balance, as such a situation could happen and there would be no balance. As the Minister thought it
576
surprising that we should bring back this amendment, and as we have never tested the opinion of the House, we shall do so now.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 125

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Addington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Addison, V.

Luke, L.[Teller]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McNair, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Mancroft, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Mar and Kellie, E.

L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Attlee, E.

Mersey, V.

Avebury, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mills, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brentford, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cadman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Clancarty, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Clement-Jones, L.

Pender, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Cuckney, L.

Razzall, L.

Davidson, V.

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Dholakia L

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Eccles, V.

Russell, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Effingham, E.

Sandberg, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Ezra, L.

Seccombe, B.

Falkland, V.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grey, E.

Taverne, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tope, L.[Teller]

Hooper, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Jopling, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Barnett, L.

Alli, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Blease, L.

577

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Bragg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brett, L.

Judd, L.

Brightman, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Laming, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Christopher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

[Teller]

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thorn ton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Moyne, L.

Elder, L

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Northfield, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Orme, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Puttnam, L.

Glanusk, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goudie, B.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grabiner, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gregson, L.

Scodand of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hacking, L.

Serota, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Tenby, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Warner, L.

Chancellor)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitty, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord

Wilkins, B.

Privy Seal)

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Clause 13 [Failure to attend meetings]
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 32, leave out ("be disqualified from being") and insert ("cease to be").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 129.
These are drafting amendments. The Bill as currently drafted leaves scope for uncertainty in relation to the length of the period for which the mayor is disqualified when he or she fails to attend six consecutive meetings with the assembly, or when he or she is disqualified because of a failure to make election expenses returns or declarations. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 remove that doubt in relation to attendance at meetings by substituting "ceases to be" for "disqualified". Amendment No. 129 makes it clear that the disqualification is for the period of the election to which the disqualification applies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
("(bb) ceases to be the Mayor by reason of failure to attend meetings of the Assembly, or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Date of casual vacancy]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 8, after ("above,") insert ("or

(ii) ceasing to be the Mayor by reason of failure to attend meetings of the Assembly,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Disqualification from being the Mayor or an Assembly member]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("85(2A)") and insert ("85A").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. Amendment No. 9 is a drafting amendment which corrects a typing error in one of the amendments tabled at Report stage. I should like to place on record my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for drawing it to our attention. I apologise for the confusion that this minor error caused at that time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Limits of the general power]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, line 32, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, from the Marshalled List Amendment No. 10 appears to be a brief amendment. The Government have already had two occasions when they might have had the good sense to accept this amendment. It was tabled in Committee; it was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Report, when I tested the Government's thinking in a somewhat different direction in relation to the Local Government Act passed in the summer. We return to the subject again today.
There is not much point in trawling over all the arguments that have already been presented. However, it may be worth while reminding ourselves that Clause 30 gives the Greater London Authority, in the shape of the mayor, a general power to promote economic development, wealth creation, social development and improvement in the environment of

579
London. Clause 31, to which this amendment relates, places limits on that power. Among those limits is the power of the Secretary of State (under Clause 30) to control expenditure. I have no doubt that the Minister will reiterate that, because it is a new power and we do not know how it will work, there should be a power to control it. What a massive vote of confidence in those who have the nerve—because they will need some nerve—to stand for the office of mayor of London!
I say nothing about the selection process in which the party opposite is indulging in order to arrive at a candidate. However, the presence of the subsection indicates an immense vote of no confidence in whoever emerges from that process, whether that person is the ultimate party rebel or the ultimate party hack. The ultimate wrong is that it is also a vote of no confidence in the good sense of the people of London and in the political system in which London will operate.
Those are the reasons why I have retabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the amendment; indeed, it is one that we moved at an earlier stage. I continue to ask why it is necessary to give the Secretary of State this power to restrict expenditure when the Secretary of State already has wide powers through existing local government legislation. At the last stage I called this clause a "sledgehammer" of a clause, and I still regard it as that.
The Government's reply was that it provides a safeguard against an irresponsible mayor diverting such a large proportion of the authority's resources to discretionary resources that essential services are starved of funds. That begs the questions of what essential services are and who judges whether services are essential. I could not help but think of the term "bogus asylum seekers", which is used a great deal. Asylum seekers are only bogus if you choose so to designate them. This is a similar situation.
The provision in the Bill reveals the degree of control that is to be applied. Much of the spending of the new authority will be capital expenditure. Noble Lords are aware of the complex system of credit approval for capital expenditure, which is also a very constraining system, and of the controls on revenue expenditure.
How will the provision operate? Will a message come to the authority from Whitehall or perhaps Eland Place in the middle of the year, after the budget has been set and the authority has embarked on its spending pattern for that year? There may be practical considerations to take into account.
We are particularly concerned about the principle. The Government stated that the power will control expenditure on discretionary activities, but the provision on which it bites does not provide discretionary powers in the way that a member of the public would understand them. Clause 30(1) states that the authority shall have the power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its
580
principal purposes. That is not discretionary; it is a facilitating provision allowing expenditure from the statutory powers.
The Conservative Benches were suspicious about Clause 30(1), thinking that it might be very wide. Noble Lords were reassured by the Government about how narrow that provision is. We have always supported the provision because we recognise that the Government cannot predict and spell out every activity which may be necessary to support the promotion of the principal purposes. Although the deluge of government amendments indicates that they are trying to spell out everything, it is not possible to do so. Clause 30(1) is a very sensible provision. It is made much less useful by the subsection to which we and the Conservative Front Bench object. We support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not seeking to comment on the internal procedures of the Labour Party, nor do I comment on the internal procedures of the Conservative Party. From whatever party the successful candidate comes, the Secretary of State will require some reserve powers on behalf of Londoners and taxpayers generally.
The amendment is narrowly defined. I am slightly surprised that the point of principle focuses on this point. The clause is not a power to limit the totality of the authority's expenditure; nor is it a power to limit expenditure on specific statutory duties. It is a power that is directed only at the amount of spending on activities other than those which fall within the authority's specific powers or duties.
The Government have made their position clear on this issue. The power to set a financial limit is included in the Bill for two important reasons. First, we have made a commitment to Londoners in our manifesto, in our White Paper and in everything that we have done in regard to the Bill, that staff and costs in the GLA will be streamlined. Secondly, Londoners want the GLA to spend its money on services and they do not want it to squeeze services in order to facilitate extravagant expenditure on itself or on activities that are outside its specific statutory powers and duties.
This power for the Secretary of State is a reserve power to control the ability of any mayor to spend outside those areas. It is not about constraining, in advance or in retrospect, the mayor's freedom to spend money on general power activities, and it is not about how much the authority should spend on each of its specific functions. It is, however, an essential and specific safeguard against expenditure outside those specific functions, and it is therefore a reserve power which I contend is very, very much in the interests of Londoners, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred. I cannot accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has revealed that he has never had to produce a local

581
authority budget. That may be thought by noble Lords to be an insignificant matter, but anybody who has to perform that task, which can be a desperate task, knows that a local authority's budget is made up of so many boxes of matches and that 99.9 per cent of those boxes of matches are committed before the process begins.
I entirely accept that this limited power of direction is very specific and that it is not aimed at the generality of expenditure but at very narrow paths. In the context of the Bill, if the idea is acceptable at all, that is the only way it could be done, but I do not see the point of giving those powers and then putting a limitation on them when there is already a power to have overall control of the authority's absolute budget.
The Minister might imply that the mayor would wish to squeeze the generality of the authority's expenditure at the expense of these specific new general power functions. I wonder how long a mayor could expect to last if he were to squeeze the police budget, the fire and emergency planning budget and the budget of Transport for London. In my view, there was an air of unreality to the Minister's reply. I believe that we should test the opinion of the House on the matter.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Eden of Winton, L.

Addington, L.

Elibank, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Ezra, L.

L.

Falkland, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fookes, B.

Attlee, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Avebury, L.

Glentoran, L.

Barker. B.

Goodhart, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Greenway, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grey, E.

Brentford, V.

Hamwee, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Harris of Richmond, B.

D.

Higgins, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hogg, B.

Cadman, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Howe, E.

Carlisle, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jopling, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Leigh, L.

Courtown, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cuckney, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V.

McNair, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Denbigh, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Eccles, V.

Mills, V.

582

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sandford, L.

Morris, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Mountevans, L.

Shannon, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Sharples, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Pender, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Taverne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Razzall, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Thurso, V.

Reay, L.

Tope, L.[Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rennard, L

Vivian, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Waddington, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

Sandberg, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Harrison, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blease, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord

Borrie, L.

Privy Seal)

Bragg, L.

Jeger, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brookman, L.

Judd, L.

Burlison, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Kilbracken, L.

Chorley, L.

Kintore, E.

Christopher, L.

Laming, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Crawley, B.

Longford, E.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dixon, L.

[Teller]

Donoughue, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Effingham, E.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Elder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Northbourne, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Northfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Orme, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel, L.

Grabiner, L.

Paul, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hacking, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

583

Puttnam, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Richard, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Tenby, V.

Sawyer, L.

Thornton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Uddin, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Varley, L.

Serota, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Shepherd, L.

Whitty, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Wilkins, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.29 p.m.
Clause 32 [Consultation]:
Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 19, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Statutory bodies whose activities benefit the environment in Greater London.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the outset I should declare an interest in that I am an employee of the Environment Agency. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that statutory bodies whose activities benefit the environment in Greater London—the Environment Agency is among them— are consulted on all of the mayor's strategies. I am of course aware that in Committee on 21st June the Minister stated:
"The most appropriate consultees are the people whose interests are affected and those representing them. Therefore, in all those contexts, the authority must—I emphasise 'must'—consult, among others, organisations representing the disabled, the elderly, education, training services, the Environment Agency and other statutory bodies in those situations where their interests are affected by the use of the general power or by the use of any strategies which are developed".—[Official Report, 21/6/99; col. 746.]
I am most grateful for that assurance; the Minister has been most helpful. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I press him further. For although the statement is welcome it may be deemed to fall short of a categorical assurance of consultation because of the use of the phrase,
"in those situations where their interests are affected".
Let me explain briefly why I feel the need to go further. The assurance given might be deemed satisfactory if the Environment Agency did not have as one of its principal aims to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development, as set out in the Environment Act 1995. As your Lordships will be aware, the achievement of sustainable development requires the consideration of economic and social as well as environmental factors. Indeed the Government's own statutory guidance on sustainable development requires this integrated approach. That is why, in the agency's view, it is vital that it is consulted on all strategies.
Does the Minister agree that potentially all of the mayor's strategies will impact on the achievement of sustainable development and therefore the agency
584
should be consulted on all and not just some of the strategies? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I hope he will confirm that it is the Government's intention that the mayor will consult the agency on all the strategies. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is similar to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee. Like my noble friend, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply today to discover whether he can extend the kind assurance he gave on the previous occasion to ensure there is no further need for concern.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, the assurance he seeks. Under the provisions of the Bill, the mayor, before exercising the general power provided in Clause 30, must consult those individuals or organisations whose interests would be affected by the exercise of that power. As regards the environment, the Environment Agency has an interest in all the strategies of the mayor. The agency and all statutory bodies whose activities are designed to benefit the environment would be consulted. I have indicated that at previous stages during the progress of the Bill. I have indicated it in writing to the employer of the noble Viscount; that is, the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. I have indicated it too to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone as regards English Nature. I believe that the interests of all statutory bodies concerned with the environment are therefore covered and that it is not necessary to name such a category of body on the face of the Bill. I am happy to reiterate all those assurances today.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reassuring us on those points. I also thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon for her assistance in the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Equality of opportunity]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) After each financial year the Authority shall publish a report containing—

(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) above which had effect during that financial year; and

(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 13, and also to Amendment No. 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We have had many discussions about the equal opportunities provisions of this Bill. The outcome of those discussions has been in my view to alter the approach of the Government to the matter and to improve the provisions. I am therefore grateful to those noble Lords who contributed to earlier debates. This group of amendments consolidates those improvements.
Amendment No. 12 provides for the authority to publish a report each year explaining the arrangements it has put in place to promote equality of opportunity during that year and making an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity. That fulfils the commitment given by my noble friend at an earlier stage. This will also ensure that the authority cannot ignore any of its responsibilities in relation to equal opportunities.
Amendment No. 13 is a consequential amendment in that sense. It imposes the duty to produce the report. When the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, moved his equivalent amendment at an earlier stage, I indicated that understood the aims of the amendment and that I would consider it further. I was concerned about one particular aspect of it which related to the apparent disapplication of the Race Relations Act to the GLA and its related bodies, as distinct from the rest of local government. I still have a concern about that. It is not, however, impossible to complete an alternative draft to that of the noble Lord which would subsume the bulk of the noble Lord's amendment. With the leave of the House, I indicate to the noble Lord that I am prepared to accept his amendment on the understanding that a minor degree of further amendment may be necessary in another place to cover the anxiety I have mentioned. I hope that on that basis the House will accept the noble Lord's amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I refer to Amendment No. 95 which stands in my name and that of my noble. friend Lord Dholakia. We are grateful to the Government and to those noble Lords from all parts of the House who supported the amendment at the previous stage. In the context of press comment over the past couple of weeks on the work of this House, it is good to see it working so well and to see noble Lords improving the Bill. We shall of course move our amendment when we reach it in the Marshalled List. We understand that some "tweaking" may be necessary to ensure that it works properly. We are glad that we have been able to contribute on such an important issue.
We are happy to see the Government's Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which the Minister referred at the previous stage. I am sure that if a mechanism can be found by which the issues have to be debated and the results of the authority's work are made public, that will be an entirely good thing. We support these amendments.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking the Minister who has overseen this process from Second Reading through every stage. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on having been so persistent. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Together we have fought for this clause. The Minister could not have been more understanding. I am sure that whatever change is imposed in the lower House will be
586
acceptable. In an age when we seem to be tearing each other apart, I offer my thanks for the way he has behaved throughout the whole of this Bill.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I concur with the sentiment expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I am indeed grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to my amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for accepting it. We understand that some alterations will be necessary. I hope that the gist of the amendment will be incorporated in future legislation. I thank the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 20, line 31, after ("conferred") insert ("or imposed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Delegation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 23, line 25, at end insert ("or
(c) in relation to any function under Part X below (in relation to which provision for delegation is made under that Part).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are technical amendments consequential upon the changes to Part X, which we will be discussing later.
Clause 38 provides the general powers of delegation for the mayor. As it stands, the clause provides that the functions under Part X relating to culture can be delegated to the deputy mayor, GLA staff, local authorities, including the City Corporation, and to Transport for London and the London Development Agency. For example, Transport for London can be given the mayor's powers in respect of culture but the Culture Strategy Group for London cannot. We have previously given notice that we would be introducing an amendment to deal with this.
Amendment No. 14 disapplies Part X from the general power of delegation in Clause 38 and provides that the detailed and more appropriate powers of delegation included in Part X largely override Clause 38. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 provide cross-references in Clause 40, which is concerned with contracting out, to the amendments under Part X. We will discuss later Amendment No. 84, which provides a new clause after Clause 374. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 24, line 47, after (" 38") insert ("or (Delegation of Authority's functions)").
Page 25, line 6, after (" 38") insert ("or (Delegation of Authority's functions)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 41 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert (", and
(i) the River Thames strategy prepared and published under section (The River Thames strategy) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, which stands in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Luke, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 85, 86 and 87.
The amendments are designed to include a River Thames strategy along with the other strategies that are already written on the face of the Bill. This subject has been debated a number of times during the passage of the Bill. However, I make no excuse for returning to the subject; I regard it as very important. There is no need for me to rehearse the arguments that were used before so competently by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
As we all know, the Thames has played a most important part in London's and the nation's history over the years, and it is in a position to play an important part in our future, particularly in regard to transport. When we discussed this matter previously, the debate was poorly attended—it was late at night— and we did not have the chance to give it a proper airing. We have now a last chance to give the mayor an opportunity to play an over-arching role in matters pertaining to the river.
This would avoid the problems that have surfaced when dealing with matters in coastal waters, where it seems too many disparate parties are involved. Such a position would be exacerbated on the River Thames, where many of the people involved lack experience of maritime matters. This does not apply to the Port of London Authority, which has been involved with the Thames for many years, but its influence is waning, especially in the upper reaches of the river. The Environment Agency, the Countryside Agency, the riparian boroughs—of which there are many—and the Common Council in the City of London are all involved with the river. On top of that there are the interests of the users of the river—the freight industry, the tourist industry, the watermen and lightermen.
In these amendments the strategy has been revised to take account of points raised on Report—in particular, safety, bridges and tunnels. They also include a direction that this strategy should not conflict with any other strategy in Clause 41.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about safety. I am cognisant of the fact that the inquiry into the "Marchioness" disaster is ongoing. I would not wish to prejudice that. However, the mayor must have an important role as regards safety on the river. The Port of London Authority and the river police deny responsibility for safety. A few moments ago, the noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench spoke about squeezing police budgets. The river police has been squeezed considerably over the past years and it
588
is continuing to contract; it has closed down most of its pier stations. If there should be another emergency—God forbid—it is questionable who would be able to take control of matters on the river.
A holistic, coherent and, above all, simple strategy is vital for the good future management of the River Thames. As far as concerns this Bill, we have now a last chance to get matters right. It would be short-sighted of us not to seize that chance. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to support the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. He has moved the amendment in the hope that he may have more success than I—and who knows! The amendment seeks to underline the important issues affecting the mayor when a strategy is developed.
It cannot be said that the Bill is deficient in terms of detail. I hope that my noble friend will not invoke that particular argument in relation to this multi-faceted amendment. It is extremely important that specific guidelines should be covered in the strategy developed by the mayor during his or her term of office. Every one of these proposals has great relevance in terms of that strategy.
For example, the issue of tourism was raised in a previous debate. It is important that there should be a tourism policy so far as concerns the river. The noble Lord is absolutely right to underline its enormous strategic importance for the life of London as a whole. If there should be any vagueness about what the mayor has to do, that would be a deficiency in the Bill. The matter is covered in considerable detail in the amendments and I do not need to go into it further.
The noble Lord made an important point about consultation. I would give especial emphasis on the need to consult each riparian London borough council. These are issues which will touch the lives of the constituents in each of those London boroughs and it is important that it should be seen that they are being properly consulted; that they can ensure that their voices will be heard in relation to the strategy which will affect their lives.
It is also important that one pays attention to Amendment No. 86, particularly in relation to the conditions set out in subsection (2)—
"that the River Thames strategy or its implementation is likely to be detrimental to any area outside Greater London".
That is obviously a matter of great importance. The phrase,
"the River Thames strategy or its implementation is likely to be detrimental to the operations of the Port of London Authority, or to flood defences".
equally is of the greatest significance. I do not want to over-egg the pudding. I believe that setting out the strategy for the benefit of the mayor is of importance to the citizens of London as a whole, and no less so to the mayor himself or herself.
Lord Luke: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is luckier in regard to the responses he

589
receives than we were earlier. I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 17 and also of Amendments Nos. 19, 85, 86 and 87, to which I have added my name. I should like to say just a few words, most of which, I must confess, I have said before.
The River Thames is the reason for London being where it is. It brought wealth by commerce in the past and it now brings tourists. There has been a great deal of development in the riparian boroughs, but virtually nothing concerned with the Thames itself. I am most concerned that this great thoroughfare is not used as it could or should be. The mayor could provide a co-ordinated approach to the use of the Thames as it should be used, and I hope that this great opportunity will not be lost.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to this amendment, to indicate support from these Benches. We have given our support to similar amendments at various times, but I think that Amendment No. 85 in particular gives an extremely good picture of what the strategy might contain. It makes it very distinct from the mayor's other strategies, contrary to the arguments that have been used by the noble Lord the Minister in responding to these and similar amendments which were put earlier.
Our honourable friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey in another place has been concerned for many years with the items contained in this amendment. During the earlier part of the Bill amendments were put forward to this effect, which I think were generally regarded as rather complicated. This is a very straightforward way of achieving what he and many of us would like to see achieved. I do not know what the proposers of these amendments will decide to do, but if they should divide the House, we shall join them.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, particularly as I am supporting an amendment which would, if accepted, make this intolerable Bill even larger than it now is. Nevertheless it raises an important area of the responsibilities of anyone who has command of London and its resources. I am persuaded that there is a very strong case for adding to the strategies laid down in the Bill a strategy for the River Thames.
I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to some of the areas which would appear to be not covered by other strategies imposed by the Bill upon the mayor. Obviously he is responsible for transport and the environment: fine, but there are many other purposes. We are talking about many-faceted uses, and I should like to be clear that they are satisfactorily covered.
Let me just mention very quickly two or three of them. One is of course what function the mayor and the GLA have concerning riparian planning. I do not mean in the great strategic sense, but actual planning decisions at present made by local authorities in London about the areas close to and adjacent to the river. I should like to feel that such planning consents
590
would take account of broad interests of the management of the river, and I am not sure that can be done unless the mayor has a specific duty.
Again, what about regulation of the recreational use of the River Thames? It is not just a matter of using it for transport. As we all know, people row on the Thames and do all kinds of things that have a recreational use. There is sailing, there are water sports and multifarious activities. I should like to know how that aspect will be safeguarded. Again, that raises the word "safety". Who is responsible for safety on the river? Nobody can say that that is not a matter of some concern, especially in the light of some very unhappy events a few years ago.
My final point concerns the management of tunnels and bridges. That is tremendously important. Is there a clear GLA/mayoral responsibility for the planning of extensions, repairs and uses of bridges over the River Thames and the tunnels beneath it? I myself represented a constituency which had a riparian interest for over 30 years and I am very conscious myself, as a resident of Putney, of the implications for Putney residents of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge for so long. However, very different priorities are being pursued by the different London authorities in respect of bridges and other cross-river transport. I very much hope that in his reply my noble friend will satisfy me and, I hope, the House as a whole that the present strategies which are to be pursued by the mayor cover satisfactorily—though I fear that they will not—all the anxieties and problems which face those who use the River Thames.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to one point raised by my noble friend Lord Shore, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, perhaps I may refer to my Amendment No. 20 which is part of this group and deals with safety. At Report stage an amendment was proposed by noble Lords opposite, and I undertook to look at this again. The effect of my Amendment No. 20 is to introduce the concept of safety as a factor that the mayor must consider in the exercise of his duty to promote and encourage the use of the Thames. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, we do not wish to pre-empt the conclusions of the inquiry into the "Marchioness" tragedy. However, if this amendment is adopted in advance of those conclusions it will flag specifically the need for the mayor to take safety matters into account in exercising his or her functions.
I do not think there is anything between us in principle as regards the importance of the River Thames. The Government have always recognised the importance of the waterway in relation to the economic and environmental development of London. In our own strategic planning guidance we have demonstrated our active efforts to bring life back to the river and to restore it as the focal point of the capital. We have also pointed out, however, that there are clear advantages in having the mayor's policies regarding the Thames enshrined within other strategy documents rather than being abstracted from those documents. That will ensure that the importance of the

591
Thames is recognised across the whole spectrum of the strategies rather than being compartmentalised and possibly marginalised by treating this as a separate policy area.
In all these other strategies, particularly in relation to spatial development, the role of the Thames is absolutely vital in relation to any future strategic view of the development of London. As many other speakers have indicated, the role of the Thames is important, both as a waterway and in respect of various crossing points. In relation to the environment, again the Thames is an absolutely central feature of any environmental strategy.
My noble friend Lord Shore referred to two other dimensions, one of which relates to local authority planning decisions. These decisions will continue to be taken in general by the riparian local authorities, but the mayor will be consulted about strategically important decisions and these will be defined under delegated legislation by the provisions of this Bill. There will be particular emphasis on riverside development with specific criteria for development by the riverside which perhaps has been lacking in the past decade.
In relation to recreation, of course the mayor has some responsibilities within the culture and sport area and also economic development. The role of the LGA subsumes the development of tourism within London, of which the river is clearly a significant part. It is our view that the River Thames will feature large in all such strategies. A new clause to provide for a separate strategy would not improve on that position, and indeed could lead to the strategy becoming compartmentalised. Moreover, the proposed new clauses will not give the mayor any new powers over and above those already provided in the Bill. Implementation would have to be through powers already in the Bill to pursue the other strategies. There is the danger of duplication of policies were we to have a separate strategy for the River Thames, which could cause problems.
I appreciate the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others, on the matter—
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The Minister has replied to most of the points that have been raised, but can he say a little more on bridges and tunnels? That point has not yet been touched on by my noble friend. It is very important to co-ordinate strategy through a central authority rather than through the different boroughs.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as concerns bridges and crossings which form parts of GLA strategic roads, clearly Transport for London, when it inherits responsibility in those areas from the Highways Agency, will take responsibility for them as they form parts of the throughways. In regard to other
592
arrangements for bridges, they are presently covered by separate arrangements following the demise of the GLC which the Bill will not directly disturb. Nevertheless, a strategic approach to transport is bound to take account of the impact of changes on the traffic flow on crossings or bridges were those changes to be on anything more than a temporary basis. For that reason, I believe that such matters will be covered in the transport strategy.
It is our view that we do not need a separate strategy for the River Thames. However, it is open to the mayor to take a different view if he or she considers that there are advantages to be had by collecting all the different policies together into a single document over and above the strategic planning guidance for the river that we expect to be covered in the spatial development strategy. If the mayor chooses to collect that information into a separate document, there is nothing whatever to stop the mayor from so doing. Those aspects of the matter should be left to the mayor to take a decision.
At the proper time I shall move Amendment No. 20 covering safety. With those reassurances on the importance we attach to the development of the River Thames in all its dimensions, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken part in this debate. The Minister will be in no doubt as to the strength of feeling across the board on the important subject of the future of the River Thames. I take some comfort from the Minister's concessions to safety in Amendment No. 20. That is a welcome step and I thank him for that. However, whatever happens, we shall be faced with a problem that there will be too many different interests involved, and I believe that we would save a lot of time if a separate strategy were put in place for the River Thames. Again, the Minister gives me comfort when he says that the mayor may set up a strategy of his own, which he will be able to do.
Those of us who are interested will continue to press the future mayor to take due cognisance of our feelings. Over and above that, should the mayor choose not to go down that road, we shall take a close interest in any secondary legislation that follows the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 25. line 45. leave out ("with national policies and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 is a reduced form of an amendment I proposed both in Committee and on Report. The amendment then had two branches, one of which I shall not pursue, having considered the Government's arguments, as I said I would. I now accept the validity of their answer. Unfortunately, the Government have not reciprocated by accepting the point I made, despite the

593
fact that I prefaced my remarks to noble Lords on Report with the words:
"I believe that this is one of the most important amendments to be considered on the Bill".
I went on to say that:
"It goes right to the heart of the relationship between local government, particularly London's local government, and national government".—[Official Report, 12/10/99; col. 344.]
The marginal note states that Clause 41 applies to the:
"General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies".
Subsection (4) requires the mayor when preparing or revising any strategy to have regard to various matters, including,
"the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policies".
I ask noble Lords to note the imperative nature of those words. The mayor must ensure that his strategies are consistent with national policies. In other words, they must conform to national policies. According to the clause, it is not sufficient that the mayor should take national policies into account and apply them if they are appropriate to London. His strategies must conform to national policies, whether or not they are appropriate. The Bill does not say simply that the mayor shall have regard to national policies. It does not merely require the mayor to take national policies into consideration when formulating his strategies, which would mean that he should follow national policies whenever and wherever possible and should not arbitrarily ignore or reject them. The words of the Bill give the mayor no discretion whatever as to whether he shall comply with so-called "national policies".
That means that the mayor must do more than consider national policies. He must follow them. That is a major and novel constitutional innovation. I made the same remark on the two occasions that the amendment was put before noble Lords. It is significant that the Government have not attempted in any of their responses to repudiate that. I am left with the inescapable conclusion that the Government really do mean the adverse consequences about which I have been warning. Of course it is entirely right that public bodies should have regard to government policy. If they do not, the courts may take national policy into account on a judicial review. However, aside from that, there is no requirement on a local authority to follow any particular policy or to conduct its affairs in a specific manner except when an Act of Parliament specifically so orders. I should like to stress that point. Outside of specific legislation, the law does not require local authorities to obey the wishes or even the orders of government.
Never before has Parliament attempted to oblige local councils to conform to any wish-list of the government under the guise of national policy. The fact that local authorities have a wide discretion outside any specific legislative constraints to act in the interests of their own local populations sets the balance between local and national government. In case any noble Lord thinks that I am exaggerating the
594
consequences of the current wording, I shall remind the House of the words of the Minister when his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton moved a similar amendment in Committee. He said:
"the mayor must, in preparing any strategy, ensure that it is consistent with national policies".—[Official Report, 23,6/99; col. 925.]
The words used by the Minister on that occasion were the imperative when he said, "must ensure". That allows for no discretion whatever. So much for local government and this Government's belief in devolved government. So much for the strong independent voice for London promised by the Government when the legislation before us was introduced.
I shall add one further point which I have not raised previously. I have been so concerned with the constitutional aspects proposed by the Government that I overlooked another blindingly obvious question. What is the definition of "national policies"? It cannot, for the purposes of this Bill, be something set out in an Act of Parliament, because it is unnecessary for it to say that the mayor shall comply with the law of the land. That goes without saying. "National policies" clearly refers to some government pronouncement; a pronouncement that may or may not be made to, and be approved by, Parliament. Presumably, the Government could announce their policies to the Sunday papers—they seem to do that very often—or to some favoured interviewer on the radio or television. Indeed, as I said, Ministers often do that, as Madam Speaker in the other place has frequently complained. Is the mayor supposed to monitor the "Today" programme on Radio 4, or "Sunday" on Sky News to find out what announcements of government policy have been made, not to either House but to John Humphrys or to Adam Boulton? How binding are such pronouncements of national policy to be regarded?
A government prone to flying kites and then saying that they did not mean what was reported or even that they were misreported will leave the mayor in a state of total confusion. A government whose policies change with the wind cannot surely expect the mayor to conform to whatever is the flavour of the month. Are such pronouncements, or even ones mentioned in either House but not given the force of law, to be treated as binding? I hope that even under the regime of a government who regard parliamentary procedure as an obstacle to their executive control freakery we have not yet reached the point of government by ministerial decree.
At this point, I would normally have liked to comment on the answers given by the Minister in the debates on my amendment, but I regret to say that both times when I read his reply no answers came; so I can make no comment. I immediately and unreservedly acquit him of any discourtesy or of deliberately glossing over what I had described as one of the most important amendments I was moving. If one reads the Minister's speeches on both previous occasions, it will be seen that he deals only with the

595
separate amendment dealing with the obligation of the mayor to have regard to certain international obligations.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am no longer pursuing any amendment regarding consistency with international obligations. I accept what the noble Lord said at the previous stage. However, subsection (5), to which this present modified amendment relates, has two aspects. This amendment relates to the part of subsection (5) which requires the mayor to conform to national policies. The Minister has at no time at any stage given any reason why the mayor should be required to conform to whatever the Government announce in whatever forum they announce them as national policies—"the Government" in this case being any one of the several Secretaries of State whose differing bailiwicks impinge on the various aspects of this monster and wide-ranging Bill. The Minister has not told your Lordships why the mayor must conform to national as distinct from international policies—"conform", that is to obey, submit to or comply with—whatever the Government may choose to announce as national policies. The clause as drawn removes, or at least inhibits, the mayor's ability to decide his own policies and compels him to follow the Government's policy as set out in some undebated ministerial ipse dixit.
The amendment simply ensures that outside of any statutory constraints contained in any primary or secondary legislation the mayor is truly independent and is not merely serving as a rubber stamp whose function is only to obey the orders of the Secretary of State or a possible gaggle of Secretaries of State. This amendment restores the proper balance and allows the mayor to decide what is best for the people of London who elected him or her and allows him or her to get on with the policies for which people voted. I urge the Minister to consider the implications of the Government's ill-drafted wording and to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I have occasionally mentioned to your Lordships my 25 years in local government. I have to say that for 18 of those years in local government there was a Conservative central government. To hear now the Conservative Front Bench railing against central government control leads me to wonder just what happened during those 18 years. One of the reasons we are here today is that the former GLC was not required to follow national policies. It did not follow national policies—probably of any government—but what happened to the GLC should be borne in mind. I feel a little strange. I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the noble Baroness who moved the amendment or indeed of the present Opposition Front Bench. I must just say that no one is so blessed as a sinner who repenteth. That is what has happened now.
Having said that, I think that the noble Baroness is right. Of course the mayor should have regard to national policies; indeed, it is inconceivable that, in
596
drawing up strategies, the mayor would not have regard to national policies—and would probably need to have good reasons if he or she were to depart from national polices and priorities. But he or she should surely have the right to do so if the circumstances are different; if his or her priorities are different; if the platform on which he or she was elected is different; if what Londoners want is different. That is going to happen.
We come to the heart of the present Government's schizophrenia over the whole issue of the devolution. Many of their members have long believed in the devolution of power and, I am sure, still do. The Government are preaching devolution. They are starting cautiously to practise it, but they cannot quite let go. This is another instance of where they cannot quite let go. I can understand a Labour Government believing, I suspect with diminishing belief each day, that they will have a Labour mayor wishing to do this. But perhaps I may suggest to the Government Front Bench that there may come a time, hard though it is for any of us to conceive, when there may be a Conservative government and a Labour mayor. Why should they require a Labour mayor to follow consistently policies laid down by a Conservative government? We always need to remember that. It is fairly easy for noble Lords on these Benches to remember that the present arrangement does not necessarily last for ever. Governments should consider that.
I do not understand—rather, I do understand but I think it is wrong—why the Government should be legislating to require the mayor to follow strategies that are consistent with national polices. It is fair enough to say that he or she should have regard to them but requiring the mayor to follow national policies regardless of the nature of the government in power should not be enshrined in legislation. We shall support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, nothing lasts for ever and we have to legislate for different balances of power in Westminster and in the GLA's headquarters. Whatever government are in power, and whatever party is in power in London, there will have to be a balance. That balance is between the autonomy of the mayor to deliver the improvements for which Londoners have voted and the responsibilities of central government to ensure that policies pursued in London do not undermine important national policies. It is the noble Baroness rather than myself who has used the imperative here. She refers to "conform" and "comply". All we are asking here is that the mayor should not pursue policies which are inconsistent with national policies.
The noble Baroness asked for a definition of "national policies". There is a definition of "national policies" a little later in the Bill. It relates to policies which are pronounced to Parliament or are formally published. It does not relate to pronouncements on the "Today" programme, in which, of course, none of my colleagues ever engages in any case. Nevertheless, it is clear that we are talking about policy pronouncements

597
in a formal sense. It is important not just for the international dimension—at an earlier stage the noble Baroness accepted my arguments on that point—but also for other national policies. In relation to environmental policies, for example, policies pursued in London which affect the rest of the environment in surrounding regions and counties of England would not be appropriate. That does not mean that every dot and comma of the powers would be precisely the same for London as elsewhere. Of course not; but they should not undermine and directly contradict the policies pursued by government nationally.
Surely this is the right approach to take. The mayor will be able to implement his or her policies for London, but they must not be allowed to cut a swathe through national policies. The mayor cannot be expected to prepare strategies in a policy vacuum. National policies are there, and it would not be sensible if we provided for the mayor to be able to undermine them.
At an earlier stage the noble Baroness took a more moderate line. I apologise if I did not respond to her fully at that stage. She was saying that, instead of using the term "consistent", which she regarded as "imperative" or imperious, we should accept the term "have regard to". That was at least a halfway house. However, her proposal in this amendment deletes all reference to the mayor "having regard to". She now appears to want the mayor to be free of any obligation towards national policies.
Even had I accepted the noble Baroness's previous arguments, I should think that she was going somewhat far, even from her own perspective, as regards the effect of this amendment. Whichever party the mayor was from, even if the same party were in government and even if he or she had agreed every dot and comma with central government, the amendment would remove any obligation at all to national policies. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment even achieves what the noble Baroness wants, which is a slightly different balance from what the Government want. We are concerned that London policies should not inconsistently undermine national policies. We do not say that they should conform in every dot and comma, but that there should not be built-in conflict. That is a sensible and balanced approach. With this amendment the noble Baroness is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Therefore, I hope that she will not pursue it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have no intention of throwing out any baby with any bathwater. I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. I am delighted that "national policy" has to be policies as defined later in the Bill, which I did not discover, and that matters are decided in the Houses of Parliament where they should he decided. But I can tell the noble Lord that when we hear Ministers stating a particular policy, whether on Radio 4 or elsewhere, it sounds as though that has become national policy.
To return to the amendment, which is much more important, its intention was to knock out the provision for the mayor to ensure that his strategy is "consistent
598
with" national policies. I certainly had no intention whatever of knocking out the provision that he should "have regard to" national policies. We believe that he certainly should have regard to national policies. We simply do not want him to have to ensure that his strategy is "consistent with" national policies. I believe that that is the import of my amendment. If the Minister is telling me that I have made a mistake in the drafting, I am sorry; I thought that I had been extraordinarily careful over it. My understanding is that what I seek to remove from the Bill are the words in line 45,
"is consistent with national policies".
My understanding is that "have regard" occurs earlier in the clause and that the amendment does not knock that out.
The Minister said that I was making heavy weather of this in using adjectives such as "imperative" to describe the provision. Ensuring that an approach "is consistent with" is exactly the same. The Minister can use different language, but the effect is the same. The provision ensures that the mayor does that. It is not the same as "having regard to" national policies.
Although I understand what the Minister is saying, this provision is sending out a message to every local council throughout the country. Of course, the mayor in London should not do anything that would destroy the environment of those areas around him; nor for that matter should any council leader, or council anywhere in the country. They, too, should have regard to national policies. But I am certain that this will permeate down to councillors right across the country. It will start here in London and, before you can look round, it will apply to local councils everywhere.
The Minister has asked whether I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall withdraw it. I shall do so simply because the noble Lord has suggested—and I do not think that the advice from the Box would be misleading—that there is some flaw in the drafting, and that it would lead to the removal of the idea, "have regard". Apparently this provision is to remain in the Bill. If that is the case, local councils up and down the land will know that it is all very well the Labour Government telling them that they have great regard for local democracy, and indeed for devolved government, but the Government are starting to take power unto themselves in a way that we have not seen before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 26, line 5, after ("Thames") insert ("safely").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the amendment has been welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and I am sure that the whole House welcomes it. I merely want to suggest that the wording is not very felicitous—indeed, it is ungrammatical. As amended, subsection (5) of Clause 41 would read: "the

599
desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames safely". Should it not read: "the safe use of the River Thames"? "Safely" is an adverb, but as "use" is a noun, an adjective is required. I am sorry to be pedantic, but that wording could be misunderstood. The phrase, "the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames safely", could be argued over in court. "Safely" could be referred back to "promoting and encouraging". I suggest that the noble Lord considers that point. It is a very bad sentence.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I experienced the same kind of "hiccup" when I read the clause. I thought that the choice of wording must be deliberate. It seems to suggest greater encouragement to use the Thames than would have been the case had the wording been as the noble Baroness suggests. There is something more urgent in the idea of "using the Thames safely" than there is in the phrase, "safe use"; it is a rather more exhortatory provision.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, "use the Thames safely" would of course be correct: in that phrase "use" is a verb. But the reference is to "the use"; namely, a noun.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always surprised by the noble Baroness's admonition in regard to grammatical structure. I should have thought that "safe use" might be more limited than "safely". If the House will accept the amendment, it might be possible to tweak its grammar in another place. I am not totally convinced, but I shall re-examine it in that light. I hope that the House can accept the amendment now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [The Mayor's periodic report to the Assembly]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 29, line 3, at end insert—

("(b) a functional body,

(c) a member of a functional body, or

(d) a member of staff of a functional body, except as provided by subsection (6A) below.

(6A) Where—

(a) the Mayor receives advice from a person falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (6) above, and

(b) the functional body mentioned in that paragraph is the Metropolitan Police Authority or the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

the Mayor is not relieved by subsection (6) above from any requirement to disclose the advice, if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (6B) below.
(6B) Advice given to the Mayor by a functional body falls within this subsection if it has been disclosed—

(a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or

(b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.

600
(6C) Any reference in this section to a member of staff of a functional body includes a reference to an officer or employee of that body.).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was debated at an earlier stage. The group of amendments led to some queries from noble Lords opposite. I withdrew, I thought, part of the group. In practice, owing to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in the event I withdrew all of them for clarity's sake.
We debated the amendments at some length. They covered advice to the mayor from functional bodies, their members and their staff. During that debate, I made it clear that the principle of the privacy of advice to the mayor was not being reopened. We have always made it clear that the mayor's position is not the same as that of a local authority. In that sense, we may consider his position to be equivalent to that of a Minister. Any advice that he or she receives should be treated in the same way as the advice given by civil servants to Ministers.
However, I undertook to take the amendments away and to consider two aspects that had caused concern. The first and most important was an express definition of the term "advice". That term has been in the Bill since its introduction and has been accepted both in this House and in another place. I confirm that this new group of amendments does not include the defining definition about which the noble Baroness was so concerned. In particular, in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that extended the concept of advice beyond what had hitherto been assumed within the Bill. That was not the intention, and therefore it does not appear.
The second issue was the provision which made clear that functional bodies, their members and staff could not be required to provide to the assembly evidence or documents which "relate to" advice to the mayor. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was particularly concerned that that formulation could prevent the disclosure of an extremely wide range of information which was not, in normally accepted terminology, advice to the mayor. That was never the intention. The amendments in this group make it clear that the only evidence and documents which the assembly cannot require from functional bodies and their staff are those which disclose advice to the mayor. The Bill as drafted already includes a provision which prevents disclosure of evidence or documents relating to advice to the mayor by GLA staff. Amendment No. 24 replaces the words "relate to" with "disclose" in that provision as well and therefore rationalises that position.
The group of amendments addresses the matters raised during Report. We have always made clear that advice in the strict sense will be confidential. It is important that the mayor is able to receive such advice from functional bodies as well as GLA staff. This has no effect on the accountability of the mayor to the assembly. He or she will be obliged to report every significant decision to the assembly with reasons and will be obliged to answer assembly members' questions at monthly meetings. The principle of privacy of advice to Ministers, which does not

601
extend to other matters about which noble Lords were concerned, is therefore reproduced here in terms of privacy of advice to the mayor. That is a long-established principle in relation to Ministers. I hope that these amendments take account of the concerns expressed and will complete the arrangements to give effect to that intention. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 which address some of our serious concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 58 [Openness]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 37, line 15, leave out ("(3)(e)") and insert ("(3)(a)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 corrects a typographical error in Clause 58(7). As drafted the subsection refers to subsection (3)(e) of Section 100E of the Local Government Act 1972. The reference should be to subsection (3)(a) of Section 100E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 38, line 17, at end insert ("; and
(c) any person who has within the three years prior to the date of the requirement to be imposed under subsection (1) above been the chairman of, or a member of, any functional body").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 clarifies that the assembly has the power to summons persons who in the previous three years from the date on which the summons is issued have been chairmen or members of functional bodies. It responds directly to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who moved a similar amendment on Report. I said then that we did not believe the amendment to be necessary and that former members were already covered. However, on reflection we have decided that the noble Lord has raised an issue that it is worth putting beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her acceptance of the fact that there is an element of concern which she has now properly answered. I am delighted to see this on the face of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
Page 39, line 29, leave out ("relate to") and insert ("disclose").
Page 39, line 29, at end insert—
("(10A) Nothing in this section shall require a person who is—

(a) a member of a functional body, or

(b) a member of staff of a functional body,

to give any evidence, or produce any document, which discloses advice given to the Mayor by that person or, except as provided by subsection (10B) below, by that functional body.
602
(10B) Subsection (10A) above does not relieve a person from a requirement to give any evidence, or produce any document, which discloses advice given to the Mayor by—

(a) the Metropolitan Police Authority, or

(b) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (10C) below.
(10C) Advice given to the Mayor by a functional body falls within this subsection if it has been disclosed—

(a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or

(b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Appointment]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 42, line 41, at end insert ("or such numbers of staff as shall not exceed in aggregate ten full time equivalent employees").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I return to a familiar subject, certainly to all three Front Benches. At each stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House we have made a little progress in trying to unravel this matter. At Committee stage we stumbled, admittedly accidentally, across the fact that the provision in the Bill for two political advisers and 10 other staff meant two and 10 individuals in number, not two and 10 full-time equivalents, as all three Front Benches believed at that stage should be the case. That was what we achieved at Committee stage more by accident than design.
At Report stage the Minister explained that the provision of a specific number was to prevent the mayor bringing in,
"a large number of political appointments which would unbalance the professional staff whom he or she appoints".—(Official Report, 14/ 10/99; col. 621.]
I find it a little hard to understand how 10 such appointments would cause an unbalancing effect. Nevertheless, that is the view of the Government. I can perhaps understand the argument in relation to the two political advisers. Therefore, we leave that to one side. If the Government want to restrict the mayor to two political advisers regardless of the hours worked, so be it. However, this amendment is related simply to the 10 other staff whom the mayor is permitted to appoint as her or his personal staff.
At Report stage the Minister confirmed in answer to my questions that the normal equal opportunities recruitment procedure would apply to those 10 posts; in other words, a proper person specification and job description would be drawn up, the posts would be publicly advertised, they would be open to competition and appointments would be made on merit in a proper procedural way based on equal opportunities. Accepting that that is the case—certainly it should be—I am even more baffled as to how the appointment of more than 10 individuals, some working part-time but still only equivalent to

603
10 full-time people, can possibly unbalance the professional staff of the authority, small in number though they may be.
I made much, and shall do so again, of family-friendly working practices. We are still making progress. At Committee stage we discussed this matter at 11.30 at night; at Report stage we debated it at 10 o'clock; and today we are considering it before tea time. We are talking about a government who promote, sincerely I believe, family-friendly working practices, flexible working hours and so on. Yet by this fairly simple, and in my view entirely unnecessary, provision the Government will ensure that in practice the mayor will not be able to espouse such flexible working arrangements; or, if he or she does, will be penalised for so doing because only 10 individuals can be appointed. For example, if one has 10 individuals who work half time, the work capacity will be half that of 10 individuals who work full time. I do not understand why in this fairly simple matter the Government are unable to accept that it is important to have 10 full-time equivalents. That was what the Minister thought it meant in the first place, and it is what any sensible and reasonable person expects it to mean. However, that is not what the Bill as drafted does mean.
If the Government are concerned that the mayor should not be able to swamp the professional staff with all these political apparatchiks, about which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, admitted he knew more than I did, surely 10 full-time equivalents is a sufficient limit. It is arguable that part-timers will be less likely to unbalance professional staff than those who are there all the time. I do not know that that necessarily follows, but it is an argument.
I believe it is entirely reasonable and rational that we should here talk about 10 full-time equivalent staff. As I am sure that this is the last occasion in this Bill on which we shall return to the matter I hope that the Minister will either stand up and accept such a reasonable amendment or explain to us clearly what is wrong with 10 full-time equivalent staff rather than 10 individuals, and how the latter would be less likely to swamp the professional staff than 10 full-time equivalents. I look forward to that clear explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot resist speaking. I so rarely have the opportunity to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He makes an enormously important point. I hope that over time the Government will seek to move towards more family-friendly working practices, not only for women but for men. It is difficult for men who want to spend some time at home with their children to find employment. It is not the norm in industry. It is not yet the norm in government. It is difficult to see how industry's working practices can be changed until employees demand that they should be.
604
It is incumbent on Government to take the lead and to make it possible for people to work in a family-friendly way by being flexible in their working practices and in those provided for in legislation.
I concede that 10 is a small number of such people for the mayor to appoint. But it should be a matter of principle that the Government promote at every opportunity the sort of world they wish to see. I support the noble Lord and hope that the Government will think again.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been round this circle once again. We are convinced that it is necessary to assure the electors of London and the professional staff of the GlA that there will not be significant numbers of political or personal appointees brought in to run the GLA on behalf of the mayor. In order to reassure them, one needs a limit on the number of such appointments. Every one of those appointments could be filled with a part-timer or on a job-share basis; but the total number requires some limit and some reassurance.
The staff concerned will be the staff of the authority, but unlike the other staff of the authority they will be appointed by the mayor. They will go through the processes of appointment by the mayor. There will be the option of appointing on a more flexible basis, but the total number of people on the payroll appointed under this system should not be more than 10 plus two.
We require that reassurance. It does not cut across any approach by the mayor to make appointments on a more flexible basis. But it means that the total number of such people on the payroll should not be more than 10. At the extreme, if one did not have a limit, a rich person who became mayor could appoint people at virtually no salary who allegedly were working part time; and even if one had people working for a quarter of a week one could have 40 people who made up 10 full time equivalents. Forty people would be a quite significant imbalancing of the total staff of the GLA. We want to guard against that. We have chosen the figure 10. The noble Lord clearly does not agree with it. However, he does not agree with any other figure.
We shall stick with the limit. The mayor is completely free within that limit to appoint whom he or she wishes. If we do not have a limit, many anxieties will be raised about the nature of the authority and the way in which appointments at a relatively important level will be made.
I am sorry that I cannot go further to meet the noble Lord's view. I am sure that he and I would want to have a greater accommodation. However, I fear that it is not possible given the constraint that we believe necessary in this context.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify one point. The noble Lord has spoken of these as personal appointments. He suggested that if the mayor was wealthy he or she could appoint large numbers of people for small parts

605
of the day. Are these not employees of the authority? The Minister seemed to speak of them as though it was a separate group of people. We had understood that the normal appointment procedures, including the application of equal opportunities policies, would apply to these appointments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, they are the employees of the authority, but they will be appointed uniquely by the mayor. Therefore, at the key point, the decision lies with the mayor rather than with the normal appointment system in the authority. Crucially, the mayor will decide terms and conditions. That lays the situation open to the possible proliferation of such persons were, effectively, a subterfuge to be operated to bring allegedly part-time employees on to the payroll for these purposes, however open the procedure had been up to that point. It would be the mayor's personal appointment on the mayor's terms and conditions.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I recognise that I am somewhat straining the procedures—does the Minister suggest that the mayor can make a personal contribution to the salaries of these people? That seems to be the logical conclusion of what he is saying when he speaks of the situation depending on the mayor's affluence or otherwise.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the formal salaries will undoubtedly be paid for out of the resources of the assembly. We are guarding against very non-British possibilities of the way in which people actually get paid in this context. We need a limit in order to guard against them. Noble Lords may be familiar with what happens in certain other jurisdictions where such matters may not be so above board.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the issue becomes more absurd each time we debate it. It is a nonsense to specify in primary legislation the number of staff that the mayor may appoint so that it requires an Act of Parliament if the mayor decides he wants 11 people rather than 10. We dealt with that nonsense at an earlier stage. In Committee we suggested that, if there needs to be a limit, it should be a budgetary limit. Expenditure on such posts is more important than the number involved. We did not persuade the Government. The amendment was withdrawn; and that issue has gone.
At this last stage of the Bill, we have accepted that the Government believe it necessary, and will provide, therefore, in the Bill a limit of 10 other staff to be appointed by the mayor. We may think that that is a nonsense, but I accept that the provision is there. Our amendment accepts that it is there. Our amendment seeks to reflect all that we have debated. It is a rare pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in agreement with me. In order to demonstrate the flexible working that we all advocate, there should be 10 full time equivalent staff. The Minister has not told us why there cannot be 10 full time equivalent staff. The cost would not be significantly more. The Minister made clear that it is an issue of numbers, not costs.
606
It is true that the mayor can employ people on a job-share or part-time basis, but in so doing he limits the paid working capacity available to him. Why do the Government insist on imposing such a tight restriction? We are not talking about hundreds of people, but of 10. In theory the mayor could employ a large number for one hour a week, but that is becoming absurd. The normal arrangement is as described: a job share, perhaps roughly of two-thirds, one-third, or whatever. I shall never understand why we have to inhibit the mayor in this way. However, ultimately this will be an issue for a very surprised mayor to come to terms with on his first day in office when he discovers that an Act of Parliament tells him that he may have only 10 staff regardless of the number of hours per week each member of staff works.
It is an absurdity, but it lies on the Government's shoulders and I am content to leave it as the Government's responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Authority's consent to inclusion of certain provisions in local Bills]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 52, line 28, after ("of") insert ("statutory").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 130 to 133, 153 to 156 and 168 to 171. These are technical adjustments which merely seek to standardise references to the exercise of statutory functions in provisions relating to local Bills. At present, the provisions in Clause 79, which deal with London local authority Bills affecting the GLA refer to the need to consent. Where the exercise of functions is affected, other provisions refer to the "exercise of statutory functions" or simply "statutory functions".
In order to ensure that no unwarranted inference may be drawn subsequently from the variation in terminology, we are talking about the exercise of statutory functions, and these amendments standardise that. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister has been kind enough to recognise that my Amendment No. 28 can be discussed in this group. It raises a short but important point as regards the Common Council of the City of London and I am seeking clarification.
The clause requires the London borough councils and the Common Council to obtain the consent of the GLA in the circumstances set out in the clause before promoting parliamentary Bills. I can understand that the London boroughs are entirely happy with that arrangement because any Bill a council promotes will be attributable to its functions as a local authority. However, the City of London is different. Its functions fall into two separate categories. The promotion of Bills might be undertaken by the Common Council either as part of its functions as a local authority for the City or as agent for the City Corporation acting in other capacities.

607
In another place I introduced a number of Bills, and carried them through, dealing with Epping Forest. The management of Epping Forest is not a local authority statutory function of the City Corporation. The City was appointed as conservator of Epping Forest under the Epping Forest Act 1878, but in no sense as part of its local authority functions. The money came from what is called the "City's cash" and was not part of public expenditure.
It is therefore right that when one is dealing with such an important function as the promotion of a Bill in Parliament, it should be clear that the only circumstance in which the City Corporation needs to have the consent of the mayor is in relation to its statutory functions as a local authority.
The context may suggest that that is already the position. However, I thought it right to table Amendment No. 28 to add the extra words to put it beyond all doubt. I do not want to take up more time, but there is good statutory precedent for that and for these words. I hope that if the Minister is unable to give a categorical assurance that the position is as I have stated it ought to be, he will be prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the reference is intended to be to the Common Council acting solely in its capacity as local authority. The noble Lord may be aware that we have been in correspondence with the City at official level, and the legal advice is that the meaning is clear in the context to which the reference is placed. However, if the noble Lord requires further reassurance, I reiterate the point that the interpretation relates to the role of the Common Council as local authority and in no other capacity.
I hope that on the basis of that advice given to me and to the City authorities, and with that reassurance, the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 128 [Application of Part VIII of Local Government Finance Act 1988]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No 29:
Page 82, line 12, at end insert—
("(bd) the London Pensions Fund Authority;"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I shall refer to the other amendments in the group. This group of amendments is consequential to Clauses 395 and 396 of the Bill. They fulfil our White Paper commitment to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority under the democratic control of the GLA. During Report stage, we informed the House that we would need to bring forward further minor and consequential amendments in relation to the auditing and accounts of the LPFA and these amendments complete the detail of the framework of financial administration.
Amendment No. 29 applies to the LPFA requirements. Amendment No. 30 deals with the making and auditing of annual accounts. Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 provide respectively for the mayor to receive copies of reports and of an auditor's recommendations in respect of the LPFA.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 provide for public access to meetings on matters raised by the auditor. Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 140 enable the mayor to request the Audit Commission to undertake value for money studies in relation to the LPFA.
The other amendments include the LPFA in the summary of statements of account produced by the GLA and enable the mayor to request the LPFA to provide the GLA with such information. I believe that these amendments are relatively straightforward. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister because I should have given him notice of my question. It would be of interest to the House if he could inform us of the scale of the funds for which the London Pensions Fund Authority will be responsible and perhaps the number of pensioners and staff who will be covered. It could be a massive fund or a small one, depending on what is included.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the London Pensions Fund Authority will be taking on the responsibilities of a number of different pension schemes brought together under the GLA and this Bill, we are talking about a substantial amount of interest. The approximate figure would be £2.5 billion. The approximate number of people covered would be 67,000.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Applications of the Audit Commission Act 1998]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 85, line 11, at end insert—
("(bd) the London Pensions Fund Authority;"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 134 [Summary statement of accounts of Authority and functional bodies]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 34:
Page 85, line 17, leave out ("and").
Page 85, line 17, at end insert ("and the London Pensions Fund Authority").
Page 85, line 19, leave out ("or of').
Page 85, line 19, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 135 [Information for purposes of section 134]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 85, line 34, leave out ("functional body") and insert ("body to which this section applies").
Page 85, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The bodies to which this section applies are—

(a) each of the functional bodies; and

(b) the London Pensions Fund Authority.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142 [The Mayor's transport strategy]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 87, line 23, at end insert—

("( ) shall, for highways, be based on the needs of persons (including pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport) rather than vehicles,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment in an attempt to tighten up the wording in the clause relating to transport strategy and it probes whether the Bill means that the mayor must comply with national policies. It appears that some local authorities are s till resisting change and the new policies which the Government introduced after the election.
Perhaps I may give the House an example. Many noble Lords will have seen the roadworks at Hyde Park Corner. They were the creation of a cycle crossing, a pedestrian crossing and a crossing for horses. The crossing connects Hyde Park with Constitution Hill. The lovely crossing opened last week and I used it when on my bicycle. It is wonderful, except that one has to wait for one minute and 30 seconds between green lights. If there is a green light at one end of the crossing, one has to wait for one minute and 30 seconds at the other end, because the lights are synchronised for cars and not for pedestrians, cycles or horses.
The road is being widened at the top end of Constitution Hill, which seems to me to be against government policies. In spite of all the wonderful millions of pounds being spent, there are still no cycle lanes on Constitution Hill, or anywhere else in the Royal Parks. To cap it all, last Thursday—this event prompted me to table the amendment—at 8.30 in the evening, having left your Lordships' House, I made my way halfway across to the middle of the crossing to discover that the next part was closed. I expected that the contractors would perhaps have put up some temporary lights, because one cannot cross from the middle to the outside of the crossing without traffic lights, but of course there were no temporary lights. Eventually there was a gap in the traffic and one was able to cross.
That is no mere trite joke. It happens all over Westminster in my opinion, and in one or two other boroughs in London. Many of us have spoken before about the lack, of bus lanes and the lack of consideration for pedestrians and cyclists. My amendment is designed to probe a little further the Government's intentions in this particular clause.
Having congratulated the Minister on the amendments on Report requiring the Royal Parks Agency to take into account the policies of the mayor and to consult on transport matters, perhaps I may also commend to the House PPG 13, which was issued in draft form a few weeks ago. It seems to me a very good espousal of the new transport policy of this Government with regard to integrating planning and transport, promoting more sustainable transport choices and reducing the need to travel, especially by car.
One of the main planning policies is to give priority to people over traffic in town centres. That is quite a good policy to pursue. Much further on, when it comes to cycling, the PPG states that the plans should seek the provision of cycle routes and cycle priority measures in new developments and ensure that cycle routes are isolated from other activities. I could go on, but I shall not because there is much other work to be done here tonight.
However, I ask my noble friend whether the Bill, as drafted, enables the mayor to force local authorities, such as Westminster or Wandsworth, to do what they obviously have not as yet realised they must do. PPG 13 has just been published, but the policies have been around for some time. I should like my noble friend to give the House some assurance that the mayor would force local authorities, if they did not want to do so, to adopt policies more friendly to public transport, buses, pedestrians and cyclists. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I sympathise greatly with the general trend of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is desirable that the mayor's transport strategy should take account of national policies and ensure that local boroughs do so also. Furthermore, the amendment would highlight in the Bill some of the concerns expressed on a number of occasions by myself and many noble Lords. It is a rather neatly worded amendment and I hope that it will be well received by Ministers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this amendment would require the highway element of the mayor's transport strategy to be based on the needs of persons rather than vehicles. It would mean that the interests of people, including pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport, would have priority over vehicles. I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that highways are not just for vehicles, and that the mayor's policies need to reflect that. We believe that our approach in this Bill already does just that.
Clause 141 makes it clear that the mayor's general transport duty relates to the encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. It applies to all modes of transport and it is most definitely not skewed towards motor vehicles.
My noble friend referred to PPG 13 on transport and planning, a draft revision of which was, as he said, published for consultation by the department recently. As my noble friend rightly pointed out, that guidance is about securing more sustainable transport policies through local authorities' planning policies. One of the principles which it supports is to encourage local authorities to give priority to people over traffic in certain areas. It also contains policies to promote the provision of cycle routes and many other policies which my noble friend and the noble Baroness will welcome.

611
Clause 41 requires the mayor, in producing his spatial development strategy, to take account of the need for consistency with national policies. The SDS will certainly include the PPG notes. I reassure noble Lords that we shall be making specific reference to PPG 13 in the guidance that we shall shortly be publishing for consultation on the mayor's planning functions.
My noble friend also asked about the boroughs' local implementation plans for the mayor's strategy. We believe that a co-operative relationship is important and we are discussing framing the Bill in that context. However, at the end of the day there are powers for the mayor to implement his strategy. My noble friend mentioned Hyde Park Corner, which will of course be on a GLA road. Transport for London will control the traffic signals and the timings, although it will have to consult the boroughs on the matter of signals on borough roads. I hope that that answers my noble friend's question.
In the course of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, we have discussed on a number of occasions how the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users should be met. The mayor's duty already makes specific reference to pedestrians, and both I and my noble friend Lord Whitty have made it clear that cycling is within the term, "transport facilities and services", and therefore needs no specific mention on the face of the Bill.
It must be for the mayor to balance the interests of all road users in his transport strategy, taking account of national policies. The Bill's provisions already make that absolutely clear and we should not seek to override that. I hope therefore that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I know that she has said some of it many times before, but the way in which she has encapsulated her argument brings me a good deal of comfort. I hope that these provisions will be implemented in the shortest possible time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 158 [Power of Mayor to transfer functions]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 96, line 30, after ("above") insert ("or by a transport subsidiary's agreement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. I mentioned on Report that we might need to make some further minor amendments to TfL's detailed operational powers, and this group of amendments seeks those provisions which will ensure that certain agreements entered into by TfL subsidiaries will have the same status as agreements entered into by TfL itself, which are covered by subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 156.
Agreements made by TfL itself for the carrying on by other persons of activities which it has the power to carry on, such as, for example, the running of a bus
612
service, will have a special status by virtue of being made under Clause 156. For example, if a Clause 156 agreement is made with a bus operator, the bus service becomes part of the London network. It does not need a special licence and automatically falls within the London free travel scheme. However, most agreements of this kind will not be made with TfL as such, but will be made by TfL subsidiaries. Therefore, it is necessary to give the agreements by those subsidiaries an equivalent status. The combined effect of these amendments does just that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 160 [Guarantees]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 98, line 4, at end insert ("or

(c) any person (other than such a subsidiary) with whom such a subsidiary has entered into a transport subsidiary's agreement, where the guarantee is given for the purpose of enabling that person to carry out the agreement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 162 [Provision of information]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 99, line 19, after ("persons") insert ("under any transport subsidiary's agreement or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 163 [Restrictions on disposal of land]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 99. line 38, leave out ("different") and insert ("larger").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I apologise for the fact that the word "longer", which is what we intended, has been substituted—no doubt due to a "typo"—by the word "larger", which does not make sense in the context of the amendment. However, given the number of times that the Government have had to correct their own amendments, I hope that they will be tolerant of this mistake. I believe that the purpose of the amendment is quite clear.
Clause 163 deals with the restrictions on disposal of land by Transport for London or the authority. In brief it provides that the consent of the Secretary of State is required for sales of land which are now or have been operational within the previous five years
On Report I moved a series of amendments dealing with this question of transfer of operational land. In his response to those amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he believed that five years was a reasonable time for operational land to fall out of the category of "operational" and into the category of "non-operational". However, the noble Lord said,
"the noble Baroness may have a point with Amendment No. 389 which provides that the Secretary of State can only lengthen the five-year period. I am therefore prepared to consider this point and, it is to be hoped, return to it at Third Reading".—[Official Report, 19/10/99; col. 1010.]
We are at Third Reading and we tabled this amendment in case the Minister should not have tabled a similar amendment. I do not believe that he has. For that reason, I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct to say that in the previous debate on these amendments in this clause I undertook to consider further her amendment. I believed that it had certain merit. However, since then I have discovered that my sympathy for that amendment was perhaps misplaced. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept her amendment.
The key reason is that it would deprive the Secretary of State of some flexibility, not necessarily for any obvious benefit. For example, it would mean that once the five-year period had been increased to seven years it could not thereafter be reduced back to five years. While that ratchet effect might not be seen to have much effect in the immediate circumstances, it does not fit in well with the principle to which we tried to adhere in this context; that is, while restating the principle that operational land must not be permanently disposed of without Parliament having an opportunity to consider it, we have attempted to give TfL some flexibility over the money spent on its property holdings. As part of that flexible approach, we have given the Secretary of State a number of mechanisms whereby he can assist TfL while at the same time ensuring that operational land is protected.
Even if the noble Baroness's amendment were agreed to and the five-year period lengthened, it would still be open to the Secretary of State to issue a consent to the sale of land which had ceased to be operational less than five years ago, or whatever longer period had been specified by the Secretary of State.
In practice there are other ways round this problem. However, on the face of it, it would decrease the flexibility and not add a great deal to the protection of operational land. I did not see fit to accept the noble Baroness's earlier amendment and I am afraid that I cannot accept this one.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am bound to say that I rather sympathise with the noble Lord. I suspect that he was given one set of briefs prior to the debate and another set subsequent to it. Also, I am disappointed because I believe that, following the privatisation of the railways, we have had a good example of the extent to which sales of operational land or land which could become useful for transport purposes have been allowed to take place. Indeed, until very recently they were allowed to take place without any let or hindrance. The five-year limit which is introduced into this Bill as far as concerns land belonging to Transport for London is some measure of protection, but it is only a minor one. We all know that land which has remained idle and then sold is irreplaceable. One cannot create a transport corridor or recreate a transport corridor, particularly one with fixed rails on it, once that corridor has been removed.
Therefore, I deeply regret the Government's attitude. I hope that it will not cause the mayor and the assembly further difficulties in the implementation of the mayor's transport strategy. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 168, insert the following new clause—

MEANING OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDIARY'S AGREEMENT
(" .—(1) In this Act "transport subsidiary's agreement" means an agreement with a person ("the contractor")—

(a) which is entered into by, or transferred to, a subsidiary of Transport for London, and

(b) which falls within subsection (2) or (3) below.

(2) An agreement falls within this subsection if it includes provision for the carrying on by the contractor, whether as agent for the subsidiary or otherwise, of any activities which Transport for London has power to carry on; and such an agreement may include provision with respect to the provision or financing of any public passenger transport services.
(3) An agreement falls within this subsection if it includes provision for the carrying on by the contractor of any activities which Transport for London does not have power to carry on and also provision for one or more of the following, namely—

(a) the carrying on by the contractor of such activities as are mentioned in subsection (2) above;

(b) the provision by the contractor to the subsidiary of services ancillary to the provision of public passenger transport services; and

(c) the use by the contractor of land or other property owned by Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, or transferred to the contractor by Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, for the purposes of the agreement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 173 [Structure of fares and services]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 104, line 22, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 104, line 27, at end insert—
("(3) In exercising his powers under subsection (1) above to determine the matters specified in subsection (2)(a) above, the Mayor shall be under a duty to ensure that the general level of fares to be charged for public passenger transport services by a Tube operator at any time after this Act comes into force is no more than the general level twelve months previous to that time increased by a percentage equal to the control rate.
(4) In subsection (3) above the control rate shall be at any time the number of percentage points by which the most recently available figure for the retail prices index has increased on the retail prices index for the month twelve months previous to that figure, less the factor X.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act the Mayor shall have the duty to ensure, as part of his general duty under section 141 above, that Tube operators charge only fair fares.
(6) In this section—

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

"the factor X" shall, prior to 1st April 2002, be equivalent to two percentage points, and on or after 1st April 2002 shall be equivalent to four percentage points; and

"a Tube operator" is London Underground Limited or any successor body or bodies, whatever their ownership, which subsequently come to operate all or part of the

615
undertaking operated by that body at the date of Royal Assent to this Act, including any extensions to that undertaking subsequent to that date.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to place an annual ceiling on the general level of fares charged by London Underground and to ensure that this level falls year on year.
The London Underground traveller, of which most days I am one and no doubt many noble Lords are as well, nowadays is almost the only user of a monopoly service or utility not to be protected by a regulator in the amount of fares charged. London Underground clearly is a public utility and in the future may well become a privatised, or part-privatised, utility, not least judged by the miserly government provision which appears to be forcing the Tube that way.
It is now established that significant utilities, whether public or private, should be subject to a regulator, one of whose functions is to protect the interests of the consumer by ensuring efficiency through a ceiling on costs. No one doubts that a major incentive to the vastly improved provision of utilities which began in the 1980s was the use of that price ceiling. One only has to look at airports, gas, electricity and telecommunications to see that, in all those cases, prices to the consumer have fallen considerably and that there has been an enormous incentive for efficiency.
On the railways—perhaps the nearest parallel to London Underground—fares have not risen by more than RPI since privatisation. When this amendment was last debated, it was mentioned that London Underground had a great need for investment. Indeed, it has. But in each of the cases I have mentioned, including and in particular the railways, the amount of investment has increased considerably, despite the fact that fares or prices charged have been capped. Therefore, the argument that you cannot have investment as well as efficiency and price control simply does not work.
In this Bill the mayor stands in ultimate relation to the Underground as its regulator. Why then, when the Government would not dare to remove the consumer's price ceiling in other utilities, should the Tube not be subject to regulation on the same basis? For that reason the clause would still hold good against a privatised Tube system, following the precedent set in the 1980s.
This amendment seeks to cap only the general fare level overall. The Bill, as drafted, refers to "general level of fares". We adopt that principle. Clearly it is right that premium services should be able to cross-subsidise other services. We have no argument with that. We merely talk about the general level of fares and putting a cap on that.
I believe that this amendment would be a popular one, certainly for all Tube users. It is about time that Tube users had the same benefits as the users of all the other privatised utilities or railway companies. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that the parallel drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, between the prices charged by privatised utilities for their products and services are equivalent to those charged by TfL. An independent price regulation applies in such areas, but not to TfL fares.
The privatised utilities are not the subject of democratic control in the way in which the mayor will have control over the operations of TfL. The noble Lord has referred to the popularity of pronouncements on fares. It is fairly obvious that plans for fares will feature somewhat large in the manifestos of candidates for the mayoralty. We already have some general indications. Londoners will be able to endorse or otherwise those plans at the ballot box. Therefore, there is a democratic control, whereas there is not, in that direct sense, in relation to the fares or charging policies of the public utilities.
I thought that in earlier stages of the Bill it was generally accepted that an amendment that effectively capped fares by the Secretary of State or by the will of Parliament would restrict the mayor's ability to control and direct the balance of fares on TfL's public transport services.
In addition to the democratic argument that the mayor will be in the same position as regulators in other areas, the mayor's general transport duties will require him or her to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. In that context he or she will clearly develop a fares policy which will relate both to the need to encourage traffic on the Tube and other parts of London Transport and to the investment and other requirements of TfL.
If the proposal by the noble Lord were adopted, it could have serious effects in limiting the amount of revenue that could be raised through the fare box for re-investment in a modernised Underground because, under his formula, revenues would reduce over time in real terms and the mayor could find it increasingly difficult to keep the movement of fares in line with costs, investment needs and market demand.
The amendment is also flawed in that from April 2002 it would require the mayor to limit fares increases to RPI minus four per cent. I believe that there is a logical and statistical absurdity at the end of the amendment. If inflation were to remain around current levels, the mayor would thus be obliged to make reductions in the real level of fares. Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that in a sustained period of low inflation the formula would have the effect of reducing fares year after year without regard to the effect of those fares on the overall transport budget.
I do not believe that it is sensible to tie the mayor's hands in that respect in a situation where clearly some of the fares revenue will be needed for long-term investment in our transport infrastructure in London. We believe that it is right for the mayor to have direct responsibility for fares and not that he or she should be subject to rigid constraints and formulae as these amendments propose.

617
Therefore, I believe that the whole approach adopted by the noble Lord is based on a wrong analogy in the first instance, and would lead to serious constraints on the mayor's ability to deliver an effective transport system for London. I hope that he will not pursue the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the reply of the Minister. On the question of revenue needed for modernisation, I dwelt on that in my opening remarks. In all the other cases that I mentioned fares or the equivalent of charges have gone down, but investment has gone up. There is no reason why that should not happen in the case of the Underground if we obtain the incentives for efficiency and so on available to the other industries to which I referred.
On democratic control, yes indeed there will be democratic control in the form of the mayor and the assembly. The amendment refers to fair fares and I thought I may be doing the Minister a favour by putting this proposal forward. We remember what happened to the last fair fares proposal in the days of the GLC. Although the noble Lord may describe that as democratic control, I seem to remember that it was thrown out by the courts on the basis that it may have been democratic in certain parts of London, but it was not democratic in other areas that did not have a London Underground service.
I have listened with interest to what the Minister has said. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House on this issue tonight. I hope that the London travelling public will be able to have the benefit that has flowed to the consumers of other utilities and to travellers on the main railway system, which is a combination of lower fares and higher investment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 175 [Co-operation with other persons]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 105. line 10, leave out from ("provided") to ("either") in line 13 and insert ("under—

(a) an agreement entered into by Transport for London under section 156(2) or (3)(a) above, or

(b) a transport subsidiary's agreement,

by a person other than a subsidiary of Transport for London, it shall be the duty of that person and the other party to the agreement in question,").
Page 105, line 22, after ("above") insert ("or to a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 177 [Information and publicity about plans as to services and fares]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 105, line 47, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 180 [The London bus network]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 107, line 10, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 181 [London local service agreements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 107, line 15, after ("above") insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 206, insert the following new clause—

DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY
(" .—(1) Section 3 of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993 (transfer of functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (7) below.
(2) In subsection (1) (which confers a power on the Secretary of State to make orders transferring functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London".
(3) Subsection (3) (which confers a power to specify in a transfer order circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect) shall cease to have effect.
(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The power to make a transfer order under subsection (1) above includes a power to revoke, amend or re-enact any transfer order made under that subsection.
(3B) Without prejudice to subsection (3A) above, a transfer order may specify circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect before the expiry of any period specified in any such order."
(5) In subsection (4) (which confers a power to include in a transfer order supplementary etc provision) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London."
(6) Subsection (6) (which provides that the power to make a transfer order is to be exercisable by statutory instrument) shall cease to have effect.
(7) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(7) The Mayor of London shall secure that any transfer order made under subsection (1) above (and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting any such order) is printed and published.
(8) A fee may be charged for the sale of an order printed and published under subsection (7) above."
(8) Any transfer order—

(a) made by the Secretary of State under section 3(1) of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993, and

(b) in force immediately before the coming into force of subsection (3) above,

shall have effect as from the coming into force of that subsection as if it were a transfer order made by the Mayor of London.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50 and speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 125, 127, 160 and 182. On Report my noble friend Lord Macdonald indicated that we would need to bring forward some technical amendments in relation to the Docklands Light Railway and the Croydon Tramlink. These amendments are designed to ensure that certain powers of the Secretary of State and responsibilities of London Regional Transport (LRT) pass to the mayor and to Transport for London. They do not significantly affect the current arrangements for construction and operation of the Docklands Light Railway and Tramlink.
Amendment No. 50 passes to the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to transfer functions of Docklands Light Railway Limited to another person for the purposes of the construction and maintenance of the DLR Lewisham extension.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 125 provide for the mayor and TfL to inherit certain functions of the Secretary of State and the responsibilities of London Regional Transport in respect of Croydon Tramlink. They amend the Croydon Tramlink Act 1994 so that the mayor assumes the role of the Secretary of State in transferring functions to the Tramlink concessionaire. They also give the mayor the role of the Secretary of State in determining any differences arising from proposals to alter the level of a street in relation to the tram, and they place a duty on the London Transport Users' Committee to consider representations in respect of Tramlink.
The amendments also provide for the continuation of the terms of agreements entered into by LRT dealing with the performance of LRT's statutory duties, notwithstanding that certain statutory duties of London Regional Transport are to be re-enacted and held by the mayor and Transport for London. The Tramlink agreement is such an agreement.
Amendments Nos. 127 and 160 make provision for the continuation of penalty fare arrangements which fall outside those for bus and Tube, such as Tramlink, with the mayor assuming the role of Secretary of State, in respect of the making of orders modifying the penalty fare procedures. Amendment No. 182 makes the necessary repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 237 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 143, line 44, at end insert ("or, if the Secretary of State by order so directs. who have attained 60 years of age").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 returns to the issue of concessionary fares and in particular the equality of age between men and women for concessionary fares. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood moved an amendment at the last stage, giving an opportunity to the Government to put right one matter of inequality between the sexes in what she reminded noble Lords was to be "a unique and modern authority", to quote the Government. The Minister did not take the opportunity at that point to put a modern or indeed a post-modern stamp on the authority. He said that the link between eligibility for travel concessions and the state pension age is long-standing and clearly understood and that any changes should follow the 1995 Pensions Act and any alterations that it may introduce.
The amendment, which will allow for regulation by the Secretary of State, rather than attempting to change the provision at this point, differs from the one
620
moved at the last stage for two reasons. The first is a reason of principle. The Government at the last stage accepted our amendment which stated that the new authority should promote equality. We have returned to that matter this afternoon. That amendment will be in the Bill and it will be adjusted when it goes back to another place. We welcome that situation and would like to see promotion of equality in this area as well as in others.
The second reason is more technical. I understand that the Minister has received correspondence from solicitors instructed by the organisation Parity, which campaigns for equal state pension ages and equal rights for men and women. The correspondence mentions a possible problem in this area in relation to the decision of the European Court of Justice in Atkins, but distinguishes that case, and alerts the Minister to having been instructed to commence proceedings on behalf of a 62 year-old man to establish his right to travel concessions under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The case of Atkins was brought under the Transport Act 1985. It raises the question of whether the legislation that we are now considering will breach the European Union equal treatment directive.
I do not at this stage ask noble Lords to look at the detail of that directive; nor do I wish to enter into a long debate about the criteria to be applied in this situation. However, having been alerted that there may be a problem, we should allow for alteration through the mechanism of regulation by an order made by the Secretary of State in order to correct the difficulty and to ensure that the legislation is capable of meeting the relevant criteria. This is not something that I would normally recommend.
The amendment would allow for reflection at a later stage, after the passage of the Bill. We hope that there will be action, but the amendment would allow the right steps to be taken by the Government to meet the point. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the prospect of redrafting this piece of legislation so that it is capable of taking into account any possible variations of any possible legislation rather threw me, and I was a little daunted by that prospect. I can confirm that we have received representations from Parity and we are considering points raised in that letter. I am not in a position to go further than that at this stage.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State a power by order to make all London residents eligible for travel concessions at the age of 60. The London concessionary fare scheme, like schemes in the rest of the country, provides concessionary travel on public transport to men and women of pensionable age: men at 65 and over, women at 60 and over. Perhaps at this stage I should declare a rather unwelcome, looming interest for myself in June next year.
One of the reasons for settling on the state pension age for eligibility was that the link was clearly understood. A person's eligibility for a state pension means that he or she is also eligible for travel concessions. It could be argued

621
that the state pension age represents, very broadly, recognition by the state of the lack of earning power and thus the financial disadvantage of older people. In the Government's view, it is reasonable that the age of eligibility for travel concessions should be in line with society's broader view of the age at which financial assistance should be given.
The issue of an equal age of eligibility for travel concessions has already been addressed in the Pensions Act 1995. This Act provides for women's eligibility for travel concessions to be raised from 60 to 65 (in line with their eligibility for the state pension) over a long transitional period from 2010 to 2020. This maintains the link between concessionary travel and the state pension age and will, in time, eliminate any discrimination against men. The Government have no plans to accelerate this transition, given all the other calls on public funds.
Were the amendment to be implemented, there would be unwelcome anomalies. Setting an equal age of 60 would allow men still in full-time employment to take advantage of travel concessions. The anomaly would be compounded when the state pension age is equalised at 65. At that time, both men and women would be able to enjoy concessionary travel while they were still working.
There is also the issue of the local authority bearing the cost. In London, the boroughs currently choose to provide a free fare concession on London Transport and London rail services for their eligible residents. The current cost of the scheme to the boroughs is £142 million. We estimate that were the noble Baroness's intentions to be implemented, it could cost the boroughs at least an extra £20 million per annum. If that were extended across the whole country, it could cost local authorities in the region of £65 million.
After there has been more time to consider the correspondence to which the noble Baroness referred, I shall continue to keep her fully informed. In the mean time, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this is a technical matter and I shall rot pursue it at this stage. I have often seen on the faces of government Ministers a look of extreme cynicism when members of opposition parties suggest that they are trying to be helpful to the Government. I understand that cynicism, but this was a genuine attempt to be helpful. I am not in the habit of suggesting that any Secretary of State should obtain additional powers which are not clear on the face of primary legislation.
It may be that this is one of the subjects that has to be dealt with in a "Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill", which may come down the track at some point. The amendment was a genuine attempt to leave the door open to make a change which may be required. I have not been suggesting to the House that it should tonight make such a major alteration in policy. I heard what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 144, line 25, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 239 [Requirements as to scope]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 145, line 33, at end insert ("or under a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 244 [The London Transport Users' Committee]:
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 245 [Representations to the Committee]:
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 148, line 35, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 253 [Provision of facilities to benefit users of waterways"]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 152, line 3, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 145 and 146.
This group of amendments seeks to address concerns expressed by the Port of London Authority and British Waterways over Transport for London's powers in respect of landing places in Clause 253 and Schedule 11. However, in the light of representations and for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward Amendments Nos. 59 and 61. These make it clear that TfL must obtain a licence or consent in respect of any works if that is required by any enactment. Where there is no such requirement, TfL must obtain the consent of the person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway.
At Report stage on 19th October, in relation to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, I said that I would look at the issue of potential conflict between Transport for London by-laws and those of the navigation authority. As I explained then, I envisaged that any conflict would be resolved at the time of confirmation. I should like to amplify that by reassuring noble Lords that in considering the confirmation of any by-laws under paragraph 27 of Schedule 11, the department will take full account of the concerns of the relevant navigation authority. This will include British Waterways as well as the Port of London Authority.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward some specific amendments to Schedule 11 with regard to the Port of London Authority. This is because such a situation is most likely to arise with respect to landing places on the tidal Thames. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 ensure that TfL cannot make by-laws for landing places where the PLA has

623
power to make by-laws and would ensure that no TfL by-law shall conflict with by-laws made by the PLA under the Port of London Act 1968. These are clarifying amendments tabled for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 60 and 62 come within this grouping and it is therefore appropriate that I speak to them now. The amendments relate to the concerns of tourist services on the River Thames.
It probably has not escaped notice when looking out of the Library window over the past few years that things have been changing on the river—and I am not referring to that giant bicycle wheel down the road. Some years back the tourist services on the Thames were provided by a motley collection of craft, some of which dated back to the First World War and others which had come from various estuaries around the south coast. They offered services which were at best sporadic and generally of poor quality.
More recently, one cannot fail to have noticed that much larger and more sophisticated craft are being used to take tourist passengers up and down the Thames. Moreover, those craft operate all year round whereas the earlier ones were generally laid up during the winter. The Thames currently draws over 2 million sightseeing passengers and restaurant cruise passengers a year—a figure which will no doubt rise in view of the millennium celebrations. In addition, around 500 people are directly employed in the river services—also a figure which is likely to rise.
I tabled these amendments in response to the government amendments which inserted Clauses 253 and 255 into the Bill at Report stage. Their purpose is to clarify the uncertainty created by those clauses regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. This is a subject that was broached at an earlier stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
Clauses 253 and 255 authorise Transport for London to provide facilities such as piers and jetties on the Thames, and to transfer to London Regional Transport (and ultimately to Transport for London) existing contracts for access to existing piers and jetties on the Thames made between boat operators and the Port of London Authority, or River Services Limited which is a London Regional Transport subsidiary. That transfer will occur without the consent of the boat operators by operation of the law.
Transport for London will be the new transport executive for London and as such its primary focus is likely to be the development and maintenance of passenger transport services, particularly those for commuters. Although the development of such services on the Thames will be welcomed, that should not be at the expense of the London tourist industry. Yet there is a danger that Transport for London, unless directed to do so, will not understand or adequately cater for the special needs of this important
624
part of London's economy. It should be noted, for example, that London Regional Transport, to which Transport for London will be the successor body, is currently responsible for passenger bus services in London but is not responsible for tourist bus services—the open-topped buses which take tourists on circular routes around London.
At this stage I should say that history relates that past attempts to establish water bus services on the Thames failed, despite considerable subsidy. Nevertheless, they had a considerable impact on those providing leisure tourist services on the river, who lost around 20 per cent of their revenue as a result.
The amendments seek to address my concerns, first, by imposing an obligation on Transport for London when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; secondly, by requiring London Regional Transport and Transport for London to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with a policy document previously issued and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties—notably, the Port of London Authority's document Partners in Progress. I seek a level playing field for those who operate tourist services on the river.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I support the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in respect of Amendments Nos. 60 and 62, to which I added my name. These amendments would improve Clauses 253 and 255 which were inserted in the Bill by the Government at Report stage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, explained, the Government's new clauses created an uncertainty regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. Over the past week I and other noble Lords were contacted by those who are involved in the tourism and leisure industry. They expressed concern about the future of that industry on the Thames and its management by London River Services.
These amendments seek to address that concern: first, by imposing an obligation on TfL when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; and secondly, by requiring LRT and TfL to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with policy documents previously issued, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties, notably the PLA document Partners in Progress.
The operator, Catamaran Cruisers Ltd, has pointed out that there are two key points on which it is important to seek assurances from the Minister. The needs of tourism and leisure service operators must be given equal weight to transport matters by LRS, perhaps through the appointment of a director within LRS with experience of, and responsibility for, tourism. Further, there must be an independent assessment of the current impact of the introduction of

625
transport services on the existing tourism and leisure industries, so that both perspectives can be understood and viewed in a more balanced way. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances to the House on these matters.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the observations made by the two noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate. Although I am doubtful as to whether the over-used term "a level playing field" is the right one in the circumstances, I understand the point that they are trying to make. In fact, as the Bill stands, I believe that a degree of prejudice is imported into the vital industry of tourism—indeed, it is vital for London, vital for attracting foreign revenue to London and vital for ensuring that London retains its significant position on the world stage as a city of great tourist interest.
I find it extraordinary that there is no reference to tourism in the proposed guidelines. I ask my noble friend specifically: why has that omission occurred? There is a real need for a balance between transport and tourism. I am not convinced that this balanced approach is being applied at present, or, indeed, that it is even being indicated. It is very important, as justified by the history of the situation, that the tourist industry should be given some substantial benefits as a result of the work that it does in providing such services. To obtain significant investment in leisure and tourism, Thames operators were granted sole access to specific routes on the river for fixed periods under contractual licences granted by the PLA.
It seems to me that the approach of LRS at the present time is in breach of those agreements. Again, I ask my noble friend the Minister specifically how that situation can be tolerated. I understand that LRS seeks to justify its position because of statutory obligations, which have been placed upon it by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to implement transport on the Thames. One must pay regard to what is fair in the circumstances. Clearly, the development of these services and of tourism on the Thames is of great importance. I believe that this has been recognised by those who provide such services. But how can anyone justify a breach of sole operating licences when one thinks of the investment which has taken place in order to provide those services?
I believe this to be an issue which ought to be looked at most carefully. I do not propose to enter into the Division Lobby on the issue, and I say so very specifically at this stage because this is a matter which can be worked out. I should like my noble friend to tell the House tonight that the Government are looking very carefully at the issue and that they have no intention of participating in any scheme which would seriously disadvantage those engaged in the tourist industry. There will be time to reconsider the matter while the scheme is being developed. It is not perhaps necessary to put it in the Bill. Although the two noble Lords who have already spoken did not say so specifically. my interpretation of their remarks is that they would like an assurance that this is a matter which will not be passed over.
626
I am particularly worried that tourist services could be put in an even more disadvantaged position in the future by subsidy and by unfair competition being practised by other transport vis-à-vis those services. Therefore, the licences which were granted by the PLA to boat operators in 1993 should be honoured. It is not as though one can just write off this investment; indeed, it is something of considerable importance. The future of such operators will be in jeopardy if this investment is simply to be written off by those who will be undertaking the management of the scheme.
I do not propose to say anything more, save to end on this note. I believe that it is extremely important to recognise that tourism is of critical importance to this city—one only has to observe to recognise what is happening on the river, especially in the summer months or in the spring—and that it will go on being so after the passage of this Bill. I do not think that a deterrent or a discouragement should arise by virtue of current steps being taken which could be averted.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am mindful of the time but, as someone who raised these matters on Report, I should like to add a few words to the debate. Broadly, as other noble Lords have said, the problem is that operators of tourism boats are worried that LRS will disregard existing legally-binding agreements with the PLA and seek to impose unilaterally new conditions, which would seriously prejudice the operators' ability to continue to operate in a financially viable manner. That is the overall problem.
Following my interventions and those of other noble Lords on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to write to me. After a consultation with one of his officials, I passed his letter on to one of the parties who had been lobbying Members of this House. That party has now written to me and I shall get back to the noble Lord via the correct procedure in that respect. However, as regards the present position in our proceedings on the Bill, I should like to point out that those concerned would like to see LRS working within the partnership spirit of previous agreements, rather than with the new arrangement. As noble Lords have already said, they are looking for reassurance that the agreements which already cover tourist boats will not be disrupted in a way which will be disadvantageous to the tourist industry.
If I may say so, it is very difficult on the river to make a clear distinction between transport and tourism; for example, I have in mind those boats which. I hope, will go to serve the Millennium Dome. Will they make a significant contribution to the transport of people to the dome? I think not. I believe that they will be largely tourist in their objective—and a very pleasant trip I expect it to be. I very much hope that I and my family will take part in that. But we shall do so not as a means of getting to the Millennium Dome, as I think the Tube will provide a better means of doing that, but because it will be a delightful trip which will enable us to see much of London en route.

627
I believe that transport in the sense of rush hour transport is unlikely ever to comprise a major part of London's river transport. I think that tourism will continue to comprise the major part of that. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure those who are responsible for that tourist traffic.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as no one has opposed my amendments I welcome the implicit endorsement of them by the House and will comment on Amendments Nos. 60 and 62! I wish to make it absolutely clear to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and to others that the Government recognise the importance of tourism in London and tourism on the Thames in particular. We value highly the investment that has been made by operators in improving the quality of facilities and services that are available on the Thames. We want to see improvements sustained.
My noble friend asked why tourism had not been included in this provision. I assume that he asks why it has not been included in the guidelines issued by London River Services. As I understand it, tourism is mentioned in that context. I shall check that reference. Certainly the spirit of the whole approach is that tourism and functional transport are covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, insofar as there is a distinction between tourism and transport services, the delineation is not at all clear cut. We do not see the objectives of tourism and of transport as being exclusive. Nor do we see the role of London River Services as being to promote transport, for example, at the expense of tourism. Indeed I am absolutely confident that London River Services shares that view.
However, as significant anxieties have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others, I want to place it on record that we do not believe that there is a conflict here. We shall write to the chair of London River Services accordingly and, in doing so, we shall reiterate the importance of considering the wellbeing of the existing services, especially the high quality of current services. I hope that that meets the point that has been raised in relation to existing service providers. In addition I understand that LRS is committed to considering the impact of existing services when it grants licences for new services, if any. I believe that that is primarily a matter for LRS rather than the Bill. It becomes a matter of detailed operational and commercial negotiations. Nevertheless I make it absolutely clear here that our aim to increase the use of the river includes tourist use as well as more functional transport use. We wish to see new attractions all along the river, new investment in piers, boats and transport linkages, and better marketing and information on all of these.
We believe that the size of the tourist and transport markets will grow. We wish to open new routes. Nevertheless we would not wish to see the interests of existing operators who have made an investment in this service jeopardised. We shall make it clear to London River Services that that is our intention. I do not,
628
however, think that it is appropriate to amend the face of the Bill to that effect. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurances on that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 60:
Page 152, line 5, at end insert ("and, in the exercise of this power shall ensure that—

(a) the needs of tourists are taken into account; and

(b) adequate access to any such amenities or facilities is provided for vessels used wholly or mainly for carrying tourists").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would just like to say how grateful I am to the Minister for the assurance he has given and for the promise to write to the chief executive of London River Services. That shows that he has taken on board the strength of feeling in all quarters of the House. I express my thanks to those noble Lords who have supported me in this matter. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved. ]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 152, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) Before commencing any works for the purposes of exercising the powers under subsection (1) above, Transport for London shall—

(a) comply with any requirement in an enactment to obtain a licence or consent in respect of the works, or

(b) if there is no such requirement, obtain the consent to the works of any person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway to which they relate.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 255 [Landing places: transfer of certain rights and obligations]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 260 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 156, line 22, at end insert (", and

(ii) for "and 124" there shall be substituted ". 124 and 266B";").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 63 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 to 67. This group of amendments provides a mechanism for the transfer of property and liabilities associated with a road which becomes or ceases to be a GLA road by order of the mayor provided elsewhere in the Bill. These provisions are necessary because the transfer provisions elsewhere in the Bill do not provide for these kinds of transfer and we need to rectify that. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation but I have a slight anxiety. The proposed new Section 266A(3) in Amendment No. 66 provides that,
"any right or liability in respect of—work done, services rendered, goods delivered"
is not transferred by the proposed new clause. What would happen if a road had recently been resurfaced

629
and the work was substandard? It seems to me that the benefit or otherwise of the work that is done would not be transferred to the new authority. What would happen if the road surface was damaged by a statutory undertaker? It does not seem to me that the right to have it repaired would be transferred. If the Minister cannot answer that question straight away perhaps he will write to me and relieve my anxieties.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that I shall have to write to the noble Earl to satisfy him completely. If a substandard road is transferred, that will have been taken into account in making the order and the liability would be transferred. I am not sure that I understand the noble Earl's reference to statutory undertakers unless he refers to utilities and others who may dig up a road. I think that is a rather different point which we discussed earlier today. That situation is not affected by the ability to transfer a road in future. However, I shall give the noble Earl a fuller answer in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 67:
Page 156. line 28, at end insert (", and

(ii) for "or 124" there shall be substituted "124 or 266B";").

Page 156, line 30, at end insert (", and

(ii) for "or 124" there shall be substituted ", 124 or 266B";").

After Clause 260, insert the following new clause—

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND LIABILITIES UPON A HIGHWAY BECOMING OR CEASING TO BE A GLA ROAD
(" . After section 266 of the Highways Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
"Transfer of property and liabilities upon a highway becoming or ceasing to be a GLA road.
266A.—(1) This section applies where, by virtue of an order made by the Greater London Authority under section 14B(2) above, a highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to be, a GLA road.
(2) As from the operative date there are transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section—

(a)the property mentioned in subsection (4) below, in so far as, immediately before the operative date, it was vested in the former highway authority for the purposes of their functions in relation to the transferred highway, and

(b) all liabilities incurred by any such authority for the purposes of its functions in relation to the transferred highway and not discharged before the operative date, other than loans and loan charges,

and the property and liabilities so transferred vest, by virtue of this section, in the new highway authority.
(3) There is not transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section any right or liability in respect of—

(a) work done, services rendered, goods delivered, or money due for payment, before the operative date, or

(b) damages or compensation for any act or omission before that date, or

(c) the price of, or compensation for, any land purchased, or for which a contract to purchase has been concluded, before that date.

(4) The property referred to in subsection (2)(a) above is—

(a) land, other than land—

630

(i) vested in the former highway authority for the purpose of being used for the storage of materials required wholly or mainly for the maintenance and improvement of other highways, or

(ii) acquired for the improvement or development of frontages to the highway, or of land adjoining or adjacent to the highway, and

(b) all other property (including unexpended balances of any grants paid by the Minister to the former highway authority), other than—

(i) materials to be used for the maintenance or improvement of the highway, and

(ii) the unexpended balances of any loans raised by the former highway authority.

(5) Any property vested in the new highway authority by virtue of this section shall be held by it subject to all covenants, conditions and restrictions subject to which the property was held by the former highway authority and to all liabilities affecting the property, except liabilities referred to in subsection (3) above.
(6) The new highway authority and the former highway authority may agree, on such terms as they think fit—

(a) that any property or liabilities (except loans and loan charges) acquired or incurred by the former highway authority for the purposes of their functions in relation to the transferred highway, other than property or liabilities transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section, shall be transferred to the new highway authority, or

(b) that any property or liabilities transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section shall be re-transferred to the former highway authority.

(7) Any dispute between the new highway authority and any other person as to the property or liabilities transferred by virtue of this section shall be determined by arbitration.
(8) Paragraphs 1 and 3 to 8 of Schedule 21 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of providing for transitional matters arising where a highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to be, a GLA road as it applies where a highway becomes, or ceases to he. a trunk road; but in having such effect those paragraphs shall he treated as if—

(a) for the references to a trunk road there were substituted references to a GLA road, and

(b) for the references to the Minister there were substituted references to the new highway authority (within the meaning of this section).

(9) For the purposes of this section—

"former highway authority" means the highway authority for the transferred highway immediately before the operative date;

"new highway authority" means the highway authority for the transferred highway immediately after the operative date;

"operative date" means the date on which the highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to he, a GLA road;

"property" includes property, rights and powers of every description; and

"transferred highway" means the highway or proposed highway which is the subject of the order under section 14B(2) above.".").

After Clause 260, insert the following new clause—

TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES UPON A HIGHWAY BECOMING OR CEASING TO BE A GLA ROAD
(" . After section 266A of the Highways Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES UPON A HIGHWAY BECOMING OR CEASING TO BE A GLA ROAD

  Transfer of employees upon a highway becoming or ceasing to be a GLA road.
  266B.—(1) This section applies where, by virtue of an order made by the Greater London Authority under section 14B(2) above, a highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to be, a GLA road.
  (2) The Greater London Authority may, if it is necessary in connection with the highway becoming, or ceasing to be, a GLA road, by order make schemes containing provision for or in connection with the transfer from the former highway authority to the new highway authority of rights and liabilities under contracts of employment.
  (3) The rights and liabilities which may be transferred by such a scheme include rights and liabilities which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned.
  (4) Subsections (5) to (7) below apply where any rights or liabilities under a contract of employment are transferred by virtue of this Act.
  (5) Anything done by or in relation to the former highway authority in respect of the employee before the day on which the transfer of the rights and liabilities takes effect shall be treated on and after that day as done by or in relation to the new highway authority.
  (6) For the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc) the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer.
  (7) For the purposes of that Act, the employee's period of employment with the former highway authority shall count as a period of employment with the new highway authority, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
  (8) An order under this section shall be of no effect unless—

  (a) it is made with the consent of the relevant highway authority; or

  (b) if that consent is refused, it is confirmed (with or without modification) by the Secretary of State.

  (9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, the relevant highway authority is—

  (a) in a case where the order under section 14B above directs that a highway or proposed highway shall become a GLA road, the former highway authority; and

  (b) in a case where the order directs that a GLA road shall cease to be such a road, the new highway authority."

  (10) Section 266A(9) above also applies for the purposes of this section.".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 267 [GLA side roads]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 162, line 16, after second ("roads") insert ("or part or parts thereof")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68 I suggest that the House discusses also Amendments Nos. 69 to 71. This group of amendments follows the considerable new clauses that were added to the Bill at the Report stage and had originally been sparked off by the suggestion that there was confusion between what would be GLA roads and what would remain borough, or, in the case of the City, City Corporation roads. Particular reference was made at the time to the so-called "ring of steel".
  When I saw the amendments that were accepted by the House at the Report stage I thought that they were ingenious. The problem is how to deal with the side roads and the junctions. The anxiety of the boroughs and of the City Corporation had been that the short
  632
  lengths of all the side roads adjacent to GLA roads would become the responsibility of Transport for London. The question was raised as to whether Transport for London would be the body, for instance, to deal with loose kerbstones or broken paving stones. That is a function of a highway authority whereas Transport for London is concerned with traffic.
  The solution was chosen—I thought that it was sensible—that for those lengths of the side roads the boroughs and the City Corporation would remain the traffic authority (which is what TfL is primarily concerned with) while leaving the boroughs and the City as the highway authority. However, since those amendments were tabled and agreed by the House at Report stage the City of Westminster has taken legal advice about the drafting of the new clauses. It was intended that the Bill should affect short lengths of the side roads adjacent to the GLA roads but, as drafted, the clauses now appear to transfer the traffic authority for the whole of each side road to Transport for London. If this is intended—I do not believe it is—the effect would be to hand control to TfL of a great many local authority roads, particularly in central London where the GLA road network is already expected to be more dense than elsewhere in London.
  Westminster City Council has been advised by the Minister's department that it is intended that the division should mirror the current powers of the traffic director in relation to red route returns, as the side roads to red routes are called. However, that is not a valid parallel; the legislation is quite different. The traffic director currently is neither the traffic nor the highway authority for red routes or their returns.
  Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 allows the Secretary of State to designate any road in London as a priority or red route. He did this in a 1992 statutory instrument without any reference being made to side roads or red route returns. Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 requires the traffic director to produce a network plan of what he wishes to see on red routes. The traffic director's network plan states that he expects red lines to be extended into the junctions with red routes by 10 or 20 metres. I recollect that at earlier stages of the Bill those were the numbers mentioned as the extent of TfL's interest in the side roads.
  To legislate for a standard pattern such as that is not very sensible. Westminster now has a good many red routes in its area. The council has put round some extremely informative leaflets and other information to residents in dwellings adjacent to red routes. The length of the red route returns varies. In each case it has been decided on an individual basis after discussions with consultants and with the traffic director. Westminster City Council is concerned that the clauses added on Report will potentially give the mayor and Transport for London much more power in their role as traffic authority than the city council would want to see or than the Government have informally indicated they intend.
  This issue was not raised fully on Report because by that time the amendments came so thick and fast—we have just had several more pages added—that it was difficult for the authorities to keep up with it. However, having looked at the issue and discussed it with officials in the Minister's department, Westminster City Council feels anxious that the Bill does not fulfil the Government's intention. The department suggested that it could not be put right; that it was too difficult to amend. Westminster City Council has sought to do so, and I have tabled these four amendments. They seek to implement what the Government really intend; namely, that the division of functions should apply only to short lengths of side roads adjacent to GLA roads. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding explained the issue far better than I ever could. It would be advisable to have a definite limit as to the extent to which a GLA road goes down a side road. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, are interesting. I am speaking from memory but I remember that we were reassured by the Minister when he introduced these clauses—which it is suggested should now be subject to amendment—that they had been put together as a result of consultation with the London boroughs and the Common Council. We now hear that one of those is alarmed about the clauses. Many people will wish to be reassured that these clauses will not result in conflict between the GLA and the London boroughs. At the time of the GLC, one of the major sources of conflict between it and the London boroughs was on precisely this issue of side roads, about where they began and where they ended. That was one of the most common causes of conflict. We would like to be reassured that Clause 267 meets the concerns of the London boroughs, which I know were expressed at an early stage of the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendments are not necessary. Some of the anxieties to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred are misplaced. Clause 267 is designed to allow the Secretary of State to designate the kind of roads which are currently subject to red route controls, including red route returns in red routes and in other GLA roads.
  It is true that some of those roads do not directly join the main road. They have none the less been included in the red route return arrangements because they allow effective management of traffic and parking on the main roads. That is the established position. It is not therefore limited necessarily to junctions and a few yards down from the junction. Although this legislation is slightly different, we are seeking to give the mayor and TfL the red routes for traffic purposes and to leave the Highway Authority structure as it is. There is no intention under this clause or Clause 265 to designate vast new swathes of side roads as GLA
  634
  roads. We will use it to replicate as far as possible the current boundaries of the red route network and those few other cases to which I have referred.
  The intention behind this is that the GLA, the boroughs and the City will discuss areas of dispute. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State will have the final say on designation.
  I regret to say that I fully expected the noble Lord to raise as an example the City of London. I therefore do not have the precise figures for the City of Westminster. But the noble Lord is interested in both cases and perhaps I may use the City of London to illustrate my point. The lengths of side roads that are subject to red route controls at the moment—and this will continue to be the case in existing red routes—vary from nil at Spital Square to 56.3 metres in Threadneedle Street. We are therefore talking about relatively short amounts of road within the City. There are some roads in the City which are not currently red routes but which will become GLA roads. I think the noble Lord is familiar with those. We do not envisage any significantly different pattern from the existing red route roads. We shall be discussing with the City corporation what should be the boundaries for traffic authority purposes.
  I can assure the House that this matter will be approached on the same basis as the red routes and that a similar pattern will emerge. The extent of a side road so designated will be limited; disputes about future designation will be subject to conciliation between the boroughs, the City, the GLA and TfL; and the Secretary of State will have the final say. In no sense are we attempting a major grab of borough or City roads. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendments.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has taken some pains to explain the position of the Government and what they intend to do. It seems to me at this stage that is what is most important. The noble Lord indicated that he would be discussing with the City Corporation the application of these clauses to its roads. Having heard what has been said, I am sure that discussions with Westminster will be continued. That council now has a number of red routes and will also have GLA roads in its area. Of course, if amendments are found to be necessary, there is an opportunity for them to be added in another place because this is an amendment to the main clause and amendments have been added in this House. In the circumstances, it would be quite inappropriate for me to press these amendments and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 68.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 not moved.]
  Clause 290 [Road user charging]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 72
  Page 181, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(4) Subject to subsection (6) below, any charging scheme established pursuant to this section shall cease to take effect and may not be revived if at any time after 12 months from the commencement of the charging scheme there is not in existence a

  635
  scheme to improve transport arrangements (including schemes to assist the movement of pedestrians) within Greater London ("an improvement scheme") in the operation or establishment of which the net proceeds of the charging scheme (within the meaning given it in Schedule 22) are applied.
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), an improvement scheme shall be regarded as coming into existence on the commencement of works to give effect to the improvement scheme and shall be regarded as terminating when the improved arrangements in question first become available for use by the public.
  (6) Subsection (4) above shall not apply at any time if, in the preceding four years ended on the day in question, a ballot of the residents of the area to which the charging scheme applies resulted in a vote in favour of the continuation of the charging scheme by a majority notwithstanding that there might be no improvement scheme in place.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, just as Clauses 290 and 291 are different although they both deal with the same thing, so Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 differ. They differ in respect of one word. The first deals with the issue of charges—congestion charging—and the other deals with the question of licences: that is, licences for workplace parking.
  We have discussed these issues fairly fully at previous stages, but it is worth noting two things. First, although I suspect that the noble Lord the Minister may not be prepared to listen to me tonight and accept the amendments, I hope that he will agree that in drafting the amendments we at least have listened to his remarks made at Report stage. He said then that we had not given either the mayor or Londoners the opportunity to consider the future of these two charging schemes. They are two putative charging schemes, because they do not come into effect until the mayor decides to introduce them.
  It is important to remember that, together with the fact that the terms upon which they are introduced include restrictions which appear in Schedules 22 and 23, which say that they can be introduced only if they are used to further the mayor's transport aims and strategies. That is the way the Bill stands so far as the introduction of the schemes is concerned. These are local schemes, but it is worth noting in parenthesis that one hears that they are beginning to attract some note in other parts of the country outside London. Indeed, it is understood that one or two leaders of other authorities are beginning to speculate on what they might or might not do if they were given the opportunity to consider similar schemes. The leader of Birmingham City Council was speculating this morning that he might have some difficulty with a workplace licensing scheme until he had managed to improve public transport quite considerably. That is a perfectly valid position for him to take. I say nothing about the politics of the situation.
  I do not expect the noble Lord the Minister to comment on this. After all, he cannot comment on provisions that might be introduced in legislation at some point in the future. We have to accept that. However, it looks as though there may be national legislation which may result in this sort of scheme being adopted on a wider basis. If that were to happen, what has been decided in relation to London could be taken into account at that point and, if need be, amended as a consequence of that national situation.
  However, I come back to the main point that I was seeking to enunciate at Report stage, which is that this Bill is a Bill for London. It is a Bill about London and for Londoners. If the mayor in due time introduces schemes either for congestion charging or for workplace licensing he will be doing that for and on behalf of Londoners, because he is satisfied that he can persuade Londoners that this is a worthwhile thing to do. I think all that is perfectly reasonable. The question he will have to ask himself when he comes to make that decision is whether the limited time for which he has certainty of revenue is sufficient.
  As the Bill is drafted, he has certainty only for 10 years, or at least that is what it appears that the Government intend. After that, it is a lottery. You can see the sticky fingers of the Treasury itching already, almost going red with rubbing, at the thought that they might be able to get hold of these sums of money. I have to say that this will be a considerable disincentive to anyone who actually has to take the odium of deciding to introduce these charges.
  I am absolutely clear in my own mind—I have the support of noble friends behind me—that we are discussing a Bill about London and for Londoners. As I have said already, if that is the case, we should accept these amendments. They actually take into account the points which were raised about the possible long-term future of such schemes and the possibility that the mayor, on behalf of London, or, as the noble Lord the Minister was hinting at Report stage and as we have put it ourselves, the people of London themselves should have the opportunity to decide to continue with such schemes so that the revenue is available to Londoners and for London even if there is not a scheme of transport improvement immediately available on which to spend the money.
  This is provided for on the basis of a motion, which could be put on to a ballot paper within the area of the scheme or indeed across the whole of London if that was required, at an election prior to there being no future schemes available on which to spend the money within the original terms of reference set out in the schedule. There would be no particular extra cost involved in that, because the four-year time-scale permits a London election to come within that time and any mayor worth his salt will be able to see this situation coming and therefore provide for it at a normal election.
  I think that has answered the criticism of the amendments that were put forward at Report stage. We have listened to that criticism, and I think these present amendments are such that the Government really ought to accept them. I say that in the knowledge that a national scheme may come along at some point in the future. If it does, and if these schemes have to be altered in the light of such a national scheme, that is fair enough; that is the way the system works. However, at the moment we are talking about

  637
  London. In that context, these amendments are good and I am pleased to propose them in the interests of London and Londoners at large. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we have grave doubts about these amendments. One of the implications of the second part of the noble Lord's proposed additional text will be to limit the length of time during which an improvement scheme may be paid for by a system of charging. That seems a strange idea, particularly when one considers how consistently we have argued that that timespan should be lengthened and not shortened.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord has listened to a number of arguments that I put at the previous stage. However, his solution to the points I made has been to table an even more complicated system whereby he has set down what could be rather subjective criteria to decide whether to fund further value-for-money transport schemes and then to provide an override so that the whole of London would have the chance to end such schemes.
  We have put in place a far simpler approach. The schemes will be totally hypothecated for 10 years. While I note the noble Lord's graphic description of the Treasury, I should say that the Treasury has been imaginative and forthcoming in its support of this novel approach. Furthermore, I have the full support of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A system has been put in place that will review the schemes after 10 years. Whether further value-for-money transport schemes will be made available will be one criterion; indeed the total financing situation of the GLA may be a criterion. We are looking for a review in financial and transport situations that we cannot fully envisage at this point. It seems sensible to review for the reasons I have argued at previous stages of the Bill. However, it is not sensible to set down on the face of the Bill the criteria against which that review will take place.
  I believe we all agree that after 10 years there are almost certain to be additional value-for-money transport infrastructure projects in London. We accept that; nevertheless, there should be a review of the process, and 10 years seems a sensible period for that. However, we do not wish to set down in concrete terms the details of that review. When the mayor enters office, he or she will have the assurance that any scheme introduced under these clauses either on workplace parking or on road user charges will run for 10 years and that the money will be hypothecated for 10 years. It may be that after the review in 10 years' time that situation will continue, or that, if the review should so indicate, the situation could continue on a different financing basis.
  However, it is necessary not to be so prescriptive on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord has admonished the Government for being too prescriptive about what will happen next year and therefore I ask him not to be
  638
  prescriptive about what will happen in 10 years' time. Clearly my remarks relate to London and nowhere else, but it may be the case that experience gained elsewhere may influence London in 10 years' time. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendments.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps I may deal, first, with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The second part of my amendment does not place any form of time limit on anything. It defines only the time for which an individual scheme may run. However, there is no limit to the number of schemes, and those individual schemes could run for a very long time indeed.
  The Minister expressed concern that I am being over-prescriptive. We have debated this issue before and the truth of the matter is that this whole Bill is one huge great prescription. It is getting bigger all the time. When we have finished with the Bill tonight, it will be an even bigger prescription. The thought that I am being over-prescriptive by adding something like 25 lines does not make sense.
  The Minister has stated that there will be a review after 10 years. That review may go extremely well. However, the mayor is to have the opportunity to establish major infrastructure projects and those are financed over very long periods. Of course the Minister may say that such schemes will need to be funded for as long as is needed. However, if I were the mayor, I would come up with two or three schemes with 40 to 60-year payback periods and ensure that London benefited from them for a long period of time in that way. That course is open to the mayor.
  I am afraid that I disagree with the Minister on this issue. We have debated the matter before and he has been kind enough to say that I am consistent in my views. I believe that we should test the opinion of the House.
  7.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 134.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Cross, V.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Denham, L.

  Astor of Hever,L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Dundee, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Biddulph, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Glentoran, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Hooper, B.

  Carnegy of Lour, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  639

  Mancroft, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Patten, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Mills, V.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Norrie, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Northbrook. L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Northesk, E.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Wise, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Addington, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hollick, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Alli, L.

  Howie of Troon. L,

  Amos, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bach, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Barker, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

  Berkeley, L.

  Privy Seal)

  Blackstone, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Blease, L.

  Judd, L.

  Brett, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Crawley, B.

  [Teller]

  Dahrendorf, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  David. B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  McNair, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Desai, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Orme, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Patel, L.

  Elder, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Puttnam, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Fitt, L.

  Rennard, L

  Gale, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Glanusk, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Simon, V.

  Grey, E.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Strange, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Tope, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  640

  Varley, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the House does not return to this business before 8.45 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Chinook Helicopter ZD576
7.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the issues raised in the Computer Weekly report RAF Justice are serious enough to justify re-opening the RAF board of inquiry into the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the fourth time that I have brought up this subject in your Lordships' House. I do not apologise for doing so because I believe it to be a matter of the greatest importance. I want to emphasise once again that in raising this matter I am not in any way attacking the Government. This is a matter which has been the concern of successive governments, and the previous administration indeed, when they were in office, took the same line as the present one. Nor do I make any criticism of the Royal Air Force, whose regulations governing accidents of this kind are clear and comprehensive.
The background will be familiar to most of your Lordships and I shall not go over it again in great detail. I would only say that on 2nd June 1994 a Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre killing four Royal Air Force crew and 25 passengers from the Northern Ireland intelligence community. The subsequent Royal Air Force board of inquiry decided that the two dead pilots of the aircraft, Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook, were guilty of gross negligence. I believe that verdict was unjust and unjustified. It has brought disgrace upon the names of two young Royal Air Force officers and caused lasting distress to their families. And not only to their families, my Lords. As an ex-soldier I still find myself sometimes lying awake at night thinking of two bright and brave young men whose reputations have been destroyed by one of the worst accusations that can be levelled at a professional officer.
Let me first say briefly why I believe that the verdict was unjust and then I shall comment, also briefly, on two developments which have taken place since I last brought up this matter in your Lordships' House. The Queen's Regulations for the Royal Air Force state

641
specifically that deceased air crew may be found guilty of negligence only if,
"there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever",
about the cause of the accident. My contention is that the circumstances surrounding this accident are riddled with doubt in almost every aspect.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the initial findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry, presided over by a Royal Air Force officer, found no reason to attribute human failing to either of the pilots. This opinion was supported by the Royal Air Force station commander who was next to review the findings. It was only when those findings reached two senior officers in the Ministry of Defence, who had the duty of reviewing the proceedings of the board of inquiry, that the two dead pilots were found guilty of gross negligence. No other authority or inquiry, including the fatal accident inquiry held in Scotland and presided over by a distinguished judge, has supported this verdict.
At this point I should tell the House that I received a comprehensive briefing from officials of the Ministry of Defence who have been dealing with the matter. The briefing was arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, when he was the Minister in this House dealing with defence matters. The officials concerned gave me a full, frank and comprehensive briefing. They explained the reasons why the verdict of gross negligence had been reached and told me that I was free to use the information they gave me in any proceedings in this House.
There was one element in the briefing that seemed to me to be of vital significance. I was told that the verdict of gross negligence had been arrived at when all other possible causes for the accident, such as mechanical malfunction or computer failure, had been eliminated and that therefore the only possible conclusion was negligence on the part of the air crew.
Even if all other possible causes could safely be eliminated, that seems a most bizarre method of arriving at the conclusion that two young men were guilty of gross negligence. In any case, other possible causes cannot be eliminated. The claim that there was no evidence of technical or computer malfunction does not mean that there was no malfunction; it means only that there was no evidence.
I should like to mention the two important developments that have taken place since we last discussed the matter in this House. The first is specified in the terms of my Question. It is a long, technical and comprehensive report produced by the magazine Computer Weekly entitled RAF Justice. The subtitle is:
"How the Royal Air Force covered up software problems while blaming the two pilots in the 1994 crash of the Chinook helicopter".
I do not propose to blame software or any other equipment problems for the accident. My quite simple point is that the report demonstrates conclusively that there might have been other causes for the accident than pilot error. It is a serious and detailed report. It indicates, among other things, that the Chinook's computer system, known as FADEC, might have
642
contributed to the crash. Without going further into the matter, it is my contention that the report underlines my proposition that in no circumstances could anyone honestly say that there is "no possible doubt whatsoever" as to the cause of the accident.
The second and more recent development is the interview that was broadcast on Channel 4 News on 13th October in which Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the crash, said that he believed that he had not been in full possession of the all the facts when he endorsed the verdict of gross negligence and that,
"information in its entirety was not made available … to either of the inquiries";
namely, the Royal Air Force board of inquiry or the fatal accident inquiry. Sir Jeremy Hanley, who was Minister for the Armed Forces at the time of the crash, has also called for a new inquiry. He visited the other Special Forces Chinook crews and pilots at Aldergrove after the accident and gained the impression that software failure was a possible cause of the accident.
In the course of his interview, Sir Malcolm Rifkind said:
"The simplest solution would be for the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Defence to say, 'No, there is no need for any further inquiry. We are prepared to acknowledge that in retrospect and, particularly, seeing as we no longer allow or would even contemplate finding negligence against pilots, we should set aside that previous decision. Remove it completely'".
Noble Lords will note that Sir Malcolm Rifkind refers to another important aspect of this whole debate. Since the Chinook accident and inquiry, Ministry of Defence regulations have been changed to provide that boards of inquiry should no longer apportion blame in the case of aircraft accidents. It seems that an important lesson has been learnt, but apparently too late for Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook.
I am coming to the end of my time, although there is much more that could be said about this whole saga. The clear implication of a verdict of gross negligence against these two young men is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said in this House on 2nd June 1998, that the two dead pilots have been convicted of manslaughter without being able to offer any defence.
It is precisely for that reason that the Queen's Regulations rightly demand that no deceased air crew should be found guilty of negligence unless there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident.
So I should like to ask the Minister one simple question to which I should like to have an unequivocal answer. It is this. Can she state categorically in this House that she, in possession of all the facts, is convinced that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of this accident? That is an important question. If she answers that she cannot say that there is no doubt whatsoever, or declines to answer the question, the inferences are obvious. It is my contention that the causes of this accident are clouded by doubt from beginning to end.
Although in my original Question I asked whether the Government were prepared to review the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry, I now say, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind said, that there is no need for any ponderous procedural machinery to be set in motion. All that Her Majesty's Government need to do—and they could do it tonight—is to say that in the light of all the facts now known, and bearing in mind that no future board of inquiry will ever be able to apportion blame again, the verdict of gross negligence should be quietly set aside on the simple basis that the cause of the accident is unknown, as indeed it is.
No one knows what caused the accident. To say that it was pilot error or, even worse, gross negligence is totally incomprehensible. I do not suggest that anything disreputable lies behind this tragic story. But unless the Government are now prepared to put the matter right, others, perhaps less gullible than I, might suspect that someone, somewhere, is hiding something.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we owe this debate to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I begin by reminding the Minister that in our debate of 22nd May 1997 (at col. 557 of the Official Report) the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, confirmed in answer to my representations that flight recorders were being installed in all Chinooks. Will the Minister assure the House that all now have them?
I now turn to the new evidence, which became available only four years after the crash and squares with the statement by the RAF board of inquiry that,
"An unforeseen technical malfunction of the type being experienced on the Chinook HD2 which would not necessarily have left any physical evidence remained a possibility and could not be discounted".
The fatal crash of a US Army helicopter in 1996, at first blamed on the pilots because no evidence was found of technical malfunction, was subsequently traced to an inherent design flaw which could also have affected ZD576. Other new evidence concerns contamination of hydraulic equipment. But most relevant is the experience of a US Chinook crew in 1998, when uncommanded flight movement and simultaneous control jams nearly caused a fatal crash. On that occasion, the crew survived to tell the tale. Had they died, there would have been no evidence of a technical malfunction causing a crash. Those pilots survived; our two did not. Surely that argues for a review in the light of these new factors.
I should like also to ask why the MoD has consistently refused to use its own experts—Malcolm Perks, its expert witness on FADEC, or the senior RAF test pilot, or, most of all, Boscombe Down, which exists to test aircraft? Why was the Government's own accident investigation team, and the Scottish inquiry, not told that the Government were at that moment litigating against Textron Lycoming, the supplier of the FADEC engine control system, after a series of FADEC-related incidents
644
involving Chinooks? Boscombe Down had just grounded all Chinooks after pronouncing the FADEC software unacceptable. The investigator was not told about that, and quoted only the views of Textron, the contractor, in his report. Not Malcolm Perks, but Textron, was asked to help the investigators, who knew nothing about FADEC, to decide whether its equipment was faulty. When fault codes were found, the contractors said that they were insignificant. Well, they would, wouldn't they? E5, described by Textron as a typical nuisance code, was the very one which had contributed to the severe damage suffered by a Chinook in 1989 when the pilot could not control the aircraft. The investigators did not know about that, nor that only a few weeks before the crash the assistant director of helicopter projects had said that the FADEC software needed to be revised to resolve safety case issues.
We owe it to the painstaking and professional research carried out by Computer Weekly that much valuable evidence has been assembled. I greatly admire and value the RAF and recognise that we are not qualified to reach operational decisions; but I have two serious concerns. First, should judgment be made not on evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence, especially since with the passage of time many indicators which were unclear can now be understood? My second concern arises when I read in an answer to a question the words,
"The RAF, in conjunction with the Procurement Executive".
We are looking at a world that is increasingly dominated by market forces. I very much hope that any fresh inquiry will be driven not by management and contractual priorities within the MoD, but by the prime need both to do justice to the pilots and to give proper weight to the professional judgment of the Government's own experts who have not yet been heard.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, throughout my career as a Royal Air Force pilot and qualified flying instructor one point was emphasised time after time. Confronted with an emergency, first ensure that your aircraft is safely under control before you respond to the warning. If clear of cloud, stay there. It is safer to fly visually than to have to concentrate on the aircraft's instruments to maintain altitude.
Emergencies are frequently practised in flight simulators, so that pilots learn to handle them in a safe, professional way. The emphasis is always that one should not become distracted by the emergency and risk losing control of the aircraft or flying into danger. As a flying instructor I would introduce in-flight emergencies for my students to tackle. I might flame out one of the two engines on a Meteor jet during the climb out after take off. The student's first reaction had to be to control his aircraft and check the sharp yaw and drop in airspeed before going through the drills to deal with engine failure. All of that must sound like commonsense, but the risk of doing the wrong

645
thing, or the right things in the wrong order, is always there. Hence, much stress is placed on proper training and situation awareness.
How does that read across to this tragic accident? The Chinook was seen in clear weather conditions over the sea south of the Mull of Kintyre. Technical evidence reveals that the Chinook remained straight and level, advancing at cruising speed until the final four seconds before the crash when a steep climb was initiated. It impacted the side of the Mull below 1,000 feet. We shall never know for certain why the crew flew into the overcast so far below safety height. But what was expected of them was to fly safely, not hazard their passengers or aircraft, and therefore either to climb above the safety height for their route or remain clear of cloud. With two pilots, one to fly and the other to deal with any emergency—if there was one—the expectation must be that the aircraft should have stayed in the clear. It did not, even though helicopters have greater manoeuvrability than fixed-wing aircraft.
Was there a reason for not following the safe option? Was there some event, or combination of events, which so distracted two highly experienced pilots that they were forced to neglect all their training and responsibilities for the safety of their passengers and aircraft? Given the very clear evidence of the AIB that the Chinook was flying under control right up to the moment of impact, what was it that led to the failure to observe flying orders? Professional, expert opinion is that no event, or combination of technical or other problems, could have so overwhelmed the responsibility and acknowledged skill of the two pilots to prevent them from manoeuvring the helicopter either clear of cloud or above the requisite safety height for the route.
Unless there is relevant new evidence the finding is right. But if the extensive publicity succeeds in saving another crew from failing to get their priorities right when faced with bad weather or some emergency, an essential requirement of a board of inquiry—to learn lessons for the future—will have been achieved. The distress of those who lost loved ones has, sadly, been rekindled by tonight's debate, I believe to no good purpose. I hope that we have no more such questions on this tragic event. In my view, five years on there is no need for any review.
8.5 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I too do not seek to blame anyone, but in considering this inquiry I note some general points. The report abounds with "maybe", "impossible to rule out", uncertainties and doubts. It is a report that is full of doubt. As the noble Baroness said, in the middle of it a bunch of civil servants was active in taking on the manufacturers for flaws in certain aspects of the systems on the aircraft.
It has come to my notice that at one stage a senior Chinook project manager gave the opinion that these aircraft should not be used operationally. I do not know whether the MoD should always decide what is relevant evidence for the purposes of an inquiry. As the
646
noble Baroness said, many operators, based on statements by and conversations with air crew, were unhappy with the aircraft. There were—call it what you will—faults.
The noble and gallant Lord is right. First, one must ensure that one has the aircraft under control. However, this particular FADEC has no manual override if it goes wrong. In layman's terms, it has no accelerator to enable the pilot to work the aircraft with his feet (so to speak). Pilots appear to have no command over the system, which is dangerous. This Chinook is perhaps still not safety critical.
We have heard about black boxes and cockpit voice procedures. Hardly any such devices are fitted to these aircraft. An honourable Member of another place received a rather damp letter to say that such systems would not be installed until the end of 2000. Only about half a dozen have black boxes. That is not good news. In view of all the problems with this aircraft, it is not consistent with safety.
As to the crew, I have had the great pleasure of being flown by men like this on far more extraordinary journeys than a simple one across the North Sea to Scotland. These men do not fly into hills or through cloud when they have sensitive passengers on hoard; they turn left or right or go up or down. I believe that this is one area of great doubt. These pilots have been held to be culpable of gross negligence. I agree with my noble friend Lord Chalfont. I believe that such a finding is pretty close to manslaughter, which in turn is pretty close to murder. I do not know what the civil courts or noble and learned judges in your Lordships' House would say about that. What happens to two men who cannot answer back?
I should like to put two questions to the noble Baroness. How many Chinooks today are grounded, not flying, out of the total Chinook force? What about the widows? I recall, I hope wrongly, that in my day if gross negligence came up widows did not receive a proper pension, or received no pension. I hope that the Minister can give me comfort that that is not so.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, much of this debate is and will be no doubt focused on the technical issues, in particular the FADEC system which was so rigorously investigated in the recent Computer Weekly report.
I would rather focus on some of the eye witness reports of the behaviour of that Chinook helicopter as it flew over the North Antrim countryside on that clear and bright June evening in 1994—which I think raises further doubts to those raised by my noble friend Lord Slim. I live in that part of North Antrim and can see the Mull of Kintyre with extraordinary clarity on some days. I often go boating in the North Channel between Garron Point and the Mull of Kintyre which on other days, as on that fateful evening, is hidden by sea fog or cloud.
Most of us in Northern Ireland are used to the familiar throb of the double rotor Chinooks as they cruise across the countryside usually at a height of 5,000 feet. But no one who was near the flight path of

647
this Chinook as it flew down the Glens of Antrim and out to sea will ever forget that particular evening. It appeared to be flying at a height of 100 feet, at which it makes a huge noise and vibrations on the ground. In the small seaside village of Carnlough, the milkman, Ambrose McSparren, remembers how it rattled windows and shook buildings. He could even see the faces of the passengers looking out of the port windows, a woman in the front window.
The Chinook gained height a little as it followed the coast beyond Carnlough harbour towards the cliff-top Catholic college of Garron Tower where priests at a conference ran out to see it fly just below them and turn out to sea, aiming slightly to the left, as they thought, of the Mull, only five or 10 minutes before it crashed into those cliffs. Higher up the glens it had hedgehopped over farmlands, terrifying animals. Horses at Glenravel belonging to a dentist, Hugh McCann, panicked and had to be taken in.
From all accounts it might have been on an unlikely sightseeing trip. It did not appear to have any regular or determined flight path during those several minutes. Evidence suggests that it took a number of low turns. Some witnesses thought that it might have been trying to slow down and land before heading out to sea.
I raise these issues because I am not aware that any investigators took evidence from the many eye witnesses. I have referred to a couple of witnesses in detail as an example of the memories that still exist. It should be possible to identify more clearly the irregular flight path the Chinook took before a yachtsman saw it heading out, low over the sea.
Why did the earlier investigations not take evidence from those who saw the Chinook flying so close that they could see the faces of its unfortunate passengers? If the board of inquiry is to be reopened, it should look seriously at what appears to have been evidence previously ignored or overlooked, which raises further doubts about the previous conclusions.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont is bringing forward this important debate during the dinner hour, time is scarce, and I should like to make only one subliminal contribution in order to leave more time for other noble Lords.
The RAF AP3207 states clearly that:
"Unless there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, deceased aircrew may not be found negligent".
In this case there clearly is doubt. The two young pilots are dead. The contagion of the world's slow stain affects them not at all. But their families are alive. This verdict can only add to and prolong their grief.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Chalfont is to be congratulated on his persistence in raising this matter. I have presumed to say anything on this sad matter only because, with others who have heard or read the earlier debates, I have had a
648
continuing feeling of unease about whether the finding of gross negligence was justified given the quality and quantity of evidence available then and now.
Expert accident reconstruction, however skilled and sophisticated, is not a precise science. It is bound to have limitations when there are no survivors of the accident and only few eye witnesses. In this case, as we have heard, there was the further limitation of no recorders on the Chinook.
If a finding of gross negligence depended on there being absolutely no doubt whatsoever, it required proof to a standard even more stringent than the high standard required in criminal cases in our courts. At least in those cases the accused is alive with an opportunity to speak in his or her defence.
Even in civil cases, the established principle is that the more serious, or inherently improbable, the allegation the more convincing the evidence has to be. It is inherently improbable that pilots would act so contrary to their instincts and training. That is not just legalism; it is elementary fairness.
One cannot help feeling that what has been applied here is the Sherlock Holmes approach: when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. That deductive process simply will not do outside detective fiction. The RAF inquiry investigation found no evidence of structural or technical malfunction. But it is a truism that absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence.
In the real world, even when several possible explanations can be discounted, there can sometimes still be insufficiently strong pointers remaining to enable a definite conclusion to be reached. That was what the sheriff decided in the Scottish fatal accident inquiry in this case. That was not an abnegation of his duty. It was a proper decision on the evidence as it appeared to him. It may well still be a proper conscientious decision to be substituted for the finding of gross negligence. It will not prevent lessons being learned for the future. I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his persistence in raising this important subject yet again in order to try to reverse the injustice that seems to be so obvious.
The whole problem with this unusual case stems from the fact that the judge and jury are also the defendants. It is a situation that the civilian world of flying would not tolerate. The charge is that the MoD released into service an aircraft whose engines were controlled by flight safety critical software that was flawed. It was so flawed that the Ministry's own airworthiness specialists at the Aeroplane and Armaments Experimental Establishment described the software as unacceptable in a memo dated 3rd June, one day after the crash. The software was described by it as "unfit for purpose" and it declined the aircraft's release into service without a rewrite of the software.

649
However, after taking their own independent advice, the MoD and the RAF decided in effect to overrule the A&AEE. Then came the horrific incident on the Mull. This raised questions about the software. But many of the problems did not come to light in any of the accident inquiries. The crash investigators at Farnborough were not aware of all the facts about the FADEC engine control system when they wrote their report.
In its 140 page report, the magazine Computer Weekly also reported that the investigators were unaware of an accident in 1989 when a Chinook helicopter was almost destroyed by a FADEC design flaw.
The MoD has sought to dismiss the 1989 accident as irrelevant to the accident inquiries because it says that the accident was not caused by a FADEC problem. This is incorrect as the MoD's own paperwork shows when it was pleading its legal case in America. The paperwork shows that the Ministry believed that a FADEC design flaw caused the accident and it was awarded 3 million dollars.
The Ministry has said that of course there were changes in the software design between 1989 and 1994. But despite those changes, the Chinook project manager wrote in a memo dated January 1995 that there were system integration and software problems between February and July 1994. I am not saying that the FADEC control system caused the accident—nobody knows that—but it is just as speculative to say that there is absolutely no doubt that it was pilot error.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, this is an important debate because two pilots are carrying the blame for the loss of a Chinook and several lives purely on the basis that no technical fault has been discovered.
The aircraft was carrying a very important load, being carried for operational purposes by an experienced and operational crew outwith the Northern Ireland theatre. The weather on the whole was reported good and there was no reason for flying in the location where the helicopter crashed. Indeed, the flight programme should have kept the aircraft on a course offshore. In the words of the article in Computer Weekly, the pilots had every intention of changing course before reaching the peninsula.
Military aircraft do crash, as has recently been demonstrated, with a subsequent sad loss of life. Where I live, military low flying is normal. I pay tribute to every single member of the Armed Forces who is involved is this extremely skilled operation. I do not hold with the current view of some that since the end of the Cold War there is no longer a requirement for aircraft covertly to approach the target.
The Computer Weekly article, while not perhaps an official document, has appeared to investigate this tragedy in some detail and has raised interesting questions. I disagree with the recent comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, the Lord
650
Advocate, and do not believe that the matter should be closed while there is still doubt as to the cause of this crash.
It is clear that many facts were not presented to either the Minister or the inquiry. Indeed, there is also doubt between the RAF investigating officers and the upper echelons of the service, as has been said by other noble Lords. The fact that no "technical malfunction" was discovered may well be a correct assumption of pilot error in some situations. However, this modified aircraft type is still having problems. The pilots who sadly died had considerable doubts about the serviceability of this specific aircraft before the crash occurred.
Every example stated in the article points towards a variety of serious fault warnings either showing in the cockpit of the Chinook or physically affecting the performance of the aircraft by creating an inability to use controls to maintain the flight integrity of the aircraft. This would appear to happen with unexplained and untraceable jamming controls.
According to the report, at least 18 seconds before impact the pilots were busy inserting the new course into the flight computer. If the system malfunctioned when they attempted to change course, I would suggest that 18 seconds of fighting to regain control of a faulty aircraft which cannot or would not respond to controls is not very long.
Having considered the report, and bearing in mind that some five years on problems, although luckily not fatal, are still being encountered, there is in my mind a clear case for reopening this investigation, particularly as this recurring system fault has resulted in a slur on the reputations of two otherwise excellent pilots.
The Chinook is an extremely robust aircraft with a tremendous world-wide reputation as a tough workhorse. I personally experienced this in the Falklands war when, with virtually no time for major services, the only surviving aircraft from the sinking of the "Atlantic Conveyor" was apparently still flying with only two of its seven essential instruments working.
I do not believe that the aircraft type is at fault. I have already spoken about the pilots involved. I do believe that in the light of subsequent problems reinvestigation is required.
I apologise to the Minister for not giving adequate notice, but I want to ask two questions. First, how many other British military helicopters in service currently rely on this or similar FADEC? Secondly, a Chinook on Exercise Gryphons Flight between 22nd March and 1st April 1999 developed major faults which rendered it unairworthy. Were these faults in fact due to problems with FADAC?
8.25 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, three weeks ago I went to the Mull of Kintyre and visited the sight of this terrible tragedy. I spoke to scores of people, in particular to the lighthouse man who was driving down the hill with his wife when the crash occurred. He told me in vivid

651
terms that before the crash took place he knew there was something wrong either with the pilots or the aircraft.
I met scores of people and no one—not a single one—is prepared to blame the pilots. Not a single widow of the 28 men killed is prepared to place the blame on the pilots. The fact is that there is no proof that the pilots were guilty of negligence. There is no certainty of a misdirection of their activities.
I believe that rather than have an inquiry we should allay the grief of all the victims' families and that this verdict should be set aside.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not know what happened to the RAF helicopter which is the subject of tonight's Question. However, I do know that the RAF inquiry procedures, which were in place in the late 1980s when I had some responsibilities for these matters, were less than wholly satisfactory. At that time, an inquiry was caused to be made into those procedures by Mr Tench, the lately retired inspector of civil aircraft accidents, and he was, frankly, very critical of the RAF inspection investigation procedures. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who was in a senior RAF position at that time, does not agree and I apologise for disagreeing with him now. However, the fact is that at that time the procedures were heavily criticised.
Those self-same procedures were applied, with only few modifications, to the investigation of this accident. Therefore, I must agree with my noble friend Lord Chalfont that a further inquiry ought to be made. I believe that the present conclusions are unsound.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing forward the debate. I am of a cynical disposition and two years in this House has not changed that. The idea of persuading a department of government, or the Government themselves, to go back on a decision fills me with foreboding. However, in this case, I cannot believe that, if the Minister were given time to read the majority of the report, rather than the informed briefings she has no doubt received, she could not fail to recognise the imperative for reopening the inquiry in the cause of justice.
Helicopters are not like aeroplanes, ships or trains. The risk profile of helicopters is very high. The commercial judgment of insurance companies gives the game away. To insure a £1 million value of an aeroplane might cost £10,000 a year. To insure a £1 million value of a helicopter might cost as much as £120,000 a year. That says a lot about the lack of reliability of helicopters generally.
The Chinooks had neither a cockpit voice recorder nor a flight data recorder. The Ministry of Defence has been criticised for such omissions. The MoD was committed to fitting FDRs by 1995 following a report made in the late 1980s. Yet, surprisingly, by 1994 they were still not fitted.
652
There is a desperate human need to find a cause for every accident. The absence of any evidence of technical malfunction presents a serious problem. But in the UK there were nine serious accidents involving RAF Chinooks between 1984 and 1994—nine! In five of them, the pilots lived to explain what happened and in none of the cases was any blame attributed to the air crew. The same could not be said of the remaining four accidents, all of which were fatal. Three of the four were put down to air crew error. Clearly, if one wants to maintain one's reputation one must survive.
What if there is little or no evidence? I understand that those with a legal background have taken an interest in this matter, and that there is a strong body of opinion that the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the high standard of proof which the RAF's own regulations require before a finding of negligence can be made. I believe that in this inquiry an honest mistake was made.
The best reason for reopening the inquiry is new evidence. There is indeed serious new evidence. Four years after the accident, a Chinook helicopter came tumbling out of the sky. The air crew tried desperately to turn it the right way up, but failed to do so and could find no evidence of any malfunction of the instruments. Miraculously, 250 feet above the ground, the Chinook aircraft turned around and the crew and everyone on board were saved. Obviously, the Chinook was examined in great detail afterwards, and it must be stated that no fault was found with the helicopter.
Therefore that is proof conclusive that a helicopter of this particular manufacture can develop faults which cause it virtually to crash and subsequently no fault is found with the helicopter. In this case, that may well have happened. On the evidence available, one cannot but conclude that there is no proof that the pilots were negligent.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, at the time of the crash, visibility over the Mull of Kintyre was less than a mile. If visibility is less than five miles, the regulations state that aircraft must fly under instrument flight rules, which means that they must be a thousand feet above the nearest obstacle. In this case, that would have meant 2,500 feet. The pilots were clearly not doing so, and it is to be assumed that the finding of the RAF court of inquiry was based on those facts.
The merest yachtsman—of which I am one, but much more to the point, so too is the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan—who has sailed round the Mull knows how treacherous the conditions are and how bad the visibility is liable to be. The noble Lord raised a number of interesting points. I have a feeling that his remarks to your Lordships tonight in themselves justify a reopening of the inquiry because there is a lot there.
In a debate in May 1997 in your Lordships' House, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out that the civil air accident investigation branch had

653
been able to rule out categorically a structural or technical malfunction and that engine and navigational equipment was functioning normally up to the point of impact. That needs looking at in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, about other Chinooks.
In his reply to that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said that the question was why the aircraft was being flown in that way at that time. The failure to answer that question has been the basis of the negligence verdict. The problem with the negligence verdict is how one determines negligence. That is of course an RAF inquiry definition and not a legal one. It is:
"The doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently";
or,
"a breach of duty to take care or, in other words, carelessness in a matter where care is demanded".
The Secretary of State at the time, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, has recently raised a number of points which throw doubt on the behaviour of the aircraft and of its pilots. The Minister may be able to answer those points today, but it would be more satisfactory for the inquiry to be reopened in order that they and their relevance to the crash may be fully studied.
I shall make briefly one or two points. One of the FADECs survived. Does it show any malfunction in either of its engines? A number of noble Lords have said that at the time the Ministry was suing Textron Lycoming for the failure of the FADEC, in 1989. Will the Minister explain the reason why the case was brought? Was it a failure in test procedures or did the engines go into override as a result of test procedures not being properly carried out?
Another point relates to the stand taken by Squadron Leader Burke, a Chinook pilot to whom I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred, at Boscombe Down. What was his position and expertise and what was the value of his allegations?
The trouble is that all those points must now be taken into consideration when the verdict on the two pilots, so distressing to the service and to their families, is evaluated. Do they make any difference and does the verdict stand up'' The reopening of the inquiry will tell us.
8.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I pay tribute to his assiduous pressing of both this Government and the previous government on the circumstances of this tragic accident. The noble Lord has of course been utterly consistent in his wish to ensure that no injustice has been done in this case. I hope that he and this House will accept that that has also been the objective of Ministers, not only in this Government but also, I believe, in the previous administration.
654
I want to cover as many of the issues raised as possible, but I fear that in the time available to me it may be that I shall have to write to a number of noble Lords to deal with the details of the points that they have raised.
On 2nd June 1994, Chinook ZD576 departed from RAF Aldergrove on a flight to Fort George, Inverness. The aircraft had a crew of four and carried 25 military and civilian passengers who were to attend a conference in Inverness. It took off from RAF Aldergrove at 1742 and at approximately 1800 crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. All on board were killed.
Before departing RAF Aldergrove the pilots obtained an accurate weather forecast for their flight. They elected to carry out the flight under visual, rather than instrument, flight rules. Under visual rules air crew must remain clear of cloud and are required to keep in sight of the surface. The weather forecast was suitable for a flight under these rules, but it did warn of poor conditions affecting the Mull of Kintyre, as is often the case. For this a bad weather contingency plan would have been required. The highest point of the Mull of Kintyre is 1463 feet above sea level. Instrument flight rules stipulate that an aircraft must be at least 1000 feet above the height of the highest obstacle along the intended track if the crew is not in visual contact with the ground.
The transit across the Irish Sea was uneventful and conducted in clear conditions but, as forecast, there was very low cloud and poor visibility around the Mull. A witness reported that at a distance of about two nautical miles from the Mull, or about 40 seconds or so from impact, the aircraft was flying at a height estimated at between 200 and 400 feet. The witness estimated visibility at about one mile and noted that the Mull was covered in cloud and fog. Other witness statements from those present on the Mull at the time, including the lighthouse keeper, also remark on the fog and lack of visibility.
The first way-point, or land mark, that the pilots had entered on their on-board navigational computer for this flight was the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse. At 0.95 miles, or about 20 seconds before impact, the crew released the computer from its fix on the Mull of Kintyre and set it to indicate the bearing and distance to the next way-point selected at Corran, 87 miles to the north. At that point the pilots knew how close they were to the Mull and given the deteriorating weather and the strict visibility requirements under visual flight rules, they should by that time already have chosen an alternative course. Given that they had not done so, they could and should under the rules immediately have either turned away from the Mull or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude.
At 15 to 18 seconds before impact, the aircraft's height was only 468 feet as recorded on its tactical air navigation system. The pilots would have seen the same information on their radio altimeter, but even so at that point the aircraft was still climbing only gently. At four-and-a-half seconds before impact the crew exercised an emergency manoeuvre and climbed about

655
150 feet in those final four-and-a-half seconds. The aircraft crashed at a height of 812 feet at a ground speed of 151 knots, or 174 mph.
I turn now to the speculation that there may have been some other reason for the crash, and I shall try to answer some of the questions raised by noble Lords this evening. I believe that the points raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and indeed some of the points from the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, went directly to the heart of the matter. The evidence of the eye-witness about 40 seconds before the crash, and of the crew themselves in re-setting their navigational computer about 20 seconds before the crash, are telling indicators that at that time the pilots were not grappling with an in-flight emergency. Yet they were flying on, contrary to both instrument and visual flight rules. The evidence is that they were already too close to the cloud-covered mass of the Mull, travelling too low and too fast.
I turn now to the issues raised in the Computer Weekly report. On 26th May the magazine published a lengthy report about the crash on the Internet. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I concentrate on some of the main points because the whole report was some 50,000 words long. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made clear, this and other articles published by Computer Weekly sought to cast doubt on the RAF's finding of negligence and to advance instead a scenario in which the technical causes, particularly of the Chinook's Full Authority Digital Electronic Control System—that is, the FADEC to which so many noble Lords have referred—may have been responsible for a catastrophic failure.
The RAF's Chinook fleet was fitted with a FADEC system as part of an upgrade from the Mk 1 to the Mk 2. Its purpose is to regulate the power output of each of the Chinook's two engines. Each engine has a FADEC unit and each unit is designed under a failsafe principle, with both primary and back-up control channels. Should one unit fail then the other will regulate power on the good engine to compensate. The probability of both primary and back-up channels on both engines failing at the same time is infinitesimal.
As part of the board of inquiry, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the DETR conducted an independent technical investigation. It has always been acknowledged that there were some problems with the FADEC software during its development, and the AAIB report to the inquiry states that:
"In view of reports into a number of ongoing service difficulties experienced with the operation of FADEC, the engine change units and FADEC were examined in some detail".
Here I answer one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, because the report goes on to say of the engines:
"strip examination indicated that both were running at high speed with turbines hot at time of impact, and revealed no sign of pre-impact failure or malfunction that could have affected the operation of either engine".
The noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Burnham, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, have also drawn our
656
attention to the so-called "Wilmington incident", and the legal case between the MoD and Boeing and Textron Lycoming. Let me explain that the incident which gave rise to this litigation occurred in 1989—some five years before the crash on the Mull. It involved a pre-production version of FADEC software which was comprehensively redesigned prior to the introduction into service of the Chinook Mk 2 in 1993. The Wilmington claim arose because of damage caused to a helicopter during testing and because procedures had not been put in place to deal with such a failure, which could have been anticipated.
It has also been alleged that the board of inquiry was unaware of the Wilmington incident. It is true that no reference to Wilmington is included in the board of inquiry report for the reason that FADEC had already been ruled out as a possible cause at an early stage in the investigation.
Computer Weekly has also asserted that Boscombe Down thought that FADEC was unsafe. In this case, Boscombe Down indicated a wish to assess the design of the FADEC software using a static code analysis— a methodology used by the nuclear industry. However, FADEC software was not amenable to the automated software tools available to Boscombe. It could not therefore verify the software design to its satisfaction. It did not say that FADEC was unsafe.
The Ministry of Defence has looked at all the new evidence. For example, in May 1998 Mr Robert Key, MP, forwarded us papers setting out alternative theories offered by a computer software expert and the retired RAF pilot, Squadron Leader Burke, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred. Those were assessed in considerable detail over the summer of 1998, and a full appraisal of all the points was offered in September of that year. I understand that we have not heard further on those points from Mr Robert Key.
Secondly, when Computer Weekly published its report, the MoD collected all the material it had posted on the Internet, examined it in detail and responded to the magazine on 21st July, giving it the opportunity to send us any other relevant material which it might have. At its request, we also sent the magazine a more detailed analysis of its report on 23rd September. I appreciate that it is only a matter of a month since that date but we still wait to hear from Computer Weekly.
Finally, the Defence Committee of another place has inquired into the lessons of the crash and published a report which concluded that it had found no compelling evidence to support the claims that there were fundamental flaws in the design of the Chinook Mk 2 or its components. We also wrote to the committee on 21st July offering comments on the Computer Weekly report, and that letter was also released to the press.
I pick up the second major point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the doubts raised by Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I imagine that those doubts have had a compelling effect on a number of your Lordships. Sir Malcolm has raised questions about

657
what he was told about the Chinook accident when he was Defence Secretary. As this regarded advice to Ministers of the previous administration, the MoD Permanent Secretary looked into this and wrote to Sir Malcolm on 6th January 1998. The Permanent Secretary invited Sir Malcolm to visit the Ministry if he wished to refresh his memory. Both the invitation to refresh his memory and, indeed, to discuss the matter further stand and I reiterate them to your Lordships this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked me about the fitting of the black boxes to the Chinook fleet. It is a matter of regret that that programme is somewhat behind, but I understand that it is under way and I hope to be able to write to the noble Baroness telling her when we hope it will be completed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, raised questions about other witnesses and the evidence that they might have given. The board took evidence from people who saw the Chinook flying at low level over Northern Ireland, not just around the Mull of Kintyre. There was no suggestion that the aircraft was in trouble. Indeed, if it was, the question arises as to why the crew did not make an emergency radio call. They made routine calls and therefore we know that their radio was working at the time.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, asked me about Chinooks grounded at the moment. The Chinooks are operating as normal. Individual aircraft can of course be grounded temporarily for different reasons and I am unable to tell the noble Viscount exactly how many are flying today. However, I shall write to him on that point.
The noble Earl. Lord Stair, has also raised questions about the helicopters fitted with FADEC on Exercise Gryphons Flight. I shall write to the noble Earl on the points that he raises.
I emphasise that the MoD has been willing consistently not only to examine any new material but to respond with an appraisal of it, fully and publicly. We remain more than ready to examine any further material that might be thought to offer new insights into the crash. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me a very direct question. At a philosophical level, I am bound to say that the question he asked is quite impossible for any Minister to answer. The noble Lord knows that we are briefed honestly as Ministers and we give honest answers to the questions that we are asked. However, I say to the noble Lord that if he feels that there are points still outstanding after the briefings which I know he has had—and I address this point also to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—I invite them not to another briefing but to discuss with me the outstanding issues that still concern them following the briefings that they have had.
My noble friend Lord Gilbert said in May 1997 that negligence is not a word that the RAF uses lightly. That is true, but it was the duty of the Air Marshals to give an honest decision based upon the evidence.
658
I believe that that is what they did. The evidence produced by Computer Weekly does not persuade them or the MoD to reopen the inquiry.
Finally, I feel it is important to add my own personal sympathy to all of those who lost family, friends and colleagues in that tragic crash. So far as it is possible to do so, I try to understand the anguish that must be felt, in particular by the families of the dead pilots. I am very conscious that little of what I have said to your Lordships this evening will bring them any comfort. I remember also the families of the other victims who once again will have their memories stirred by reports of our discussions this evening. I am grateful to all your Lordships for the constructive way in which you have approached the debate. I undertake carefully to study all the remarks made. I reiterate the invitation that I made to noble Lords who remain unhappy after the briefings that your Lordships have heard to come and discuss those briefings with me.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.49 p.m.
Consideration of amendments after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 291 [Workplace parking levy]:
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 339 [Amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 74
Page 206, line 10. leave out subsection (9).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74 deals with the planning part of the Bill. Clause 339 amends the Town and Country Planning Act to allow the mayor to direct boroughs to refuse planning applications. It is proposed by the Government that that power should apply only to applications raising matters of strategic importance to London.
It is perfectly proper that the mayor should be consulted on strategic issues. He has the responsibility of dealing with the special development strategy which is directed to those matters. It is right that his views should be taken into account by the boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London when they come to consider particular applications.
It is also within the power of the borough council to refuse an application which can be appealed to the Minister. We propose leaving out subsection (9) because we believe that there is a confusion between the powers of the mayor and the powers of the Minister. If the mayor cannot persuade either the borough council or the Common Council to refuse an application because he would have the power to make representations to them, or subsequently to persuade the Minister to call in the application, he would be operating on pretty thin ground. We believe that that would mean that his case was not justified. We believe there is confusion in the Bill as drafted and the removal of the power to direct refusal would make the system more streamlined and more straightforward. Those

659
seeking to make applications would know better where they were. The boroughs or the Common Council would know where they stood and I believe that the mayor would be in a clearer situation. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not consider that we are being unfair in this regard. I am slightly surprised at the way in which the noble Lord has moved this amendment because he is seeking to take powers from London and give them back to the Secretary of State. That is somewhat contrary to the argument that he has pursued in many parts of the Bill.
We have made it clear throughout that the mayor of London will have strategic responsibilities. Those responsibilities will include an overall look at the planning system in London. We have also made it clear that the vast majority of planning decisions will be undertaken by the London boroughs, with no intervention from the mayor, and that where those decisions are of genuine strategic importance the mayor should be notified and have the ability to intervene. That is why we propose to give the mayor power to be consulted, and as a last resort he can directly refuse a small number of strategically important planning applications.
My colleague Nick Raynsford has just spelt out the thresholds on which most of these will be judged. We expect the total number of applications notified to the mayor to be small—between 150 and 250 a year, out of a total of 70,000 planning decisions. The key word is notified. The mayor will not necessarily intervene in all of those. I expect the mayor will use the power of direct refusal as a last resort.
Within the Bill we also provide some safeguards against misuse. The mayor will only be able to use the power where there are genuine strategic planning reasons, and will have to give a detailed explanation of such. Where the mayor is proved wrong he will be liable to pay the costs of holding an appeal inquiry and the cost of other parties where it is found that he or she has abused those powers unreasonably.
All those factors help to ensure that the decisions of the mayor will be taken reasonably and that the number of decisions on which the mayor will intervene will be relatively small, but it will give the mayor the power to make a strategic intervention where he or she considers it necessary. I do not believe that deleting the mayor and referring such decisions directly to the Secretary of State fits in with the spirit of the structure of the new authority. On reflection, I believe that the noble Lord will believe so too.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Like me, he is an optimist. Of course, if one happens to be a pessimist at some time in the future the mayor will direct a refusal which will subsequently be appealed to the Minister and granted. At that point some interesting words will be said among the parties to the situation. If that happens that may impose unreasonable delay in a system that is already capable of producing delay in
660
any event. None the less, I have heard what the Minister has said. He relieves me slightly, but not completely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 365 [The London ambient noise strategy]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 220, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Noise falls within this subsection if it is—

(a) noise emitted from works falling within section 60(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (construction works etc. which may be controlled by a local authority);

(b) noise caused by the operation of a loud-speaker in a street, whether or not the operation would be a contravention of section 62(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (loud-speaker not to be operated in the street during certain hours);

(c) noise at work which, under or by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, it is the duty of an employer to control; or

(d) noise emitted from premises or emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street, except noise caused by aircraft other than model aircraft or noise made by traffic;

but noise does not fall within this subsection if it is noise from a fixed industrial source.
(4A) Expressions used in paragraph (d) of subsection (4) above and in section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have the same meaning in that paragraph as they have in that section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75. On Report I promised to bring back this amendment, which when first tabled included a typographical error. As your Lordships will recall, Clause 365 requires the mayor to prepare and publish a London ambient noise strategy.
In Committee we agreed to look at the noise provisions again, and the House amended them on Report with the exception of this amendment, which was not moved. Specifically, the amendment deletes existing subsection (4) of Clause 365 and replaces it with a new form of words detailing the types of noise excluded from the mayor's strategy. These are those matters dealt with by local authorities using powers in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and by local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The amendment removes the reference to statutory nuisance so that if a local authority, on investigation, does not consider noise from premises to be a statutory nuisance, it will not come within the remit of the ambient noise strategy of the mayor. There is provision ensuring that noise caused by aircraft, noise made by traffic and noise from a fixed industrial source are not excluded from the strategy.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, Amendment No. 76 is an amendment to Amendment No. 75.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 75, Amendment No. 76:
Line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 76 and I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. This is not an attempt at a late stage to undermine what the Government are attempting to provide in Clause 365 in relation to the ambient noise strategy. However, I pin my question on three of the four paragraphs in the subsection. Is it appropriate to exclude from the strategy types of noise, simply because another entity has powers to deal with them?
I have looked again at Clause 365. The strategy would involve co-ordination, creating priorities and working with other partners in dealing with ambient noise. The clause does not give the mayor powers to deal with particular sources of noise; it requires him to prepare a strategy using information about ambient noise levels and the impact on those living and working in London, an assessment of the impact of his or her strategies on noise levels and a summary of action taken or proposed by the mayor in order to promote measures to reduce ambient noise levels.
No statutory powers are given to the mayor to tackle the noise directly, and therefore it would be appropriate for the mayor to work in partnership with the boroughs in considering the types of noise, the subject of these paragraphs, above which the boroughs can take direct action. I am not seeking to add to the authority's powers in the amendment, but at the same time I am not convinced that the mayor's powers to consider such sources of noise should be restricted. I have tabled the amendments to give the Government an opportunity of explaining why the mayor and the authority should be excluded from a public debate about how to tackle something that can be a very real source of concern to Londoners and in which they may play a role in addition to the local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have already explained why we have brought forward our own amendment to Clause 365. The key to this issue is that the function and role of the mayor is a strategic role. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised the very important issue of the ability to work in partnership. We expect that to occur, but we believe that it is very important to avoid duplication of responsibility in the Bill. That is a point that the noble Baroness has recognised.
If we were to accept further amendments, we would be in a position where the only exclusion from the mayor's strategy would be noise at work by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Following the principle of subsidiarity and not creating the problem of duplication of direct responsibility, we do not think it is appropriate that the mayor should have power to intervene directly because the action should properly be taken by local authorities. However, I strongly emphasise the point raised by the noble Baroness, that
662
this is part of what we all, I am sure, hope will be an ongoing and developing partnership to enable the mayor to fulfil the strategic purpose.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I am not entirely convinced by that reply. For example, it would become a matter of concern if people's lives in London are affected by the way construction is dealt with. That is only one example.
I will simply take comfort in the general point that has been made during the debates, that although the mayor may have particular responsibility, the fact that other responsibilities are not spelt out may not preclude the mayor from taking account of them. The noble Baroness has nodded in agreement. To allow the mayor to include consideration of this type of noise within a strategy would not be duplication; it would merely be a sensible way of ensuring that the matter is covered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No.76, as an amendment to Amendment No. 75, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 79, as amendments to Amendment No.75, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No.75 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Clause 372 [Financial Assistance by the Mayor for museums, galleries, etc.]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.80.
Page 223, line 15, leave out ("financial").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 to 83. This follows a point that I queried at the last stage of the Bill when the Government moved an amendment to allow assistance in kind as well as by way of grant, in the circumstances referred to in these clauses, to museums, galleries, and so on. I asked why a similar amendment had not been made to the provisions allowing conditions to be imposed at the time when assistance is given. The amendments would allow conditions to be attached to any type of assistance given by the authority. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. When she raised the issue at Report stage, I promised to write to her.
It is desirable that the provisions for giving assistance to cultural institutions in Amendments Nos.80 and 81 should be the same as those for tourism in Amendments Nos.82 and 83. I agree that her amendments, which would allow conditions to be applied to non-financial assistance as well as to grants, are an improvement. There may be occasions when it would be a good idea for the mayor to impose such conditions, for example if a member of staff were to be seconded to provide assistance in kind.
We are happy to accept the amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness will release me from the obligation to write to her about them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 223, line 21. leave out second ("the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 373 [Duty of the Authority to promote tourism]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendments Nos. 82 and 83:
Page 224, line 17, leave out ("financial").
Page 224, line 23, leave out second ("the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 374, insert the following new clause—

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY'S FUNCTIONS
(" .—(1) Any function exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Mayor under or by virtue of this Part shall also be exercisable on behalf of the Authority by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) below, if or to the extent that the Mayor so authorises, whether generally or specially, and subject to any conditions imposed by the Mayor.
(2) Those bodies and persons are—

(a) the Deputy Mayor;

(b) any member of staff of the Authority;

(c) the Cultural Strategy Group for London;

(d) the London Development Agency;

(e) the Common Council;

(f) any local authority.

(3) In the case of the Common Council or a local authority, an authorisation under this section—

(a) may only be granted or varied with its written consent; and

(b) shall cease to have effect if notice of the withdrawal of that consent is given to the Mayor.

(4) Where, by virtue of an authorisation under subsection (1) above, a duty is exercisable by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) above, that body or person shall discharge the duty in accordance with the authorisation and any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above.
(5) Subsection (4) above is without prejudice to the exercise by the body or person concerned of any power to arrange for the discharge of functions by—

(a) a committee or sub-committee, or a member, officer or employee, of the body or person, or

(b) a joint committee on which the person or body is represented,

except to the extent that the terms of the authorisation or any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above otherwise provide.
(6) Subsection (1) above does not apply—

(a) in relation to functions under this section; or

(b) in relation to any function of making by-laws under section 379(1) below.

(7) An authorisation under subsection (1) above which relates to—

(a) any function under section 371 above; or

(b) the exercise of any function under or by virtue of section 377(1) or 378(3) below to the extent that it involves a determination as to whether to permit a public demonstration to take place in Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square Garden;

may only be given to the Deputy Mayor or a member of staff of the Authority.
(8) An authorisation under subsection (1) above which relates to any function of enforcing any by-laws made under section 379(1) below may only be given—

(a) to the Deputy Mayor,

(b) to any member of staff of the Authority,

(c) to the Common Council.

(d) to any local authority.

(9) Each of the following bodies, namely—

(a) the Cultural Strategy Group for London,

(b) the London Development Agency,

(c) the Common Council,

(d) any local authority,

shall have power to exercise functions on behalf of the Authority in accordance with this section, whether or not they would have power to do so apart from this subsection and irrespective of the nature of the function.
(10) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (delegation of functions to committees, officers etc, and continued exercise by local authority concerned) shall apply in relation to any authorisation under subsection (1) above given by the Mayor—

(a) to a local authority,

(b) to the Cultural Strategy Group for London, or

(c) to the London Development Agency,

as they apply to arrangements under that section between one local authority and another.
(11) An authorisation under this section may be varied or revoked at any time by the Mayor.
(12) Any authorisation under this section, and any variation or revocation of such an authorisation, must be in writing.
(13) In this section—

"Trafalgar Square" has the same meaning as in the Trafalgar Square Act 1844;

"Parliament Square Garden" means the central garden of Parliament Square. within the meaning of section 378 below.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 84, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 to 92. This is a complex group of amendments but it is easier to take together the clauses on delegation in Part X and the amendments affecting Trafalgar and Parliament Squares because the two are interwoven.
Perhaps I may say right away that these amendments meet commitments I gave last week on Report. First, I promised a technical amendment to allow the mayor to delegate to the Cultural Strategy Group for London. That commitment is met by Amendment No. 84—I acknowledge straight away that it has become a lot more complicated than I thought it would be—but in the event it proved more effective to combine this with other provisions about the mayor's powers of delegation in respect of culture under Part X. I shall return to that subject later.
Secondly, I promised amendments to complete the provisions for the transfer of day-to-day responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the GLA. Last week we agreed amendments that give the mayor responsibility for the care and management of both squares together with the power to make by-laws in respect of their management (Clauses 377 to 379). I gave notice at that time of further amendments that would elaborate on the general power, filling in the

665
detail—indeed, there was some discussion of our intentions. I am therefore pleased to have tabled the remaining amendments, Amendments Nos. 88 to 92, to fulfil that commitment.
As I said then, the mayor will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the squares—that is to say, cleaning, lighting and repairs to statues—and for controlling and licensing use; for example, giving permission for rallies and events, advertising and filming on Trafalgar Square.
Amendment No. 91 provides the missing enforcement power for the mayor to control street trading. The House agreed last week that it is essential that the mayor should have this power to protect us against the rogue traders to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred. Experience shows that the only effective deterrent is a power of seizure which may lead to forfeiture by a court order. Without these powers traders simply return with their apparatus and continue trading, factoring the cost of the fines into their operating costs. We see that happen in the Royal Parks.
By providing an explicit statutory reference, Amendment No. 91 will give the mayor a power that the Government do not have and will allow the mayor to exercise powers in line with those exercised by Westminster City Council in the surrounding streets. I am sure to be teased about the fact that I said last week that the level of fine would be level 1 under the by-laws. That is the same as under the departmental regulations. I have since been advised that this is lower than the level fixed under Westminster City Council's legislation. That would be a worse anomaly than having them different from department regulations and we therefore intend to increase the level to level 3 in relation to trading offences. I trust that noble Lords will agree that that is a sensible and justifiable change.
Amendment No. 89 is a purely technical amendment correcting a grammatical error.
Amendment No. 92 concerns our intention to provide guidelines that will pass on the accumulated wisdom of the DCMS in relation to the management of the squares, including, of course, policy with regard to public demonstrations in Trafalgar Square. The mayor must have regard to such guidelines, but he or she will remain the ultimate arbiter. We do not expect the mayor to carry out the majority of those functions in person, so I come back to Amendment No. 84 which provides the detailed provisions that will allow the mayor to delegate functions within carefully considered limits.
Earlier today I moved the amendment to Clause 38 which allows Amendment No. 84 to substitute for the general power of delegation in respect of Part X. The new clause makes Part X largely self-contained in this respect. The mayor will be able to delegate his functions under Part X to the deputy mayor and GLA staff, to another local authority including the City Corporation, and to the Cultural Strategy Group for London or the London Development Agency. The London Development Agency is included because of the tourism functions.
However, in relation to the making of by-laws, the mayor's decisions on the cultural strategy and the holding of public demonstrations in Trafalgar or Parliament Squares are reserved for the GLA itself, and delegation of the policing of the squares is restricted. That is to make sure that the important function of allowing demonstrations, against the Government if necessary, should be a political decision and not a decision for officialdom. The mayor cannot, of course, delegate the power to delegate.
This is a long clause. It includes special provisions that require delegation to be in writing and, in the case of a local authority, with its written consent. There are various other technical subsections which I can explain if necessary. It is fundamental that we regard the mayor as the appropriate person to take responsibility for Trafalgar and Parliament Squares, which are of national importance.
It was suggested last week that some of these powers should be given direct to Westminster City Council, but to divide the function between the mayor and Westminster could be confusing. It is more important to leave it to the mayor to decide exactly how much should be delegated or put out to contract and to set the context within which the functions are carried out. That is consistent with the rest of the Bill. The GLA is a strategic authority and the mayor will no doubt want to minimise the amount of day-to-day management retained. He will certainly want to make arrangements with Westminster City Council to carry out some of these functions.
I know that I have spoken for long enough, but I must take this opportunity to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House when I said that the mayor will have to retain control of the statues. In fact, he will be able to delegate responsibilities for the care and maintenance of the existing statues in both squares. I have in mind the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854, which relates to the erection of new statues. The mayor could promote proposals for new statues, but it is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who cannot delegate his responsibilities under that Act.
The GLA will also retain responsibility for decisions about the cultural strategy and the making of by-laws. The mayor will not have the power to engage private persons or organisations, such as private security firms, to undertake policing functions. Westminster City Council, or any other local authority can act as delegates for the enforcement of the by-laws, including the new trading by-laws.
I apologise again for these amendments being put forward in two bites. However, with the explanation that I have given, I hope that noble Lords will agree that, in the end, this is a coherent group of amendments. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, as the Minister said, Amendment No. 84 refers to the delegation of the functions of the authority. I am relieved to see this amendment in the list; indeed, it was promised at Committee stage in July and we have had a long wait for its arrival.

667
I turn to the remainder of the amendments in this group. The Government gave notice on Report on 25th October that they would bring in further amendments regarding the transfer of the management of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. My noble friend Lady Anelay did not oppose that but asked several questions about the impact of the transfer—a significant step which deserved more time for reflection before a verdict was given.
My noble friend expressed her dismay at that time (cols. 129 and 133 of Hansard) with regard to the late tabling of the amendments and the fact that they had been tabled in a half-finished form. She asked the Minister to withdraw the amendments and bring them back on Third Reading, so that they could be seen in their complete form. The Minister declined to do so and stated that the amendments were not in themselves defective. He said that he would press the amendments on the basis that they were themselves complete and perfect. However, we now find that the Government were mistaken: the amendments were not all complete and perfect and the Government now ask the House to amend them. We have received a most generous apology from the Minster, which we certainly accept on these Benches.
In particular, I should like to mention Amendment No. 90, which changes the level of fine for breach of by-laws,
"if the byelaw is a trading byelaw,
to level 3 from level 1. I understand that the maximum fine at level 1 is £200 and that at level 3 the maximum is £1,000. We are delighted to hear that that is now accepted. We are told that the amendment is required to bring the fine into line with the trading offences legislation operated by Westminster City Council and thereby avoid an anomaly. Perhaps I may make it clear that we on these Benches support measures intended to protect consumers from unlicensed vendors of food in the squares. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Anelay made that support clear on Report. It is the one aspect of the transfer of the management of the squares to which we felt then, as now, able to give our complete support.
On Report my noble friend queried the level of fine in the amendment then before the House. As we know, the Minister replied by saying that it seemed sensible to change to level 3 because that would act as a proper deterrent to people abusing the use of the squares. However, can we be quite sure that the Government's amendments are now correct? I am sure that they are, but I shall leave that to the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I can only repeat our apologies for the late tabling of these amendments. However, I contest the noble Lord's argument that we are significantly amending our own amendments. We are completing the package of amendments rather than further amending them, except in the sense of the level of the fine. It is not a matter of that level being wrong: we simply thought again on the matter and thought better. I do not believe that anyone can complain about that.
668
I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord on the amendments on unlicensed traders. I agree very much with what he said. If he has any influence with his right honourable friends in another place, Eric Forth and David Maclean, could he discover why it was that the comparable provision in a Private Member's Bill introduced by the right honourable Peter Brooke which would have provided the same powers in the royal parks was blocked by cries of 'Object!' from Opposition Members? Maybe we could get something through next year if there were not the same opposition from the Conservative Party. Having made that totally unjustified jibe, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]
Clause 379 [Byelaws]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 92:
Page 226, line 28, at end insert—
("(1 A) Byelaws under this section may designate specified provisions of the byelaws as trading byelaws.").
Page 226, line 29, leave out ("byelaws") and insert ("byelaw").
Page 226, line 30, after ("conviction") insert—

("(a) if the byelaw is a trading byelaw, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or

(b) in any other case,").

Page 226, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The provision that may be made in byelaws under this section includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) the licensing of any trading; and

(b) the seizure, retention or disposal of any property in connection with any contravention of or failure to comply with a trading byelaw.").

After Clause 379, insert the following new clause—

GUIDANCE
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the Mayor concerning the exercise of any function under or by virtue of section 377(1), 378(3) or (4) or 379(1) above by him or any body or person authorised to exercise the function under section (Delegation of Authority's functions) above.
(2) In deciding whether or how to exercise that function, the Mayor, or body or person, shall have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 382 [The Superannuation Act 1972]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 228, line 15, at end insert—
("(5) A determination under subsection (4) above shall be without prejudice to—

(a) paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 10 to this Act, in the case of Transport for London;

(b) paragraph 2 of Schedule 18 to this Act, in the case of the London Transport Users' Committee; or

(c) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, in the case of the London Development Agency.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 93 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 and 105 to 113, 167 and 180. This group of amendments deals with the rather complex arrangements for pensions. In particular this group of

669
amendments fulfils the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to London Transport staff in relation to protecting the pension rights of employees who might transfer to the private sector as a result of the PPP or other PFI deals.
More broadly, Amendments Nos. 106 to 110 provide general powers relating to pension transfer arrangements into the GLA. Our general policy on GLA staff pensions remains that existing staff will transfer their current pension arrangements into the GLA and its associated bodies. These amendments and the existing provisions on Clause 402 are designed to allow us to make the necessary arrangements. In the case of the London Regional Passengers' Committee Superannuation Scheme—the LRPCSS—the intention is that the scheme will be closed and its members transferred to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. There are fewer than 20 existing employees within this scheme.
As regards the PPP, last March when the Deputy Prime Minister announced in another place his plans for a Public Private Partnership, he also wrote to every member of staff of London Transport assuring them that they would,
"have the right to remain in the LRT pension fund, as contributing members".
In response to a request for clarification he subsequently said,
"I can confirm that the pension arrangements also apply to any current LU staff who subsequently transfer to a sub-contractor, provided they remain in Tube work… The LRT Pension Fund will be structured to guarantee your rights to remain within the Fund, while retaining a single board of trustees and a common governance."
The new schedule, introduced by Amendments Nos. 111 and 180, sets the framework for that assurance. Staff who transfer to the private sector will have the statutory right to remain as contributing members of their pension fund, the London Regional Transport Pension Fund. This right continues to apply, under paragraph 3(3)(a) of the schedule, even if these staff are subsequently subcontracted, so long as they remain employed in the "London Underground railway industry".
Staff who transfer to the private sector but who then transfer out of Tube work will not be able as of right to remain members of the LRTPF. The structure we propose for the fund will mean that in principle they could remain members of it, but that would be a matter between their employer and the trustees of the fund. However, all employees in this position who remain in continuous employment will have the statutory right to a pension scheme providing benefits which overall are materially at least as good as those which applied at the time they transferred from London Transport. These rights will apply not only to those staff who transfer to the private sector as a result of the PPP—that will be about 6000 people—but also to the smaller number, a few hundreds, transferred to the various private finance deals concluded by LT since the Deputy Prime Minister gave his assurances to staff.
The schedule also provides for the Secretary of State to make orders restructuring the LRT Pension Fund, to deliver the protections I have outlined. Your Lordships
670
will have seen that there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the fund's existing trustees—which is only proper. I can assure you that the trustees have been, and will continue to be, kept in close touch with the development of this policy.
I explained the position in relation to the PPP at some length. It is important that your Lordships understand these provisions. However, they are in essence relatively straightforward. I apologise again for the late tabling of the amendments. We had to get them right and that required consultation with the trustees, as I have mentioned. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 228, line 15, at end insert—
("(6) In consequence of the inclusion, by virtue of subsection (2) above, of an entry relating to the London Development Agency in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, in the entry in that Schedule relating to a development agency established under section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, there shall be added at the end "(other than the London Development Agency (for which there is a separate entry))".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 384 [The Race Relations Act 1976]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 95:
Leave out Clause 384 and insert the following new Clause—

DISCRIMINATION
(" . It shall be the duty of—

(a) the Greater London Authority,

(b) the Metropolitan Police Authority, and

(c) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

to exercise their various functions with due regard to the need—

(i) to promote and secure equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or religion;

(ii) to eliminate all forms of unlawful discrimination; and

(iii) to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated the amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 96:
Before Clause 397, insert the following new clause—

AMENDMENT COMMISSION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of this Act coming into force, appoint a commission of independent lawyers of suitable standing to report to him with proposals for amendments required to this Act.
(2) The report in subsection (1) shall specify such amendments to this Act in order that the institutions established by this Act shall function as effectively as possible in accordance with the purposes for which they were established.
(3) On receiving such a report, the Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament in order that Parliament shall have an opportunity to consider these amendments.
(4) Any amending Act shall come into force within two years of this Act coming into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 96. We now come to the very final part of the Bill, Part XII headed Supplementary Provisions.
The Government can hardly be proud of this Bill. Its original 330 clauses have already grown to 413 clauses; five schedules have been added; and today we face approximately another 180 amendments at Third Reading. I have a simple question for the Government: have they withheld any amendments which, in an ideal world, they would have laid for Third Reading? Has any instruction been given to call a halt to the rewriting process? Or are the Government now relying on time being found for a Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill in the new Session? I challenge the Government to state that the GLA legislation is now complete.
Do the Government deny that, even though this Bill will have been amended some 880 times in this House, it will none the less require extensive additions and revisions? I put it to the Government that the Bill will require extensive modifications at an early stage in order for the GLA to function as intended.
The amendment standing in my name would require the Secretary of State to establish a commission for independent review of the operation of the Act within a year of the Act coming into force. The changes it proposed would then be implemented, hopefully, via fast-track.
I am sure that all noble Lords will be interested to learn that there is a precedent for this type of amendment. Section 25 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 requires the Secretary of State to establish an independent review body to investigate the success or otherwise of the fourth-year fee arrangements for students from England and Wales attending Scottish universities. The Government then acknowledged the problems with that particular issue and accepted an amendment that allowed them to monitor and investigate what necessary changes were to be made.
This is the spirit of Amendment No. 96. It lays down the procedure for the Government to put in place: the additional legislation that I and many others believe will be necessary. The Government have legislated—indeed, over-legislated—in haste. They have moved amendments that were not always perhaps understood by the Ministers who moved them, let alone by other noble Lords. The Government must accept that this marathon Bill cannot be the last word on London governance.
We on this side of the House wish to see the GLA and its functional bodies work effectively and efficiently. This common-sense amendment would put in place a mechanism to spot where this sub-standard Bill was letting Londoners down and give the government of the day an easy procedure for putting necessary changes onto the statute book. It must be quite clear to the Minister that the amendment is intended to be helpful to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that we were not the first to think of it, but it was from these Benches
672
that we first articulated the notion of a Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill—since when I have discovered that others have been advocating a Greater London Authority (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
I understand the thinking that underlies the amendment. I have one major criticism of it. I do not believe that it should be for a commission of independent lawyers to review the workings of the Act. Reviewing university fees is an entirely different matter. Many of the problems with this Bill have come from the Government's under-resourcing of people to work on it.
I have said before that is no criticism at all of any of the individuals who have found themselves caught up in this morass of words with which we all now find ourselves dealing. We have the utmost sympathy for the Ministers and for the officials involved, but there simply have not been sufficient resources devoted to this in terms of parliamentary counsel for the Government to embark on a Bill which, inevitably given the prescriptive approach, was going to grow in the way this Bill has grown. I hope at the least that it will give pause when the next big Bill—which I suspect will be the transport Bill—is drafted. No doubt it is being drafted now. It is an experience which none of your Lordships and no one in the other place would wish to undergo again. It is an experience with which our citizens should not see their Parliament wrestling in this very undignified fashion.
Having said that, although I fully support many of the points put by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, my noble friends and I would not support the amendment as tabled.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know whether this amendment is the proper way to sort out the problem, but there certainly is a problem and it is not simply the difficulties caused by the Bill in Parliament as it has grown larger and larger "on the hoof" and as it is still growing, it seems. One's mind goes forward to the poor people who are going to have to operate the system when it comes into being. Looking up what you can do and what you cannot do under the Act is going to be a major activity. I do not know how many extra lawyers will be required to operate the provisions of the Bill once it becomes law, but it is going to be a real nightmare for those who try to put the plan into action.
I personally voted for the mayor and for the assembly, as a London resident. It seemed a simple idea. One realised there would be many problems in the interaction with local government and local authorities and with central government, but one imagined that the Government had thought it through and thought that it was possible to do it in a simple way. That has proved not to be the case.
I do not think it is something that the Government are proud of and I hope there will be ample opportunity as time goes on to amend the Act so that it really does work. All of us who reside in London hope very much that the system will work. It is very important that the

673
authority should be a great advantage to London, but if all the problems take over once the system comes into operation, there will be no pleasure or advantage to the citizens. I hope that the Government will find a way of amending the Act as time goes on, whether by the way my noble friend is proposing or by some other means.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when I first read this amendment I was flabbergasted that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and his colleagues could even contemplate a trigger that would almost certainly cause us to have yet another Bill on Greater London and no doubt go through the same process as we have been going through for the past few months. I had not realised that they had enjoyed it so much!
We have been through countless amendments, many of them proposed by the Government. Others have been triggered by considerations that were raised at earlier stages here and in another place by interested parties inside and outside this House. We have scrutinised the Bill pretty fully in this House. I am not going to put my hand on my heart and say that everything is absolutely right with the Bill and that we shall not have to legislate within the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, even if the Bill is near perfect, there is no surer way of finding something wrong with it than setting up a commission of independent lawyers. I therefore feel that the noble Lord's amendment, even within his own terms, is seriously flawed. Furthermore, at least potentially, the amendment would bind future parliaments, something normally eschewed in this House. However, that will depend on when the noble Lord or I think the next general election will take place.
The amendment does not sensibly address the understandable anxieties that even now the Bill may not be absolutely right. It would not be right to institutionalise further scrutiny within the current legislation or indeed elsewhere. The Bill has received serious consideration by those Members of this House who have participated and many technical amendments have been produced. Noble Lords opposite have stated that they feel sorry for Ministers, but it is not Ministers who have to do most of the work on Bills of this kind. A great deal of serious, professional time has been spent on getting the provisions right. We are creating an entirely new structure of government in the Bill and it is necessarily large, long and complex. However, the last thing needed as we move towards the election of the mayor and the assembly is a built-in clause saying that everything will be changed again next year. For that reason, despite the good intentions of the noble Lord, the implication of the provision would lead many to assume that that will be the case. That is not a sensible way forward and I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I am also grateful for the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I moved the amendment purely as a probing provision because I certainly would not wish upon this House or another
674
place another examination of these countless clauses. However, the noble Lord has admitted that not everything in the Bill is absolutely right. I am afraid that I had already come to that conclusion when I found that government amendments were tabled as late as last Friday, after the Bill had been in Parliament for 10 months or more.
Nevertheless, as I said in my opening speech, I hope that this will be a success for London. The Minister said that if my amendment was passed, the lawyers would have a field day. I venture to suggest that the lawyers may well have a field day with the Bill as it is presently drafted, with or without my amendment. For that reason, in order that the lawyers do not have too much of a field day, it is with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 398, insert the following new clause—

APPPOINTMENTS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(" .—(1) Any functions under or by virtue of this Act which will become exercisable by a person or body other than the Secretary of State may, before they become so exercisable, be exercised by the Secretary of State for the purpose of appointing such persons as he considers necessary to secure that any provision made by or under this Act operates satisfactorily when it comes into force.
(2) The Secretary of State may defray any costs which are incurred in the exercise of the functions mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) In exercising the functions mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may appoint a person on such terms and conditions (including conditions as to remuneration) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(4) Any such terms and conditions may include provision to the effect that the person concerned—

(a) is, or is not, to be or become a member of a particular pension scheme, or

(b) is, or is not, to be treated as employed in the civil service of the State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is required to make it clear that the Secretary of State has powers to appoint such persons as he considers necessary to ensure that provisions by or under the Bill operate satisfactorily when they come into force. Such persons may be appointed on terms and conditions which differ from standard Civil Service ones, pending the establishment of the GLA and associated bodies.
The amendment is necessary specifically to allow the Secretary of State to become the interim employer of staff in the London Research Centre, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Ecology Unit for the period between 1st April and 8th May 2000; to appoint any new staff who will be subsequently transferred to the GLA; and to appoint transitional staff for the Metropolitan Police Authority. In the case of both new and existing staff, their terms and conditions are expected to differ from those of the Civil Service.
Some anxiety has been expressed about this clause and I should make it clear that, as a matter of policy, the Secretary of State will not make permanent appointments to the most senior positions in the GLA. The positions will be occupied by people on short-term,

675
temporary contracts to allow the GLA maximum freedom to make its own appointments. However, in order to get the GLA up and running it is necessary to employ staff to set up the finance and IT systems and so forth so that the authority will be able to operate effectively. I assure the House that these are transitional arrangements and will be interpreted only in that sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, when earlier today I spoke to Amendment No. 18, I said that it was probably the most important amendment to the Bill. I wrote that note over the weekend, before I had had the benefit of looking at the Marshalled List this morning, when I found Amendment No. 97. It states:
"Insert the following new Clause".
It sounds very reasonable indeed that the Secretary of State should have the ability, the opportunity and the power to put in place some temporary arrangements until such time as the mayor and the assembly come into being. That sounds sensible. But this type of amendment at Third Reading is beyond belief.
If it is necessary for the Secretary of State to appoint such people to carry out these duties for the mayor and the assembly, it was necessary when the Bill went through all its stages in the House of Commons; it was necessary when the Bill came to your Lordships' House; it was necessary when the Bill had its Committee stage and it was necessary when the Bill had its Report stage. I am appalled that the new clause should come before the House at this stage.
Furthermore, the Minister presented the amendment in an elegant way. He said that the provision is short-term and temporary and that it seeks to deal only with this short-fall. Where does it say that in the new clause? The amendment states:
"Any functions under or by virtue of this Act which will become exercisable by a person or body other than the Secretary of State may, before they become so exercisable, be exercised by the Secretary of State for the purpose of appointing such persons as he considers necessary to secure that any provision made by or under this Act operates satisfactorily when it comes into force".
The new clause allows the Secretary of State to make all the appointments that the mayor and the assembly should make when they take office. As the Minister said, it would allow the Secretary of State to make appointments to the authority, to Transport for London, to the London Development Agency, to the Cultural Strategy Group and so on, before the mayor takes over. But where does the new clause say, as the Minister said, that there will be a limit on the terms of these appointments and that they will last only until the mayor takes office?
As the amendment is drafted, the appointments could last for the whole term of the mayor. I have never seen anything quite like this before. Would it be possible for the mayor to sack any of those appointed with minimal notice or compensation? It is all left to the Secretary of State to decide. As it stands, this is an appalling new clause. It should have come before us at the Committee stage when we would have had the opportunity to discuss it properly with the Minister and
676
when colleagues on all sides of the House could have dealt with it. This is not a suitable clause to arrive at Third Reading. Unless the Minister is able to give us an extremely satisfactory response, we on this side of the House cannot possibly accept the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on one point. It is a pity that the clause comes to us at such a late stage. It is symptomatic of the Government's anxious approach that they feel that everything needs to be spelt out in such a way. As I understand from the Minister's introduction of the amendment, the new clause is required to implement the provisions which the Government have aired in their fairly recent consultation paper on transitional provisions. That asked among other things whether people should be appointed on the basis of competencies rather than for particular policy areas in order for them to be in place so that the financial arrangements are operating, the computer systems are in place and so on. Reading between the lines of those questions, I saw some indication that the Government thought: "What the hell do we do about all this? It is a fairly awful situation to have to cope with". I agree with them on that. It is my hope that the clause is not to be read in the anxious and sinister way suggested by the noble Baroness on the Conservative Benches.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am bound to support my noble friend. The wording of the provision, which is all that we have to go on in this House today, is completely open and unqualified. I heard what the Minister said in introducing the amendment. However, it drives a coach and horses through what I regard as the normal establishment— which is what I thought was going to happen—of the new authority. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State can appoint,
"such persons as he considers necessary to secure that any provision made by or under this Act operates satisfactorily"—
that is, from his point of view—
"when it comes into force".
The Secretary of State,
"may defray any costs which are incurred".
and so forth. The clause as drafted provides a carte blanche power.
It is very late in a difficult stage of a difficult Bill. I have tried hard to think of an assurance that the Minister could give which would make it absolutely clear that this open power is in fact a very restricted power. But as the amendment stands, the provision is open. That may not be the Government's intention. But their intention has to be what is on the paper in front of us, not what is in their mind. We cannot read their mind. I am afraid that the amendment should be withdrawn, and matters should be allowed to take their course. That would be better than having this deeply flawed amendment on the statute.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I had not planned to intervene, but the statement by the noble Lord opposite that the amendment should possibly be

677
withdrawn raises the possibility of all kinds of complicated and horrifying consequences. For example, is the noble Lord suggesting that, for the period from 1st April to 4th May, or to 3rd July, depending on which date one chooses to take, separate budgets should be set for each of the predecessor organisations that will go into the new authority? I refer, for example, to the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Research Centre. Should the committees be convened to set a budget to draw a subscription for those periods? Is that what is suggested in the absence of the amendment?
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Whitty enables a sensible transitional arrangement to operate. It would allow a proper transition. I am sure that the assurances sought by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are those that I heard my noble friend give; namely, that these are transitional arrangements and appointments will be made on a temporary basis to enable the mayor and the assembly, once they are elected, to take office in a smooth and seamless fashion, and to ensure that there is no dreadful hiatus from 1st April because budgets have not been set and arrangements have not been made for the smooth transition of staff.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I am absolutely sure that a smooth transition is necessary. But the provisions for a smooth transition should be in the Bill as it now falls. The amendment is deeply flawed.
Lord Tope: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I had also not intended to intervene. I do so largely to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He is obviously right. We probably all share the concern expressed. I merely want to raise two questions. The first is: why on earth is such an amendment being moved at the last possible stage of the Bill? Surely something as obvious as this should have been spotted. Perhaps we should have spotted it, but, frankly, it is the Government's responsibility to spot these points, not that of the Opposition. So, why are we dealing with it now? We have only just seen it. Because there is no termination date it is open-ended. Clearly, these provisions are needed.
I hear what the Minister says and do not doubt for a moment that he means what he says. However, that is not in the amendment and therefore it will not be in the Act as it will become. I believe that we shall agree to this amendment tonight; we need to do so. However, I should be much happier if the Minister could give an assurance that, in the process that follows, this particular shortcoming in the amendment will be corrected in the other place so that a termination date is inserted.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I had an indication that this matter caused difficulty I did not expect the degree of concern that has been expressed in relation to this clause. It is not unusual in legislation in this House for transitional arrangements to appear quite late in the stages of a Bill. I recall various other pieces of legislation
678
emanating from both parties where that has happened. I shall not engage in banter with the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, were she to examine some of the legislation promoted by her party no doubt she would see similar arrangements.
Although I agree in general terms with the criticism about the tabling of late amendments, in this case that is not so. Transitional arrangements are, after all, put in as the last part of the jigsaw. I believe that people misread this new clause. It refers to appointments for which the Secretary of State does not currently have powers although he will need those powers under the interim arrangements in order to do the preparatory works to which my noble friend and the noble Baroness referred, such as setting up the finance, IT and property management systems, the personnel function and so on. Those appointments would need to be made. At present, neither the Secretary of State nor any other body has power to do that.
Clearly, there is a termination date in subsection (1), which states:
"the Secretary of State may, before they become so exercisable":
in other words, at the point where the GLA and other authorities take on these functions, the powers cease. There is a clear termination date in this clause which is related to the transitional period. I do not see how subsection (1) can be read as meaning anything else.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. We accept that before those powers become exercisable the Secretary of State will require such powers, but they continue. The Bill does not say that those powers will end. The appointments will continue. The point I sought to make was that when the mayor appeared these appointments might continue half-way through or during his term. This provision does not in any way indicate a limit.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can the Minister confirm that in many cases appointments would be made of those who are currently employees of the bodies to be subsumed by the new authority, and that if there were to be a hiatus in their employment not only would they lose their employment rights but they would suffer at that time because of a gap in their employment? If the Minister could give an assurance about limiting the appointments to, say, employees of the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Research Centre and so on many Members of this House would feel a good deal more comfortable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps that clarifies the position. Clearly, the mayor will take on employees of all kinds in the predecessor bodies. All this provision does is to say: first, that in the hiatus period when nobody would otherwise be the employer these people are effectively employed by the Secretary of State; and, secondly, that if there are additional appointments they will be made by the Secretary of State in that period. What happens to those employees thereafter, as with all other employees whom the mayor inherits, is a matter for the mayor and the personnel practices of the Greater

679
London Authority. Appointments will therefore continue unless and until they are terminated by the new authority, but in any case those concerned are in no different position from appointees of the predecessor bodies.
I gave the assurance earlier that any such appointments made in this hiatus period would be short term so far as concerns the senior staff. To illustrate the point raised by the noble Baroness, the staff of the London Research Unit would be among the appointments. I believe that we are reading too much into the clause—or not enough. We are reading too much in the suggestion that we are conjuring up the phantom of the Secretary of State appointing the whole of the staff of the GLA before the mayor has his foot in the door. It is fairly clear that this is a much more limited and short-term function. Subsection (1) simply gives the Secretary of State the powers to cover the hiatus period.
There is a clear termination date; and there is a clear continuity implied as a result of the insertion of this clause. Without this clause, there would be no continuity of employment for a number of people. London Transport is not affected by the clause. The preparation time which the transitional committee and the consultation document referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would not be able to occur. Were noble Lords not prepared to accept the clause, we should be in a serious limbo for the period immediately before the GLA comes into operation. That would be a pretty damaging thing for this House to do. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not pursue her opposition to the new clause.
9.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 36.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Crawley, B.

Addington, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ahmed, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Alli, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amos, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dixon, L.

Bach, L.

Donoughue, L.

Barker, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elder, L.

Blease, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brett, L.

Falkland, V.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Burlison, L.

Filkin, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gale, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Goldsmith, L.

Chandos, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Grabiner, L.

680

Grenfell, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Grey, E.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Hacking, L.

McNair, L.

Hamwee, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Monkswell, L.

Harrison, L.

Nicol, B.

Hayman, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Rennard,L

Hoyle, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Islwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lipsey, L.

Thornton, B.

Lockwood, B.

Tope, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tordoff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

[Teller]

Wilkins, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Astor of Hever,L.

Higgins, L.

Attlee, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northbrook, L

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Palmer, L.

Cross, V.

Rowallan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dundee, E.

Trenchard, V.

Fookes, B.

Weir,V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.6 p.m.
Clause 399 [Transfers of property, rights or liabilities]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 237, line 18, at end insert—

("( ) London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of London Regional Transport;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments relating to Clause 399 which clarify and amend the provisions which may be included in, and relate to the effect of, transfer or pension instruments relating to the establishment of the new bodies. Transfer of assets, rights and liabilities to the GLA will be a major exercise. In preparing these amendments we have worked closely with LRT and other bodies which will be involved in the transfer process. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 102:
Page 237, line 31, at end insert—

("( ) any company all the shares in which are held by a Minister of the Crown;").

Page 237. line 35, at end insert—

("( ) the Commission for the New Towns;").

Page 238, line 16, leave out ("the creation of rights or liabilities") and insert—

("(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property,

(b) the grant or creation of any other rights, or

(c) the imposition of liabilities,

in favour of, or on, any body or person falling within subsection (2) above or any body or person falling within subsection (3) above").
Page 238, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for transfers to take effect at such time of day as may be specified in the order.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 400 [Transfer schemes]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 239, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) A scheme under subsection (1) or (2) above may make any provision that may be made by order under subsection (1) of section 399 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 401 [Contracts of employment etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 239, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In this section—

(a) any reference to anything made or done by or in relation to the transferor includes a reference to anything which is treated by virtue of any enactment as having been made or done by or in relation to the transferor; and

(b) any reference to an employee's period of employment with the transferor shall be construed accordingly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 402 [Pensions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 105 to 113:
Page 239, line 44, leave out ("employees, or persons who") and insert ("persons who are or").
Page 240, line 22, at end insert—

("( ) the alteration or winding up of any pension scheme or pension fund, whether in whole or in part;

( ) the variation of any trust;

( ) the transfer of the whole or any part of any pension fund or of any rights, obligations or liabilities under a pension scheme;

( ) the persons by whom any function under or relating to the scheme is to be exercisable;").

Page 240, line 31, at end insert—

("(the amendment of a pension scheme;").

Page 240, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (1) above may amend—

(a) the trust deed of any pension scheme;

(b) the rules of any such scheme; or

(c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of any such scheme;

682
and any reference in this section to the amendment of a pension scheme includes a reference to the amendment of any such trust deed, rules or other instrument.").
Page 240, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) An order under this section may only be made after consultation with the trustees or managers, or the administrators, of any pension fund or pension scheme to which the order relates.").
Page 240, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) An order under this section may be made so as to have effect from a date prior to the making of the order.").
Page 241, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (London Regional Transport pension etc schemes) to this Act (which makes provision in relation to schemes for the provision of pensions or other benefits for or in respect of employees etc of London Regional Transport and its subsidiaries) shall have effect.").
Page 241, line 4, at end insert—

(""instrument" includes an enactment or any subordinate legislation;").

Page 241, line 14, at end insert—

(""pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme, as defined in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 403 [Transfer and pension instruments: common provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 114 to 122:
Page 241, line 17, at end insert ("; and

(b) rights and liabilities under enactments.").

Page 241, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) No right to terminate or vary a contract or instrument shall operate or become exercisable, and no provision of a contract or relevant document, shall operate or become exercisable or be contravened by reason of any transfer by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument.").
Page 241, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For purposes connected with any transfers made by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument (including the transfer of rights and liabilities under an enactment) a body or person to which anything is transferred by virtue of the instrument is to be treated as the same person in law as the body or person from which it is transferred, except as otherwise provided in the instrument.").
Page 241, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
Page 242, line 36, leave out subsections (13) and (14).
Page 242, line 44, after ("subsection") insert ("(2) or").
Page 242, line 44, after ("above") insert (", and

(b) of the trustees or managers, or administrators, of any pension scheme,").

Page 242, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Where any person is entitled, in consequence of any transfer made by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument, to possession of a document relating in part to the title to, or to the management of, any land or other property in England and Wales—

(a) the instrument may contain provision for treating that person as having given another person an acknowledgment in writing of the right of that other person to the production of the document and to delivery of copies thereof; and

(b) section 64 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (production and safe custody of documents) shall have effect accordingly, and on the basis that the acknowledgment did not contain any such expression of contrary intention as is mentioned in that section.").

683
Page 243, line 1, after ("section") insert—

(""relevant document" means—

(a) any enactment, other than an enactment contained in this Act;

(b) any subordinate legislation made otherwise than under this Act; or

(c) any deed or other instrument;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 123 and 124:
After Clause 403, insert the following new clause—

MODIFICATION OF TRANSFER OR PENSION INSTRUMENTS
(" .—(1) If, at any time after a transfer or pension instrument has come into force, a Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to do so, he may by order provide that the instrument shall for all purposes be deemed to have come into force with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make such provision as could have been made by the transfer or pension instrument.
(3) An order under subsection (1) above may only be made after the requisite consultation.
(4) If, at any time after a scheme under section 400 above has come into force, a Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to do so, he may by directions require a body or person falling within subsection (2) of section 399 above to prepare modifications to the scheme of such a description as may be specified in the directions.
(5) Where a body or person is required to prepare any modifications under subsection (4) above, the body or person shall submit the modifications to the Minister for his approval before such date as he may direct.
(6) Where any modifications are submitted under subsection (5) above, the Minister may approve them with or without amendment.
(7) Approval under subsection (5) above shall only be given after the requisite consultation.
(8) An approval under subsection (5) above shall take effect on such date as the Minister may specify in giving the approval.
(9) Where any modifications are made and approved under the preceding provisions of this section, whether with or without amendment, the scheme shall for all purposes be deemed to have come into force with those modifications, subject to any such amendment.
(10) For the purposes of this section, "the requisite consultation"—

(a) if or to the extent that the transfer or pension instrument concerned makes provision by virtue of the pension powers of this Part, is consultation with the trustees or managers, or the administrators, of any pension scheme affected; and

(b) if or to the extent that the transfer or pension instrument concerned makes provision otherwise than by virtue of the pension powers of this Part, is consultation with any body which, or person who, the Minister considers may be affected.

(11) In this section—

"approval" means approval in writing;

"the pension powers of this Part" means—

(a) in the case of a scheme, section 400(6) above; and

(b) in the case of an order, section 402 above;

"transfer or pension instrument" has the same meaning as in section 403 above.").

After Clause 403, insert the following new clause—

FOREIGN PROPERTY, RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES: PERFECTION OF VESTING
(" .—(1) This section applies in any case where a transfer or pension instrument provides for the transfer of any foreign property, rights or liabilities.
(2) It shall be the duty of the transferor and the transferee to take, as and when the transferee considers appropriate, all such steps as may be requisite to secure that the vesting in the transferee by virtue of the transfer or pension instrument of any foreign property, right or liability is effective under the relevant foreign law.
(3) Until the vesting in the transferee, by virtue of the transfer or pension instrument, of any foreign property, right or liability is effective under the relevant foreign law, it shall be the duty of the transferor to hold that property or right for the benefit of, or to discharge that liability on behalf of, the transferee.
(4) Nothing in subsections (2) and (3) above shall be taken as prejudicing the effect under the law of any part of the United Kingdom of the vesting in the transferee by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument of any foreign property, right or liability.
(5) The transferor shall have all such powers as may be requisite for the performance of his duty under this section, but it shall be the duty of the transferee to act on behalf of the transferor (so far as possible) in performing the duty imposed on the transferor by this section.
(6) References in this section to any foreign property, right or liability are references to any property, right or liability as respects which any issue arising in any proceedings would have been determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(7) Duties imposed on the transferor or the transferee by this section shall be enforceable in the same way as if the duties were imposed by a contract between the transferor and the transferee.
(8) Any expenses incurred by the transferor under this section shall be met by the transferee.
(9) In this section "transfer or pension instrument" has the same meaning as in section 403 above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 404, insert the following new clause—

REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
(".—(1) Where—

(a) provision is made by or under this Act for the repeal and re-enactment (with or without modifications) of any provision of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, and

(b) the provision as re-enacted ("the new provision") comes into force before the repeal of the provision of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 ("the old provision"),

subsection (2) below shall apply.
(2) Where this subsection applies, the provision that may be made by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of any power to make transitional provision by order under any provision of this Part includes power to make provision—

(a) for any reference to the old provision in any relevant document to be construed as, or as including, a reference to the new provision, or

(b) for anything made or done, or having effect as if made or done, under or by virtue of the old provision, to have effect, to the extent that it could have been made or done under or by virtue of the new provision, as if made or done under or by virtue of the new provision,

notwithstanding that the repeal of the old provision has not come into force.
(3) In subsection (2) above "relevant document" means—

(a) any enactment;

(b) any instrument made under an enactment;

(c) any deed or other instrument;

(d) any agreement;

(e) any document not falling within the other paragraphs of this subsection.

(4) An order under subsection (2) above may make provision—

(a) in relation to all provisions falling within subsection (1)(b) above or such of those provisions as may be specified or described in the order; and

(b) generally or in relation to such cases or circumstances, or such relevant documents or descriptions of relevant documents, as may be so specified or described.

(5) Subsections (6) to (8) below have effect in relation to any agreement made by London Regional Transport under or by virtue of paragraph (a) of section 3(2A) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (whether or not the agreement is a transport subsidiary's agreement or has effect as if made under or by virtue of section 156(3) of this Act by Transport for London).
(6) In the case of any such agreement—

(a) no provision of the agreement shall operate or cease to have effect, and

(b) no rights under the agreement shall operate or become exercisable,

by reason only that a statutory duty exercisable by any body or person ("the predecessor") becomes exercisable instead by another body or person ("the transferee") in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act for the repeal and re-enactment (with or without modifications) of the provision imposing the statutory duty.
(7) Accordingly, any such agreement shall continue in force and have effect as if the predecessor and the transferee were in law the same person and as if there had been no change in the body or person by whom the statutory duty is exercisable.
(8) In any such agreement, or any agreement made in connection with such an agreement, any reference to London Regional Transport's duties under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 shall be taken as including a reference to the corresponding duties of Transport for London or the Authority (whether acting by the Mayor, the Assembly or the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly) under this Act.
(9) This section is without prejudice to—

(a) any power conferred by any other provision of this Act; and

(b) sections 15 to 17 of the Interpretation Act 1978.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 408 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 126 and 127:
Page 247, line 12, at end insert—

("section (Modification of transfer or pension instruments);").

Page 247, line 13, at end insert—

("paragraph 8A(1)(b) of Schedule 17;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 412 [Interpretation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 249, line 10, at end insert—

(""transport subsidiary's agreement" has the meaning given by section (Meaning of transport subsidiary's agreement)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of the Representation of the People Acts]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 129:
686
Page 267, line 37, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 39 and insert (", as respects that election, be disqualified from being elected or being the Mayor of London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Promotion of Bills in Parliament by the Authority]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 133:
Page 279, line 14, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 279, line 14, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
Page 279, line 17, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 279, line 18, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments of the Audit Commission Act 1998]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 140:
Page 286, line 8, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority)").
Page 286, line 28, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
Page 286, line 34, leave out from ("of) to ("Part") in line 35 and insert ("each of the following bodies, namely—

(a) Transport for London,

(b) the London Development Agency,

(c) the London Pensions Fund Authority,").

Page 286, line 36, leave out ("authority") and insert ("body").
Page 289, line 4, at end insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
Page 289, line 7, leave out ("functional").
Page 289, line 15, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Miscellaneous powers of Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 141 to 147:
Page 297, line 10, after ("Act") insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 299, line 47, at end insert ("or of any transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 300, line 28, after ("Act") insert ("or under a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 300, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("or of a transport subsidiary's agreement falling within section (Meaning of transport subsidiary's agreement) (3) above").
Page 302, line 20, at beginning insert ("Subject to subparagraphs (1A) and (1B) below,").
Page 302, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to any landing place for which the Port of London Authority have power to make byelaws under section 161 of the Port of London Act 1968 (byelaws for port premises).
(1B) No byelaw made by Transport for London under sub-paragraph (1) above shall conflict or interfere with the operation of any byelaw made by the Port of London Authority under section 162(1)(b) or (e) of the Port of London Act 1968 (Thames byelaws).").
Page 303, line 38, at end insert ("or of any transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Transport for London transfer schemes]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 304, line 18, leave out (", and no right to terminate or vary a contract,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it. These amendments do the parallel job in relation to post-establishment transfers to the previous block of amendments. They seek to amend Schedule 12 in order to ensure that the transfers respect contractual and other arrangements that are in place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 149 to 152:
Page 304, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) No right to terminate or vary a contract or instrument shall operate or become exercisable, and no provision of a contract or relevant document shall operate or become exercisable or be contravened, by reason of any transfer by virtue of a transfer scheme or by virtue of an instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme.").
Page 304, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
("(3) For purposes connected with any transfers (including transfers of rights and liabilities under an enactment) made by virtue of a transfer scheme, or by virtue of an instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme, a body or person to which anything is transferred by any such transfer is to be treated as the same person in law as the body or person from which that thing is transferred, except as otherwise provided in the transfer scheme, instrument or agreement.").
Page 304, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Page 304, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In this paragraph, "relevant document" means—

(a) any enactment, other than an enactment contained in this Act;

(b) any subordinate legislation made otherwise than under this Act; or

(c) any deed or other instrument.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Promotion of Bills in Parliament by Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 153 to 156:
Page 309, line 17, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 309, line 17, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
Page 309, line 20, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 309, line 21, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16 [The free travel scheme]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 322, line 51, at end insert ("or who has entered into a transport subsidiary's agreement)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Penalty fares]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 158 and 159:
Page 324, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
688
Page 325, line 31, after ("Act") insert (", or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 329, line 18, at end insert—
("Power to apply Schedule to certain other train services
8A.—(1) This paragraph applies to any services for the carriage of passengers by railway which do not fall within paragraph 2(1) above but which—

(a) are provided wholly within Greater London; and

(b) are services, or services of a class or description, designated in an order made by the Secretary of State as services in relation to which this paragraph is to apply;

and in the following provisions of this paragraph any such services are referred to as "qualifying train services".
(2) The Mayor may, on the application of a person who provides qualifying train services, by order provide that this Schedule shall apply, from such date and with such modifications as may be specified in the order, to qualifying train services provided by that person.
(3) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) above includes power, exercisable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and limitations, to revoke, amend or re-enact any such order.
(4) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (3) above, an order under sub-paragraph (2) above may specify circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect before the expiry of any period specified in such an order.
(5) An order under sub-paragraph (2) above, and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting such an order, may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as may appear to the Mayor to be necessary or expedient.
(6) Where a person makes an application for an order under sub-paragraph (2) above, or for an order revoking, amending or re-enacting such an order, the Mayor may recover from that person payments in respect of the administrative costs reasonably incurred in connection with—

(a) the application, and

(b) if an order is made as a result of the application, the making of the order,

not exceeding £5,000 in the aggregate.
(7) The Mayor shall secure that any order under sub-paragraph (2) above, and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting any such order, is printed and published.
(8) A fee may be charged for the sale of an order printed and published under sub-paragraph (7) above.
(9) Where any services become qualifying services by virtue of an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, any order which—

(a) is contained in a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State,

(b) makes provision for or in connection with the imposition of penalty fares on passengers travelling on those services, and

(c) is in force immediately before this paragraph begins to apply to the services by virtue of the order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above,

may, so far as relating to those services, be revoked under this paragraph as if it were an order under sub-paragraph (2) above.
(10) This paragraph applies in relation to a tramway as it applies in relation to a railway.
(11) In this paragraph "railway" and "tramway" have the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 161:
After Schedule 21, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE STOPPING UP ORDERS BY LONDON COUNCILS

  Highways Act 1980
  1.—(1) Section 125 of the Highways Act 1980 (further powers to stop up private access to premises) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) after "Minister" there shall be inserted "or London Borough".
  (3) In subsection (4) after "Minister" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of a London borough".

  2. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.

  Highways affected by development: orders
  3.—(1) Section 247 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (Secretary of State's power to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway) after "highway" there shall be inserted "outside Greater London".
  (3) In subsection (2) (Secretary of State's power to provide or improve other highways) after "highway" there shall be inserted "outside Greater London".
  (4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) The council of a London borough may by order authorise the stopping up or diversion of any highway within the borough, or within another London borough if the council of that borough consents, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out—

  (a) in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III, or

  (b) by a government department.

  (2B) Such an order may make such provision as appears to the council to be necessary or expedient for the provision or improvement of any other highway within the borough.".
  (5) In subsection (3) (orders directing that highway to be maintainable at public expense etc) for "Such an order" there shall be substituted "An order under subsection (1) or (2A)".
  (6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) An order under subsection (2A) may not provide that—

  (a) the Secretary of State

  (b) Transport for London, or

  (c) a London borough other than the one whose council is making the order,

  shall be the highway authority for a highway unless the Secretary of State, Transport for London or the council, as the case may be, so consents.".
  (7) In subsection (4) (incidental provision in an order) after "Secretary of State" in both places where it occurs there shall be inserted "or the council of the London borough".
  (8) In subsection (6)(a) (order making power to be without prejudice other similar powers) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or a London borough".

  Highways crossing or entering route of proposed new highway
  4.—(1) Section 248 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (Secretary of State's power to stop up or divert a highway affected by construction or improvement of another highway) after ''applies" there shall be inserted "and the place where the other highway crosses or enters the route of the main highway or is otherwise affected is outside Greater London".
  (3) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) Where this section applies and the place where the other highway crosses or enters the route of the main highway or is otherwise affected is within a London borough, if it appears to the council of that borough expedient to do so—

  (a) in the interests of the safety of users of the main highway; or

  (b) to facilitate the movement of traffic on the main highway,

  it may by order authorise the stopping up or diversion of the other highway.".
  (4) In subsection (3) (application of section 247 to orders under section 248)—

  (a) after "Subsections (2)" there shall be inserted "and (2B)",

  (b) for "subsection (2)" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (2B)".

  Order extinguishing right to use vehicles on highway
  5.—(1) Section 249 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(b) (cases where section 249 applies) after "trunk road" there shall be inserted ", a GLA road".
  (3) At the beginning of subsection (2) (Secretary of State's power to extinguish rights to use a highway affected by improvement of amenity of area) there shall be inserted "Where the public is to cease to have such a right of way at a place outside Greater London,".
  (4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) Where—

  (a) the public is to cease to have such a right of way at a place within a London borough, and

  (b) the conditions mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) or (b) are satisfied,

  the council of that borough may by order provide for the extinguishment of any right which persons may have to use vehicles on that highway.
  (2B) The conditions are that—

  (a) the council is a local planning authority for the place where the right of way is to cease and it resolves that the right should be extinguished, or

  (b) another authority is a local planning authority for that place and, having resolved to do so, it applies to the council of the borough for the right to be extinguished.".

  (5) In subsection (3) (power to provide for continuance of specified rights on highway where general right of use is extinguished)—

  (a) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)", and

  (b) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".

  (6) In subsection (5) (order under section 249 not to be prejudiced by any other enactment) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".
  (7) In subsection (6) (revocation of order under section 249 upon application by local planning authority)—

  (a) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)",

  (b) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the borough",

  (c) for "he" in the first place where it occurs there shall be substituted "the Secretary of State or council", and

  (d) for "he does so" there shall be substituted "the order is revoked".

  (8) In subsection (8) (requirement for local planning authority to consult before applying for order to be revoked) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted ", (2A)".
  (9) In subsection (9) (application of section 247 to order made under section 249) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted (2B)".

  Compensation for orders under section 249
  6.—(1) Section 250 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (right to compensation for those with an interest in land affected by an order under section 249) after "section 249(2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".

  Procedure for making of orders
  7.—(1) Section 252 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (requirement to publicise proposals in certain newspapers)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of a London borough", and

  (b) after "Secretary of State" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".".

  (3) In subsection (2) (requirement to serve details of proposals on certain local and other authorities) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".
  (4) In subsection (3) (requirement to display details of proposals at highway concerned) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".
  (5) In subsection (4) (requirement to hold local inquiry if objection made)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough,

  (b) for "him" there shall be substituted "to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the council", and

  (c) for "unless subsection (5) applies the Secretary of State shall cause a local inquiry to be held" there shall be substituted—

  "(a) in a case where the Secretary of State is proposing to make an order, he shall cause a local inquiry to be held unless subsection (5) applies, or

  (b) in a case where the council of a London borough is proposing to make an order, it shall notify the Mayor of London of the objections and shall cause a local inquiry to be held unless subsection (5A) applies.".

  (6) In subsection (5) (power to dispense with local inquiry in certain circumstances) after "where" there shall be inserted "the Secretary of State is proposing to make an order and".
  (7) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
  "(5A) In a case where—

  (a) the council of a London borough is proposing to make the order,

  (b) the council has under subsection (4)(b) notified the Mayor of London of the objections, and

  (c) none of the objections notified is made by such a local authority or undertakers or transporter as are mentioned in that subsection,

  the Mayor of London shall decide whether, in the special circumstances of the case, the holding of such an inquiry is unnecessary, and if he decides that it is unnecessary he shall so notify the council which may dispense with the inquiry."
  (8) In subsection (6) (application of other statutory provisions to local inquiry held under section 252) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough".
  (9) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
  "(6A) In their application to an inquiry caused to be held by the council of a London borough—
  692

  (a) subsection (4) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall be treated as if—

  (i) for the reference to a Minister there were substituted a reference to the council of a London borough,

  (ii) for the reference to him there were substituted a reference to the council,

  (iii) for the reference to he there were substituted a reference to the council acting with the consent of the Mayor of London, and

  (iv) for the references to the Minister there were substituted references to the council of the London borough, and

  (b) subsection (5) of that section shall be treated as if—

  (i) for the reference to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the council of a London borough, and

  (ii) the power to make to make an order as to the costs of parties were subject to a requirement to act with the consent of the Mayor of London.

  (10) In subsection (8) (making of order) before "After" there shall be inserted "Where the Secretary of State is proposing to make an order,".
  (11) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
  "(8A) Where the council of a London borough is proposing to make an order, after—

  (a) considering any objections to the order which are not withdrawn, and

  (b) where a local inquiry is held—

  (i) considering the report of the person who held the inquiry, and

  (ii) obtaining the consent of the Mayor of London to the making of the order,

  the council may, subject to subsection (9), make the order either without modification or subject to such modification as it thinks fit.".
  (12) In subsection (10) (requirement to publicise making of order) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".
  (13) After subsection (10) there shall be inserted—
  "(10A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall require the council of a London borough to serve anything on itself."

  Procedure in anticipation of planning permission
  8.—(1) Section 253 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (power to publish certain orders in draft before planning permissions making the orders necessary are granted)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough", and

  (b) after "Secretary of State" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".

  (3) In subsection (5) (saving of restriction on power to make order until planning permission granted) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough".

  Temporary highway orders: mineral workings
  9.—(1) Section 261 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (Secretary of State's power to order stopping up or diversion of highway for working of minerals)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough", and

  693

  (b) after "him" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be. the council".

  (3) In subsection (3) (additional provision in order under section 261)—

  (a) for "or, as the case may be," there shall be substituted ", the council of the London borough or", and

  (b) after "authority" there shall be inserted "(as the case may be)".")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in response to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, with regard to a new schedule which would provide for the devolution of stopping-up order powers to London boroughs. I undertook to clarify the situation and to return to the matter at Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Earl for identifying a potential defect in the schedule.
  Having considered carefully the points raised by the noble Earl, we have agreed that two of them—namely, those related to costs at inquiries and confirmation by the mayor—require the wording to be revised. I have written to the noble Earl explaining why we do not consider that the other matters require changes to the text. Copies of that letter have been placed in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for two things. First, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take away the amendment on Report. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I am grateful to him for recognising that the drafting may have been defective because I should not wish to develop a reputation for falsely making such claims. I have residual concerns but I think we need to move on and I am content.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 22 [Road user charging]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 162:
  Page 349, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(5) In applying the net proceeds of charging schemes, the Authority, Transport for London or London borough councils, as the case may be, shall have regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 165. They are two pairs of amendments to Schedules 22 and 23, the schedules which deal with the congestion charging and workplace parking charges.
  I have given the Minister notice of my concerns which have led to the tabling of the amendments. The amendments seek to delete from the paragraphs in the schedules dealing with the applications of the proceeds of the schemes that they may be applied only for purposes which provide value for money. That is not because we on these Benches are against value for money; far from it. But we are concerned that as there is no definition of "value for money", to provide such a requirement seems to open up the possibilities of challenges to the schemes on a fairly subjective basis. We should not wish to see schemes which should be supported threatened in, perhaps, a rather mischievous fashion.
  I have tabled amendments to provide alternatives; namely, that the bodies concerned should have regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999. As your Lordships will recall, that is the Act which requires local authorities to achieve best value. "Best value" is, of course, defined and dealt with at some length within that legislation. It seemed to me that that is perhaps a better way in which to approach the matter rather than having an unspecific requirement in relation to value for money.
  Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House how value for money will be assessed in the context of the Bill; what discretion the authority, Transport for London and the boroughs will have, given that they must achieve value for money, as undefined; and also, and importantly, what steps are open to a member of the public who does not believe that value for money is being achieved by the scheme in question; and if there is such a challenge, what effect that may have on a scheme generating income.
  As I said, we are not at all against value for money. But we believe that the matter needs to be dealt with in a way which is certain. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand the point which the noble Baroness makes but I do not consider that her amendments advance that argument. On the one hand, the deletion of references to "value for money" would mean that there were no criteria, even in the broad brush terms which "value for money" suggests, against which those schemes could be judged. Clearly, the setting of financial performance targets and recording achievement against those targets through an independent audit process ensures that local residents receive information and quality services as a result. Therefore, we need to keep some reference to that.
  The duty of best value already applies to all the authorities under the Local Government Act 1999. The wording in that Act is more stringent than that proposed by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. The GLA, Transport for London, the borough councils and so forth are already subject to the best value regime and do not simply have to have regard to that regime.
  The present position, with reference to the Local Government Act, is a clearer and a more consistent position than the combination of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question about what steps are open to a member of the public who challenges a scheme on best value for money. Perhaps the Minister can help me further.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of making challenges, it is a question of what information is available to a member of the public or anybody else to check whether the local authority is performing against the criteria which may well be set by an independent audit process. The remedies to that are, by and large. through the ballot box, unless we are talking about an actual breach of fiduciary duty, or something of that nature. That is covered by existing legislation.

  695
  Of course, there are powers available to the Secretary of State, of which the noble Baroness is well aware, to give a member of the public such information and, therefore, the ability to judge objectively the performance of the council in the light of that information. That is important.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, of course I accept that targets, performance indicators, proper auditing and so on are important matters. I do not challenge any of those. I suspect that the best value duty would apply whether we said this or not. I am still left with the fact that I do not understand what "value for money" means if there is a best value duty. I fear there may be an inconsistency as a result of including the provision. I hope that I am not proved right. I fear a problem. However, I have heard the assurances of the Minister, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Schedule 23 [Workplace parking levy]:
  [Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 166, I have to inform the House that on Division No. 4, on Amendment No. 72, the numbers who voted Not Content were 133 and not 134 as previously announced.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 166:
  Page 368, line 7, at end insert—

  Evidence
  . Regulations may make provision for or in connection with permitting evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence under this Schedule, or proceedings in respect of a failure to comply with the provisions of a licensing scheme, to be given by the production of—

  (a) a record produced by a prescribed device; and

  (b) a certificate (whether in the same or another document) as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a prescribed person.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 166 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to determine what will be admissible as evidence in civil and criminal proceedings where workplace parking charges have not been complied with, on the assumption that the mayor would proceed with such a scheme.
  An identical provision is already included in relation to road-user charging and this amendment continues the provision across to workplace parking levies. It will ensure that the evidence that can be presented in a court of law is well-founded. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 24 [Further amendments of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 374. line 29, at end insert—
  ("(7) In paragraph 5(1) (section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 to apply to employees of regional development agencies) at the end there shall be added "other than the London Development Agency (for whose employees corresponding provision is made by section 382(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999)".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) moved Amendments Nos.168–171:
  Page 375, line 40, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
  Page 375, line 40, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
  Page 375, line 43, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
  Page 375, line 44, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 25 [The Metropolitan Police Authority: Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 172.
  Page 377, line 24, leave out ("3(1)") and insert ("3(1A)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitate to say so, following our earlier debates on transition, but this and Amendment No. 177 are two very minor amendments.
  Amendment No. 172 corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 25 to the Bill that needs updating following the consequential amendment passed at Report. The consequential amendment in question, Amendment No.538D, added a new sub-paragraph (1A) to paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the 1996 Police Act, which made specific provision for the MPA independent member selection panel. In particular, it removed the age limit of 70 for membership of that panel, following our removal of age limits for membership of the MPA itself. This new subparagraph (1A) is referred to in what is now paragraph 106(6) of Schedule 26.
  Paragraph 3 of Schedule 25 makes provision for the appointment of independent members of the MPA. In sub-paragraph (6) there is a cross-reference to the independent member selection panel provisions in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the 1996 Act. At present the reference is to paragraph 3(1), but, following the amendment that has been made to that paragraph, the cross-reference should now be to paragraph 3(1A) rather than to paragraph 3(1). Amendment No. 172 rectifies that mistake.
  Amendment No. 177 is a very tiny drafting change to paragraph 104 of Schedule 26 to the Bill, which covers the national and international functions of the Met. In new Section 96B(1), inserted into the Police Act 1996 by that paragraph, there is a repetitious reference to Section 6(1) of the 1996 Act. Amendment No.177 removes that extra reference, which is unnecessary. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No.173.
  Page 384, line 3. lease out ("follows") and insert ("set out in sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) below").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage a number of government amendments were agreed that made changes to the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967. That Act governs the payment of pensions and other benefits to staff who are in the Metropolitan Civil Staffs' Superannuation Scheme (MCSSS).
  In moving those amendments I said that our policy was clear: first, that everyone who had entitlements to benefits under that scheme should retain those entitlements when the Metropolitan Police Authority was established and it took on the employment of the Metropolitan Police civil staff from the Metropolitan Commissioner and Receiver; and, secondly, that the MPA should have the power to continue operation of that scheme.
  I also explained that the amendments were complex and that we might wish to make some changes to them at Third Reading. We have concluded that the wording could be improved upon and we are accordingly moving this group of four related amendments, Amendments Nos.l73–176.
  Before I explain what the amendments do, I should like to emphasise that they simply give better effect to the above-stated policy. They do not alter that policy. No one will lose benefits as a result of these changes.
  In making amendments to the 1967 Act to reflect the creation of the MPA, we need to ensure that all individuals who are currently employed or have been employed either under the Commissioner or Receiver or as an Inner London justices' clerk, but who are not so employed on 3rd July 2000, do not lose any benefits to which they have become entitled under the MCSSS scheme.
  The amendments passed at Report attempted to achieve this by including such staff as well as staff who on 3rd July 2000 are Inner London justices' clerks or who become MPA employees within the definition of a "member of the metropolitan civil staffs". Those are the people to whom benefits become payable under the MCSSS.
  The difficulty with this approach is that it makes for a confusing definition of who is a,
  "member of the metropolitan civil staffs".
  In particular, it combines both the present and past tenses whereas the definition in the existing Section 15 of the 1967 Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act uses only the present tense. This mixture of tenses could have had unwanted side effects. We therefore decided on a slightly different approach. This approach is to have a new definition of,
  "member of the metropolitan civil staffs",
  which relates solely to current employees. It is confined to MPA employees and serving Inner London magistrates' courts staff. This is achieved by Amendment No. 174.
  The entitlement to benefits accrued under the MCSSS by staff who are not current employees on 3rd July 2000 and who are not therefore within this definition will instead be preserved by savings provided for in this group of amendments. These savings are set out in Amendment No. 176, which adds four new sub-paragraphs to paragraph 20 of Schedule 26. New sub-paragraph (10) defines the set of staff who will benefit from these savings provisions; namely, persons who cease to be members of the metropolitan civil staffs before what will be Section 305 of the Greater London Authority Act comes into force. That provision is the one which establishes the MPA. Any such staff who have entitlements to benefits under the MCSSS will, by virtue of new sub-paragraph (7), continue to receive their benefits as if the changes made to Section 15 of the 1967 Act had not taken place.
  Sub-paragraph (8) simply provides that any benefits paid to that category of staff will be paid by the MPA, not by the receiver. Sub-paragraph (9) provides for the limited circumstances under which this category of staff might be moved off the MCSSS. Those circumstances are if they are transferred under powers in the Access to Justice Act or the Greater London Authority Act, which would most likely happen if they were to be transferred to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. As the MCSSS is by-analogy to the PCSPS, this would not result in any loss of benefits.
  Amendment No. 173 is purely consequential upon Amendment No. 176. The final amendment in this group is Amendment No. 175. This plugs a minor gap in new subsection (2D) of Section 15 of the 1967 Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, as inserted by the amendments passed on Report. That subsection sets out the limited circumstances under which staff might be moved off the MCSSS. One of those circumstances is if powers in the Access to Justice Act are exercised to transfer Inner London justices' clerks on to a new pension scheme. As presently drafted, subsection (2D) identifies one power which could be used to effect such a transfer—paragraph 36 of Schedule 14. However, it is also possible that an order-making power contained in the new Section 50 of the 1997 Justices of the Peace Act, as inserted by paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 to the Access to Justice Act, might be used. Amendment No. 175 therefore adds this reference.
  I hope that the above provides a reasonably clear explanation of what these amendments achieve. I know your Lordships followed every word. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the Minister's explanation. These are important issues. We are discussing people's pensions and we are grateful for the effort the Minister made in explaining the need for the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 177:
  Page 384, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("for sub-paragraph (i) there shall be substituted—

  "(i) who is employed by the Metropolitan Police Authority;".").

  Page 384, line 39, after ("1972,") insert ("section 50 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997,").
  Page 384, line 52, at end insert—
  ("(7) Nothing in sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) above shall affect the application of section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 in relation to any person falling within subparagraph (10) below.
  (8) A pension or other benefit granted or continued to be paid to or in respect of a person by virtue of sub-paragraph (7) above shall be granted or paid by the Metropolitan Police Authority, and accordingly section 15(2)(a) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 shall not apply in relation to such a person.
  (9) Section 15(2)(b) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 shall apply in relation to a person falling within sub-paragraph (10) below as if for the words from the beginning to "in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs" there were substituted—

  "(b) unless the powers conferred by paragraph 36 of Schedule 14 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 or Part XII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are exercised for the purpose of making provision with respect to the provision of pensions for or in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs, the civil service provisions shall have effect (subject to any regulations for the time being in force under subsection (3) of this section) for the purposes of the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section to or in respect of such a member".

  (10) A person falls within this sub-paragraph if he ceased to be a member of the metropolitan civil staffs for the purposes of section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 before the day on which section 305 above comes into force.").
  Page 399, line 28, leave out ("6(1)") and insert ("6").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  Schedule 30 [Transfer schemes]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 178 and 179:
  Page 420, line 17, at end insert—
  ("( ) A transfer scheme may make provision for transfers to take effect at such time of day as may be specified in the scheme.").
  Page 421, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) A transfer scheme may make different provision for different purposes.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 180:
  After Schedule 30, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT PENSION ETC SCHEMES

  Interpretation
  1.—(1) In this Schedule—

  "employment" means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) and related expressions shall be construed accordingly;

  700

  "LRT pension scheme" means any occupational pension scheme for the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons with service in the employment of London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport (whether or not pensions may also be provided under the scheme for or in respect of persons without such service);

  "LRT welfare scheme" means a scheme (other than a pension scheme) for the provision, whether directly or indirectly, of benefits for or in respect of persons with service in the employment of London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport (whether or not benefits may also be provided under the scheme for or in respect of persons without such service);

  "occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given in section I of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;

  "order" means an order made by the Secretary of State under section 402(1) of this Act;

  "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order.

  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, expressions used in this Schedule and in section 402 of this Act have the same meaning in this Schedule as they have in that section.
  Amendment of LRT pension schemes
  2.—(1) In the case of any LRT pension scheme, the provision that may be made by order under section 402(1) of this Act includes provision for or in connection with—

  (a) the allocation of assets, rights, liabilities or obligations between different sections of the scheme;

  (b) securing that the scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments, notwithstanding any transfers made by or under this Act.

  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the relevant enactments" means—

  (a) Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes); and

  (b) Part III of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, so far as relating to occupational pension schemes.

  Protection of pension arrangements of transferred employees
  3.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph. a "protected person" is a person—

  (a) who, as a result of any prescribed relevant transaction. becomes, or since 20th March 1998 has become, an employee of a private sector company; and

  (b) who, immediately before becoming such an employee, was an employee of London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the purpose of securing that no protected person (and, accordingly, no person who is or may become entitled to a pension in respect of a protected person) ceases to be overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of—

  (a) the relevant transaction by reason of which the protected person is such a person; or

  (b) any pensions order made in connection with that relevant transaction.

  (3) The provision that may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above is provision for the purpose of securing that a protected person has the right—

  (a) for so long as the appropriate conditions are satisfied, to continue to participate as a contributing member in any prescribed LRT pension scheme in which he was participating as such a member immediately before the relevant transaction, and

  (b) for so long as his period of continuous employment is not broken, to participate as a contributing member in a pension scheme under which the benefits to be provided to or in respect of him are overall materially at least as

  701
  good as those provided under any prescribed LRT scheme in which he was participating as a contributing member immediately before the relevant transaction,

  subject to any provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (6) below.
  (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, "the appropriate conditions" are—

  (a) that the protected person continues to be a person employed in the London underground railway industry (whether or not with the same employer); and

  (b) that any prescribed conditions with respect to continuity of employment are satisfied in his case.

  (5) The provision that may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above includes provision for or in connection with the level of funding which is to be maintained in the case of any pension scheme of a prescribed description so far as relating to protected persons.
  (6) An order made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above may make provision for such orders to cease to have effect in the case of any protected person if—

  (a) he voluntarily withdraws from an occupational pension scheme, or

  (b) he requests that his pension rights be transferred from an occupational pension scheme,

  except in such circumstances or to such extent as may be prescribed.
  (7) Circumstances may be prescribed in which—

  (a) a break in the continuity of a person's period of employment,

  (b) a person's ceasing to be a person employed in the London underground railway industry, or

  (c) a person's voluntary withdrawal from an occupational pension scheme,

  shall be disregarded for prescribed purposes of this paragraph.
  (8) Chapter I of Part XIV of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (continuous employment) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
  (9) For the purposes of this paragraph—

  (a) the persons who are to be regarded as "employed in the London underground railway industry" are those who are employed to carry on activities of a class or description specified for the purposes of this subparagraph in an order made by the Secretary of State; and

  (b) the Secretary of State may so specify any class or description of activity which, in his opinion, falls within, or is related to or connected with, the London underground railway industry.

  (10) In this paragraph—

  "contributing member", in the case of any pension scheme, means a member who makes, and whose employer makes in respect of him, contributions under the scheme;

  "pensions order" means an order made otherwise than by virtue of this paragraph;

  "private sector company" means any company other than a public sector operator, within the meaning of Chapter VII of Part IV of this Act;

  "relevant transaction" means—

  (a) a transfer of shares in a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to a private sector company; or

  (b) a transfer of rights and liabilities under a contract of employment.

  Power to dispense with consent of trustees
  4. If the Secretary of State makes provision under this Act for or in connection with—

  (a) enabling employees of Transport for London, or of a subsidiary of Transport for London, to participate in an LRT pension scheme, or

  (b) enabling Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London to participate as an employer in such a scheme,

  he may by order make provision requiring the trustees of the scheme or any other person whose approval or consent is necessary in connection with the doing of anything required to be done by virtue of the order to give that approval or consent.
  LRT welfare schemes
  5.—(1) The provision that may be made by order under section 402(1) of this Act includes provision with respect to the provision, under an LRT welfare scheme, of benefits for or in respect of persons who are or have been employees of—

  (a) London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of London Regional Transport; or

  (b) Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London.

  (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, the provisions of section 402 of this Act, and of the other paragraphs of this Schedule, shall apply in relation to an LRT welfare scheme as they apply in relation to a pension scheme, but taking references in those provisions to pensions as references to benefits and construing references to pension rights accordingly.
  (3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the memorandum and articles of any company which is the trustee of an LRT welfare scheme for or in connection with permitting directors or shareholders of the company to be persons who are officers or servants of Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London.
  In this sub-paragraph "company", "memorandum" and "articles" have the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985.
  (4) Any powers—

  (a) which were vested in the London Transport Board in relation to an LRT welfare scheme, and

  (b) which have not become vested in London Regional Transport by virtue of a transfer under section 16(1) of the Transport (London) Act 1969 or otherwise,

  shall be deemed to be vested in London Regional Transport by virtue of such a transfer.
  (5) Anything done at any time by or in relation to London Regional Transport—

  (a) before the coming into force of sub-paragraph (4) above, and

  (b) in reliance on any power deemed by that sub-paragraph to be vested in London Regional Transport,

  shall be as valid and effective as if the power had at that time been vested in London Regional Transport.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 31 [Taxation provisions]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 181:
  Page 429, line 20, after ("body,") insert ("or

  (b) to such other body or person as a relevant body may specify in accordance with the PPP agreement,").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 32 [Enactments repealed]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 182:
  Page 431, line 16, at end insert—

  PART IIA

    RAILWAYS
    Chapter

    Short title

    Extent of repeal

    1993 c. viii.

    The London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993.

    Section 3(3) and (6).

    1994 c. xi.

    The Croydon Tramlink Act 1994.

    In section 50, subsection (3), in subsection (7), the words from "and to such person" onwards and subsection (9).")

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    10.32 p.m.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
    Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends who have brought their considerable expertise in dealing with this huge Bill to this Dispatch Box, as well as on my own behalf, I should like to thank all of our colleagues who have given us their very welcome support from the Back Benches. I should also like to thank our colleagues outside the House who have given us their invaluable help with research and with the drafting of amendments. Although we and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have not seen eye to eye over some issues, between us we have succeeded in persuading the Government to make a number of important alterations to a Bill which arrived in your Lordships' House in a completely unsatisfactory state—to use a neutral phrase. I also thank them for the occasions when we were able on to co-operate and support each other.
    I should also like to express my appreciation for the very courteous manner in which the two Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, have handled the brief that the Secretary of State landed them with; and, indeed, for the co-operation of the Government Chief Whip in the timing of the Bill, the stages of which were punctuated by one government Statement after another. We would like to thank all the Ministers who moved various parts of the Bill for the way that they handled the task.
    However, those last few sentences are just about as far as I can go in honesty in congratulating the Government on any aspect of this Bill. The Bill began life on its First Reading in the other place on 2nd December 1998–11 months ago. Five months later, it emerged from the other place swollen, positively bloated, by no fewer than 53 new clauses and six schedules contained in 75 extra pages. I repeat: 75
    704
    extra pages. Very few Bills are 75 pages long, but here we had 75 pages of amendments before this Bill had even left the other place.
    The Bill reached your Lordships' House twice the size of the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act combined. In describing the Bill on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave us a health warning. He said:
    "No doubt there will be other amendments to clarify and elaborate our policy … many of the amendments we bring forward could be detailed".—[Official Report, 20/5/99; col. 447.]
    That was a masterpiece of understatement. According to our researchers, this Bill is by far the largest Bill ever to come before Parliament. The number of government amendments, which I shall also mention elsewhere, is an absolute record.
    Between the Second Reading in your Lordships' House and the end of the Committee stage, a further 32 clauses contained in 26 pages were added to the Bill, apart from the innumerable modifications to other existing clauses. I am afraid that I do not have the research resources to enable me to count how many of the new amendments were government amendments to their own Bill. It is sufficient to say that we have been faced at every stage with a shower—indeed, a positive blizzard—of further government amendments.
    Over the Summer Recess, the Government introduced some 218 amendments to be dealt with on Report. Despite the fact that Ministers did their very best by faxing them to Opposition Peers before the House resumed, we and the Liberal Democrat spokesman had only a day or two to consider quite lengthy and very complex amendments. Indeed it did not even end there. More amendments piled in during the five sittings spread over the 13 days that the Report stage took. By the end of the Report stage we had added a further 51 clauses and five new schedules contained in yet another 85 pages.
    Even that is not the end of it because about 120 more last-minute government amendments had to be introduced at Third Reading, including about 20 new clauses and two more schedules. Over 860 government amendments have been added to this Bill since it left the other place. That is not merely legislating on the hoof; we believe that it is even the Government making some of it up as they go along. I have to say—I said this before earlier this evening—that some of the matters that came before us at Third Reading were an absolute disgrace. Some amendments for the Report stage arrived so late and were so complex that even the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who had the unenviable task of presenting them to your Lordships, was unable to get himself properly briefed so as to be able to explain them to noble Lords, particularly to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who questioned him about their meaning. The poor noble Lord, Lord Whitty, had to suffer the indignity of having to promise to write to absolutely everyone with an explanation. I suspect that a whole tree has had to be felled somewhere to comply with that promise!

    705
    We are all aware that the phrase, "I shall write to you", is a euphemism for, "I do not have the foggiest idea of the answer". That is no position for a Minister conducting an important Bill through the House to have the misfortune to find himself in. However, the effect was that the House was asked to pass amendments which it did not understand and which at the same time the Minister could not explain.
    Your Lordships' House is not a place where whatever ill drafted, ill conceived and often undebated legislation that the other place may churn out is just rubber stamped here. Nor is it, or will it be, even after the passing of the House of Lords Bill, the poodle of the government of the day, whatever its political complexion. The Minister had to suffer the further embarrassment of having to withdraw amendments with a view to bringing them back at Third Reading when they could be dealt with in an adequate manner.
    I say at once that I accept that many of the amendments introduced on Report and at Third Reading were perfectly proper ones where the Government were honouring pledges to deal with problems revealed by noble Lords on both sides of the House, and others were the normal "housekeeping" ones consequential on earlier ones. When we reached the Third Reading today, as I have just mentioned, two whole new schedules dealing with the important but complex matters of highways and pensions for London Regional Transport had to be introduced for the very first time, as well as pages of complicated amendments on other transport aspects.
    The Government were unable to complete the drafting of these important provisions until the end of last week and we received them only on Friday. It is obvious how important and elementary matters such as these could have been overlooked until the 59th minute of the 11th hour of a Bill that had all but passed through all its stages in both Houses. It is obvious because there have been no fewer than four transport Ministers in the life of this Government. They last an average of just over four months each, barely enough time to read themselves into their jobs.
    The explanation for the way that this mammoth Bill has been botched is quite clear: the Bill itself is far too large. It is clear from my reading of debates in Committee in another place that, as so often occurs, large parts of the Bill were merely nodded through. The Bill should have been divided into more appropriate bites—separate Bills, that is. Matters involving too many different departments were included so that one by one, when they eventually discovered that their interests were affected, they jumped in to get their particular concerns covered. Why were they not involved earlier, before the Bill thudded down onto the table in the first place? Clearly the Department of the Environment is not aware of the six P's principle: proper prior planning prevents poor performance. The result was that we were left trying to
    706
    manufacture a large, crazy patchwork quilt where all the pieces of fabric came from different sources while some parts were left out altogether leaving holes which may not have been filled, even at this last stage.
    There are inconsistencies in the tenor of the Bill. Some parts were so vague as to be meaningless. For example, Clause 47 provides for what is called in luvvy speak "the annual state of the London debate", open to all members of the public. Unfortunately, the Government forgot—until we reminded them—to provide for members of the public to be allowed to attend to speak, or even to require the mayor to attend. On the other side, as a result of a minute piece of detail, the mayor is required to reply to letters from members of the assembly within three days.
    There is a saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee; this Bill has not been designed by anyone. There is a Chinese dish called, in Cantonese, "chop suey". It means "bits and pieces". Who is responsible for the dish of chop suey that Parliament has just had to digest?
    There has been absolutely no co-ordination of all of its different aspects from the lead Minister, who we assume to be Mr Nick Raynsford. One of his tasks was to prepare the job specification and provide for the powers of the mayor—a position for which he later briefly sought his party's nomination. That would have been a serious case of conflict of interests had he not suddenly been usurped as the Prime Minister's anointed one by Mr Frank Dobson. Mr Raynsford had to content himself with being Mr Dobson's campaign manager.
    Here there is another possible conflict of interests—not merely in formulating the contents of the Bill but also, in the unlikely event of Mr Dobson winning, where will be the arm's distance between the mayor and the Government? How independent will Mayor Dobson be from the Government, and vice versa?
    A finger in the pie was provided also by Transport Minister Glenda Jackson, who resigned ahead of an imminent Cabinet reshuffle to spend more time with her candidacy. She was but one of the four Transport Ministers since the Government came into power, and the best they have been able to do for London Transport is to preside over the 43 per cent fares increase which was announced last week.
    It is no use for the Government to follow their usual course of blaming their officials for the mess that this Bill has turned out to be. I understand that the parliamentary draftsmen have been working flat out in trying to cope with the afterthoughts and omissions, and demands for amendments, new clauses and new schedules from their political masters.
    President Truman had a plaque on his desk saying "The buck stops here". In this case the buck not only stops but starts with Mr Secretary Prescott, who proudly had his name at the top of the list when the Bill

    707
    was presented to the other place all those months ago. He has taken unto his ample bosom the portfolios of Environment, Transport and the Regions, a group of individually large responsibilities far beyond his personal capability. It is a perfect example of the Peter principle. He is also the Deputy Prime Minister, which I sincerely trust is merely a sinecure; otherwise I shall be compelled to pray daily for the well-being of the Prime Minister in case, heaven forbid, Mr Prescott should have to take over his responsibilities, even temporarily.
    The Bill is an attempt to reform local government but with the practical needs of London shackled by all kinds of politically motivated obstacles, which have led the Government to insist on some of the bizarre anomalies that we have pointed out through the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I have to confess that we on this side of the House are starting a sweepstake from this evening as to the date on which the Government will have to come back to Parliament with an amending Bill or perhaps amendments slipped into other Bills.
    This is not the only Bill where the Government have got into similar trouble. During the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had to apologise for,
    "the number of amendments which have come so late".
    He gave three explanations and had the very good grace—which is characteristic of his personal integrity—to admit,
    "they do not explain the huge volume of amendments which came late".—[Official Report, 18/10/99; col. 750.]
    He wished that they had come earlier and he apologised to your Lordships.
    Despite its many defects and everything that I have now said, we shall not oppose the passing of the Bill. However, I do hope that in reply the Minister, who is equally as gracious as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will follow his colleague's example and offer a full and unequivocal apology—not personally, because he has no need to apologise personally—on behalf of the Government for the disgraceful and inept way that this Bill has been dealt with and will undertake that this will not be repeated in the mountain of Bills with which I understand we are threatened in the forthcoming Session.
    10.45 p.m.
    Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have written down that I should thank colleagues, and by that I mean colleagues on all sides of the House, including the officials, because I feel that we are something akin to comrades-in-arms, having got through the various stages of this Bill. I will only spend a moment or two on this. I do not suffer from the disadvantage under
    708
    which the noble Baroness started, because I think there were four minutes on the clock before she began her speech, which was perhaps a little unfair.
    On these Benches we are looking forward to London having its own strategic government. We would not have chosen this structure in the first place, and I think we feel even more strongly now than when we started on the course of this Bill that there are real flaws in the structure. We are worried about the "personality politics" that are being imposed on London—inevitably encouraged by the press—and we are worried about the centralising hand of central government, which we think could stifle London's own government.
    Our greatest concern—at any rate the one that I shall express tonight—relates to the way in which we have had to handle the legislation: highly prescriptive legislation. However, I must say that I remain baffled by the rejection of some of the amendments that have been tabled. This is a Bill which is over-written, too large and too detailed. It is a Bill for which, as I said earlier today and on a previous occasion, the Government have been unable to devote anything like adequate resources.
    Our parliamentary procedures simply cannot cope with the sort of Bill, now in two volumes, with which we have been faced. It is customary to say that we believe the Bill leaves this House a better Bill than when it arrived. I think that that is probably so: certainly it is on two major points with which these Benches have been particularly concerned. As regards the equality provisions, we claim credit on our side for pushing those, but we were not alone and the alterations to the Bill could not have been achieved without support from all quarters of the House. On the issue of holding the mayor to account by way of a vote of no confidence and the consequences that that will have, we believe that is important.
    I do not know what the Government intend to do when the Bill goes back to another place, but I do know that this is an important matter which really does need attention. As I have said, we would not have designed the new London authority with this structure, but we believe that it has the capacity to be what its members make of it. From these Benches we wish all of them well.
    Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, the last thing you want at this point is more speeches, but, in supporting the Motion That this Bill do now pass, I should like to say that this is a Bill of great constitutional significance, as important as the debates we had about devolution in the case of Scotland and Wales.
    I believe that at this stage we should recognise the true import of the Bill which is put before us. It does mean that this great metropolis will in future have a government which is directly elected by the people and which combines an elected mayor with an authority in a way which I believe will give London the kind of future which London deserves. I, for one, am very pleased that the Government have insisted in putting

    709
    through a Bill which makes both these points forcefully and clearly.
    One can debate at length the fact that the mayor will not only have a telephone directory but will have a telephone directory-sized Act of Parliament to obey and look at at all points. However, in my view we are giving a crucial part of this great country—the metropolis of London—the government that it deserves. For that reason, I find it very easy indeed to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, for the second and, I hope, the last time, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Normally I am under an injunction not to say too much at this stage, so I shall confine myself to making two points, one personal and one political.
    First, we have spent many hours on the Bill. We listened to the arguments and we have improved its provisions. I regret the lateness of some of the procedures and I recognise that at various points that has inconvenienced several Members of the House. I thank all noble Lords for their patience and forbearance during the passage of the Bill. Had there not been such a spirit of co-operation between the parties, we might have encountered severe difficulties. In that respect, I give particular thanks to the spokespersons for the Opposition parties.
    Secondly, my political point echoes very much the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The passage of the Bill may at times have been a tedious and pernickety exercise, because the provisions are extremely complex. However, for the first time we have brought together in this city, a city in which I, along with the noble Baroness, have spent most of my life, powers over the police authority, transport, strategic planning and culture, building on a whole range of different law. Inevitably that has been a complex process. However, we have achieved it in a way that gives London a new start. The sharp political point to be made here is that we have done this a decade and a half after an act of sheer political vandalism robbed London of its strategic centre, an act which I believe we have all had cause to regret. The Bill represents a new start with a fairly broad base of political support, despite any reservations about the Bill.
    Whoever wins the mayoralty of London, I believe that they now have a good base on which to build. This city deserves to have a good job done for it. The Bill lays strong foundations for the future of London government. Let us look to the future with the May 2000 elections when once again we shall have an authority that all Londoners deserve.
    On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
  A message was brought from the Commons, that they have made the following orders:
  That the Promoters of the Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session; That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited during the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
  A message was brought from the Commons that they have considered the Lords message of 28th October and have made the following Orders:
  That the Promoters of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
  House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Bahrain: Arms Export Licences
  Bahrain: Arms Export Licences
  Therapeutic Cloning
  Therapeutic Cloning
  South Yorkshire: EU Objective 1 Status
  South Yorkshire: EU Objective 1 Status
  Maritime Studies: University Courses
  Maritime Studies: University Courses
  Spouses' Additional Pension: Compensation for Reduction
  Spouses' Additional Pension: Compensation for Reduction
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Pakistan: Locally Engaged Staff in Diplomatic Posts
  Pakistan: Locally Engaged Staff in Diplomatic Posts
  Kosovo: Military Equipment for Security Forces
  Kosovo: Military Equipment for Security Forces
  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  Visa Fees
  Visa Fees
  Sri Lanka: Executive Presidency
  Sri Lanka: Executive Presidency
  ACP Countries: Sugar Accords Review
  ACP Countries: Sugar Accords Review
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Bahrain: Human Rights
  Bahrain: Human Rights
  Abattoir Closures
  Abattoir Closures
  Fisheries Council, 26 October
  Fisheries Council, 26 October
  Intervention Board: Performance Targets
  Intervention Board: Performance Targets
  BSE
  BSE